I’m not joining the strike

So Lawrence Lessig, who I have a huge amount of admiration for, is advocating that we, the small time internet-centric donors, go on strike, and refuse to donate any more money to any candidate who doesn’t support public financing of campaigns. For Lessig’s side of the issue, see here.

I’m not joining the strike- in fact, I think it’s a terrible idea and one that is liable to backfire on it’s proponents. Follow me below for why.

1. The idea is liable to backfire horribly. The idea of the internet as a source of small-donor campaign financing device is still very new- the first person to do it for a large-scale campaign that I know of is Howard Dean, in 2004. That’s just yesterday, for most politicians. Large donor, especially bundling and lobbyists, have been around for decades. Joe Average Politician knows the lobbyist will be there when he needs money- he’s not so sure about those online folks. Maybe the money will be there, or maybe they’ll get a burr up their butt about some issue, and flat out refuse to donate money to anyone. Better go safe than sorry.

A better solution here would be to pick an egregiously bad example, some politician you don’t like, and donate money to their opponents- especially in a primary fight. It’s amazing how much influence Club For Growth yields, due to it’s history of being willing to fund (and fund well) primary opponents of politicians they don’t like- politicians (especially Republicans) fear them, and rightfully so. Teach the politicians the lesson that the money will be there- the question is whether they’re going to get it, or their opponent will. Don’t teach them that the money may or may not be there.

2. I am not a single issue voter- and if I were, this wouldn’t be it. Corruption is bad, don’t get me wrong, and I’m opposed to it. But it’s pretty small beans compared to a lot of things. A few billion in pork spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of TARP, or the stimulus bill, or the annual defense department budget, or Social Security, or interest on the debt, etc.

3. The money will find a way. McCain-Feingold simply pushed the money out of the campaigns themselves, and into “non-affiliated” (yeah, right) 527′s. Close that loop hole, and it’ll find some other way. You’re fighting the drug war here- the addicts (of drugs or money) will find a way to feed their need.

Any real attempt to shut down money’s influence on politics runs afoul of the first amendment- what, you’re going to tell me that I can’t spend my own money to broadcast my own views? The problem isn’t how politicians get the money they need, it’s that politicians need money to buy access to the information channels. The problem isn’t that lobbyists can buy politicians- it’s that politicians can buy elections (or at least have big impacts on elections).

Most politicians aren’t in it for the money. If they were in it for the money, they’d have become a hedge fund manager or CEO, because that’s where the money is. Politicians are in it for the power, the influence, the fame, and (some of them, anyways) a sincere desire to help people and change society (one way or another). The need for money comes directly from the need to win elections- make money a non-issue, or better, make taking tainted money a disadvantage to winning elections, and you’ll see politicians clean up themselves, and right quick too.

The danger of needing money to buy media access for politicians becomes even more pernicious when you consider that the media access they are buying comes only from a small oligarchy of large corporations- which has, by definition, a basically unlimited access to their own media for free. And control over what gets access and what doesn’t. Ask any politician or political consultant- it’s the free (as in beer) media that counts the most. And when the media, of their own volition and without any exchange of money, choose to run clips from an ill-advised speech or photo op endlessly, or delay the release of some damaging bit of information until after the election, this sort of access can change elections. This access allows the small number of individuals who control these small number of corporations to wield a huge and disproportionate influence, and undermines democracy.

The answer to this problem is right here. Freedom of the press is only for those who own a press. Well, Enfranchised Mind here is my press. Mr. Lessig and I have share at least one thing in common: neither one of us has significant access to “traditional” media. But we both have access to the internet- and so do you, if you’re reading this. And the savvier politicians are noticing this- I comment that President Obama has gotten into the habit of uploading little “mini-addresses” to youtube, thus doing an end run around the traditional media and talking directly to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people across the country and around the globe.

Network neutrality- now there is an issue I could be go all single-issue on. But even there, we don’t need any change in government or regulation- quite the opposite, all we want is to keep things the way they are now.

So that’s my reasoning, why I’m not joining this strike. Change is coming, I think- will or nil. But I don’t think this strike is helping that change, or even just helping shape the change for the better.