Lawrence Lessig here defends Americans Elect for not telling the world who is paying for its petition drives and its costs for setting up the on-line presidential primary. Lessig is the author of “Republic, Lost” and a leading critic of campaign finance practices in the U.S., and a law professor. Here is the wiki page about him. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.
The problem is that Americans Elect said they would release information & haven’t & apparently won’t.
Or as Mark McKinnon put so eloquently recently in Austin, Texas at a forum on Americans Elect by the Center for Policy and Government: “If there is no quid where is the quo?”
#1
When and where did you hear/read/see that AE would release the names of his donors?
AE has been consistent since day one that it is up to the individual donors to self-release their names and contribution amounts. AE has only said they “hope” that contributors at some point reveal themselves.
The “precipitating” reason why it matters what Lessig thinks about Americans Elect’s non-disclosure practices is that Lessig now sits on Americans Elect’s Board of Advisors — meaning, surely, that, on some level, he is expected to be an apologist for these practices.
One reason why we have this response from Lessig is that Rick Hasen flagged my recent piece, in which I asked the question:
Hasen tweeted Lessig a briefer version of the question, and Lessig’s response is the upshot.
For at least a couple of reasons, I find it unconvincing. Within the next day or so, I’ll have a new piece that explains why.
Riddle: When is a two party system no different from a three party system?
Answer: When the third party is Americans Elect!
Why is it so diffacult for people to understand? Read the facts! AE is NOT SUPPORTING ANY ONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE. So it’s NOT a campaign issue so it doesn’t matter.
Based on their overflow viewing of their “town hall meeting”, I would have to wonder if Ackerman is funding the whole thing.
In August 2010 he demanded a refund from Arno and changed his IRS status. His business image would be less damaged by overspending and being successful, as opposed to being the only funder and failing to garner any of the pledged financial support.
Either way, he, or they, seem(s) to be the victim(s) of free spending consultants(as long as it’s the client’s money).
Perhaps it’s time for another audit?
The last one yielded nearly $30,000.00 and prevented overcharging on California by claiming nonexistent signatures.
Pingback: Lawrence Lessig Defends Americans Elect for Not Disclosing its Funders | ThirdPartyPolitics.us