Comments on: Against faith in government http://surprisinglyfree.com/2009/10/26/against-faith-in-government/ Surprisingly Free is the site of the Technology Policy Program of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Here you'll find our blog and weekly podcast at the intersection of tech, policy, and economics. Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:52:29 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Timon http://surprisinglyfree.com/2009/10/26/against-faith-in-government/comment-page-1/#comment-50 Timon Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:28:08 +0000 http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=466#comment-50 Col Pickering: Have you no morals, man?<br><br>Alfred P Doolittle (unabashed): Can't afford them, Governor. Neither could you if you was as poor as me.<br><br>--George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion<br><br><br>We can't afford not to be corrupt! At least not without public financing! You think these tassled loafers pay for themselves?!?<br><br>Lessig is drifting off somewhere bad, anybody who leaves Stanford -- which always feels to me like a new Athens -- to be closer to Washington and the increasingly decrepit and shambolic Northeast power structure is starting out with two strikes against, and a blindfold.<br><br>Anyway, he makes only the 2nd-best argument against transparency I've heard in the last few weeks: When Heather Brooke, the British-American journalist who fought for years to have UK parliamentarian expenses published openly, was in court, her attorney was cross examining the head of the fees office. How, asked the attorney, do you approve or reject claims? Is there a maximum? The official refused to answer -- if it got out what the maximum was, he said, the MP's would all be claiming for the maximum. So maybe it is better that there are a few secrets. Col Pickering: Have you no morals, man?

Alfred P Doolittle (unabashed): Can't afford them, Governor. Neither could you if you was as poor as me.

–George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion

We can't afford not to be corrupt! At least not without public financing! You think these tassled loafers pay for themselves?!?

Lessig is drifting off somewhere bad, anybody who leaves Stanford — which always feels to me like a new Athens — to be closer to Washington and the increasingly decrepit and shambolic Northeast power structure is starting out with two strikes against, and a blindfold.

Anyway, he makes only the 2nd-best argument against transparency I've heard in the last few weeks: When Heather Brooke, the British-American journalist who fought for years to have UK parliamentarian expenses published openly, was in court, her attorney was cross examining the head of the fees office. How, asked the attorney, do you approve or reject claims? Is there a maximum? The official refused to answer — if it got out what the maximum was, he said, the MP's would all be claiming for the maximum. So maybe it is better that there are a few secrets.

]]> By: Frank Kirkwood http://surprisinglyfree.com/2009/10/26/against-faith-in-government/comment-page-1/#comment-43 Frank Kirkwood Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:21:49 +0000 http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=466#comment-43 1. The public funding bill for congressional election campaigns (H.R. 1826) is optional for each candidate, unlike airline regulations. <br>2. The ability to grant or withhold payments to campaigns is the key that gets lobbyists in the lawmaker's door and keeps the rest of us out. Elected officials who are not dependent on private campaign money are not dependent on the goodwill of lobbyists. <br>3. The current system allows industries which are getting something from government or want to get something from government to have vastly disproportionate power in the decision about which candidates will get private campaign funding and which will not. This plainly is not going to lead to "less government". Incumbents who have the option to use public funding are not dependent on Wall Street, auto companies, military contractors, etc. and are therefore free to make their own decisions. They might even decide that less is, in deed, better. 1. The public funding bill for congressional election campaigns (H.R. 1826) is optional for each candidate, unlike airline regulations.
2. The ability to grant or withhold payments to campaigns is the key that gets lobbyists in the lawmaker's door and keeps the rest of us out. Elected officials who are not dependent on private campaign money are not dependent on the goodwill of lobbyists.
3. The current system allows industries which are getting something from government or want to get something from government to have vastly disproportionate power in the decision about which candidates will get private campaign funding and which will not. This plainly is not going to lead to “less government”. Incumbents who have the option to use public funding are not dependent on Wall Street, auto companies, military contractors, etc. and are therefore free to make their own decisions. They might even decide that less is, in deed, better.

]]>