Customer Reviews

Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It

5 star:		(30)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have written a review on my blog and will cross-reference, [...]
This is a book about one of the biggest challenges we face, and the root cause of many of our problem--the dependence of politicians on money, which skews our political debates and outcomes towards big government and big corporation, and against the people themselves.
Reading the book, you understand more about the enormity of the problem, how it hurts our country and our loved ones, and why it is so difficult to solve--though why we must try.
If you've seen one of Lessig's presentations, available online, you probably already realize that Lessig can address hard issues in an informal, easy-to-understand way, making this an easy read, though full of ideas.

Lessig explores the concept of a government responsible to the PEOPLE, as the Constitution calls for, and how the current system of campaign finance has warped it so much toward being a government responsible to the CONTRIBUTORS that even the Supreme Court used those words (in the infamous Citizens United corporation-as-a-person decision). The picture he draws of moneyed influence is truly appalling--all the more so as the influence is almost never overt bribery, but often just hints and signals (as in "if you aren't able to vote for X, I'll have to contribute $1,000,000 to your opponent").

Can it be cured? Lessig offers several possible prescriptions, the most serious of which is calling for a Constitutional Convention, and at least while I'm reading the book, I can believe that maybe there's some hope for our republic. There are many good ideas here, and the arguments are rich and comprehensive.

Read this book if you want to understand what's really wrong with government, why nothing gets done, why the posturing and pandering grows and grows, and why life is getting steadily worse for the 99% of the population who aren't rich. And--especially--read it if you want to know what you can do to make things better.

Lawrence Lessig has written a timely book for anyone who is concerned with the state of Our Union. There is no way around it, the subject matter is depressing. Our Country is in a bad way and most regular Americans are not really sure what to do about it. This book is a good place to start. Not only do you get a clear understanding of the major problems with excellent historical context, you get suggestions on how to effect change. This book which clearly articulates a problem and then offers solutions resolves the depressing aspect. There are things all Citizens can do, starting today. The book offers suggestions on how to begin with many resources and links. Whatever level your time, energy and resources allow, You will be able to do something to help. Do not be put off by the enormity of the problem. At this point our only choices are to accept our broken, corporate controlled government or as American Citizens have done at critical times in our history stand up and remind others that our Republic is responsible to "The People" alone. This is not a Liberal or Conservative issue. This is not even the 99% vs the 1%, although the 99% are suffering more from the current state of Our Union. I found this book to be an easy and enjoyable read despite the serious subject matter. I strongly encourage everyone to read this important book. As one of the 99% we have to do something. This is a great place to start.

This is a must-read for anyone, conservative or liberal, concerned about the problems facing America.

The author shows that large campaign contributions from special interest groups encourage Congressional action (or inaction) that is contrary to the will and interests of the general public. The corrupting influence of this money is one of America's core problems because it blocks effective action on the other problems such as the lack of free and efficient markets, poor schools, high health care costs, and the financial crisis of 2008. There are less obvious effects as well: Congress people spend too much time fund raising and not enough time focusing on priorities, which leads to public mistrust and a lack of participation in our democracy.

The author is a self-described former Reaganite who is now a liberal/libertarian. Several chapters are devoted to showing how this corruption defeats the agendas of both conservatives and liberals: Conservative Congress people vote against free markets when it benefits their contributors. Liberal Congress people vote against reasonable regulation when it benefits their contributors. The book, however, is not a diatribe against Congress people. The author often quotes them to support his arguments. He believes that most go in with good intentions, but get quickly caught up in the system and focused on the interests of their large contributors.

The book ends with four strategies to end the corruption.

Actually Lessig, a law professor at Harvard, offers at least 4 different plans of varying but low probability of accomplishment. He describes the problem as "dependency corruption," meaning that there is a constant interchange of political actions and campaign cash, or threat of contributions to opposing candidates, between members of the United States Congress and various interested parties. As there is no explicit trade of campaign contributions for a particular vote, the process is legal and has become so ubiquitious that those involved have difficulty seeing how things could be different. Campaign contributions are not the only incentive a member might have to pay close attention to the views of contributors. Another incentive is the high paying lobbying work they might obtain after serving in Congress, and they may not want to do anything that might jepordize the opportunity of such employment. The Congressional salary of $187,000 per year may seem good to many of us, but apparently retired members, or former Congressional staffers, can make several times this amount as lobbyists.

Oddly, proving that there is a clear link between campaign contributions and votes has been something political scientists have had difficulty documenting. Lessig argues, convincingly to me, that some of the reasons they have trouble making the connection are 1) most of the important politicking has been done before a vote on the floor of the House or Senate, 2) members adjust their views in advance before asking for contributions, so there is no explicit evidence of a change in a member's view as a result of asking for contributions, 3) and that often the contributions are given to avoid a bill being passed or to preserve the status quo, as when a "sunset" provision for a tax loophole is due to expire. Lessig also argues, convincingly in my view, that even if nothing that a layperson would consider corruption occurs, the agenda and time devoted to actual legislating suffer under the current campaign finance system. Lessig also stresses that apparent corruption that campaign contributions from interested parties creates greatly reduces public trust in the actions of Congress, justified or not.

Lessig gives numerous examples of regulatory, agricultural, and tax policies that to me seem inexplicable without reference to campaign contributions. For example, the high price of sugar in the United States benefits both the tiny number of American sugar growers and the rather larger number of persons involved in producing corn syrup, a substitute. Lessig tries to come up with examples that will convince both big-government Democrats and small-government Republicans that something is very wrong and that neither would suffer a partisan disadvantage as a result of campaign finance reform. It is not always a matter of individuals, corporations or unions asking for favors, and later (or earlier) contributions to a campaign; it can be a member of Congress asking for a contribution, with an implied "or else something bad will happen to a law or regulation you depend upon."

Lessig's proposed solutions strike me as at best long term propositions. One option he favors a system when candidates voluntarily agree to take only small ($100 max) contributions and what looks like an improved federal tax payer campaign check off, but this time for specific Congressional candidates of the voter's choice rather than for the President. He also suggests a constitutional convention. He also has less plausible options, such as both presidential candidates from the major parties declaring they will veto all legislation until campaign finance is passed, whereupon they will resign the Presidency.

Lessig does have some favorite words that struck me as odd. He constantly refers to individuals as "souls," some good, some bad. He also occasionally refers to those who share his conviction that reducing the influence of money on politics as "rootstrikers" apparently mimicking a quote from Thoreau. I enjoyed the book, but don't expect anything to come of it.

I published a nearly identical review at goodreads.com

But a MUST for anyone concerned on how to fix this corruption in Congress. A lot of history, very, very imforative whatever your political beliefs are.

I'm a political junkie, an active Democrat who's run for office, and have read countless books the last decade on current affairs. This book is the most important one I've read. It was all impressive, but two things for me personally stood out. Lessig articulated my disappointment with President Obama exactly; in his zeal to find solutions to problems, he forgot his campaign promise to fix the system first. By so doing, he doomed his efforts to actually get anything done, and probably destroyed forever the public's confidence that a career politician would actually effect "change". As Lessig eloquently states, the harm done by this destruction of the public trust is incalculable. The second thing: This was the first time I've heard such a compelling argument that the systemic corruption created by our campaign finance system hurts conservative causes just as much as liberal ones. The Tea Partiers were bambozzled when they entrusted their hopes and dreams to a system designed by Tom DeLay. Lessig is justifiably pessimistic, but if we don't solve the problem of dependence corruption our country is doomed.

American government is an embarrassment, and has lost the capacity to make the most essential decisions. Author Lessig presents a good case that money corrupts Congress - however, even the data within the book documents the fact that most Americans already know and/or believe this. Thus, the bulk of 'Republic, Lost' is not needed, and the material should instead have been condensed into an article.

On the other hand, Lessig does add four important perspectives. The first is that when we speak with reverence of the founding of our republic and the wisdom of their creation, we forget that the mess our government is in today grew out of that supposed genius. Unresolved problems include having the world's most expensive health care system - that also lags many others in outcomes, bloated and inefficient bureaucracies (eg. 17,000 State Dept. employees in Iraq), no climate policy, decades of a failed War on Drugs, an on-going War on Terror that never ends, has cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives - and probably created innumerable new terrorists, a decades-long invasion from Mexico that has allowed millions to live in the U.S., sop up our welfare dollars, and rob Americans of jobs, a military/Homeland Security apparatus that costs more than that spent by the rest of the world - combined, decades of enormous trade and government deficits, a floundering economy due to outsourcing millions of jobs to Mexico and Asia, biased studies on most every topic crafted to confuse and obfuscate, and a government dominated by special interests.

A second good point Lessig makes is his explanation of why it is difficult to prove the link between campaign cash and votes. Yet, we all know it is there. A third is that supporters of the status quo and/or relaxed business restrictions always receive far more in campaign cash than those opposed - those opposed mostly don't exist because they were driven 'out of business.'

Lessig's fourth new insight relates to the conflicting outcomes from supposedly scientific studies, using the purported link between cell-phone usage and brain cancer. Overall, the data is roughly balanced - about as many studies finding a link as the number not finding a link. However, when one segregates the studies according to whether industry-sponsored or not, a clear pattern emerges. About 75% of those sponsored by industry reported no linkage, while about 75% of those not sponsored by industry did find a link. Lessig reports similar findings in other contentious areas. Thus, the source of a study's funding is needed to assess its credibility.

Interesting also to learn that the primary users of the Freedom of Information Act are not journalists seeking evidence of wrong-doing, but businesses seeking to find out what government regulators are up to and what their competitors have disclosed to government agencies.

Lessig adds that we've created a structure that seeks to make rich those best connected to government and politicians, and that these 'second-rate' minds can't make it in the private sector. The latter may be a bit of an overstatement - more importantly, readers should not conclude that 'the rich' is only comprised of these government manipulators - business leaders have found they can squeeze enormous amounts out of corporate coffers by stacking compensation committees with their friends, and they don't need government's help to run that con. As for rich athletes - they too are taking advantage of taxpayers who fund their stadiums etc.

Granted, the idea that money corrupts Congress is not exactly novel, but Lessig makes the subject worth reading. While not accusing individual members of corruption, he points how our current campaign finance system unfairly favors the rich and powerful at the expense of the average American. Before you think: Duh,this is an obvious fact, Lessig concedes that many political scientists have argued that money does not affect Congressional voting. As a good academic should, he then criticizes their methodology and allows the reader to form their own conclusion.

I would urge conservatives that expect this kind of book to have a leftist agenda to give it a chance. There is no partisan or ideological bias in this book. Lessig makes strong arguments that the current campaign finance system impedes conservative goals, such as a flat tax. He even (partly) defends Citizens United--which surprised me a great deal.

Having said all this, I have some doubts on the practicality of his solutions. One idea he proposes is a Constitutional convention, which seems to me to be an impossible goal. He also suggests a voucher plan, where everyone can allocate $50 of their taxes to go toward a clean money fund. I can't see any of these ideas passing Congress. This flaw notwithstanding, it's an excellent book by a thoughtful scholar and well worth reading.

This is a book that should be read by everyone. Especially at this time. He writes about serious things but makes it easy to read and understand.