As I've explained on these pages again and again, the Framers of our Constitution gave us a "Republic." By "a Republic," they meant a "representative democracy." And by "a representative democracy," they meant a government that in the legislative branch at least was to be, as Federalist 52 describes it, "dependent upon the People alone."
In the 225 years since, Congress has evolved a different dependence -- a dependence not "upon the People alone" but increasingly, a dependence upon "the funders" of campaigns as well.
But here's the obvious problem: "the Funders" are not "the People." As I've written again and again, .26 percent of America gives more than $200 to any congressional candidate; .05 percent of America gives the maximum amount to any congressional campaign; .01 percent gives more than $10,000 in an election cycle; through February, .000063 percent of America -- 196 citizens -- gave close to 80 percent of Super PAC contributions. And according to U.S. PIRG and Demos, 1,000 citizens of the United States (or so we assume) have given more than 94 percent of Super PAC contributions so far.
Mostly I agree with Lessig however I disagree with his characterization that 'dependence' doesn't equate to 'purchase.' It surely does in the same way that a you don't call a dog your dependent. You own a dog. Your children are your dependents. Corporations and the disgustingly rich 'own' Congress in the same way you 'own' a dog. That dog may have other opinions or desires but even if it can break away from you unless it can find some other food source it will never be the sleek, well fed, blue ribbon winner that it is today.
A dog that bites the hand gets beat by the hand and, surely, no longer goes to competition (never mind winning best of show).
A dog that bites the hand gets beat by the hand and, surely, no longer goes to competition (never mind winning best of show).
