Lessig Urges Article V Convention to Break Donor Grip on US Congress

莱斯格敦促召开宪法第五条公约以打破金主对美国国会的控制 国会如今只对0.05%的精英金主负责而非选民，使得由州主导的制宪公约和公共代金券成为恢复自治的唯一救济途径。 劳伦斯·莱斯格指出了美国政府制度性的系统性衰退，认为国会背弃了仅对人民负责的宪法使命，转而以腐败的方式依赖于占人口0.05%的顶级竞选出资人。从版权期限延长、华尔街救助到环境监管，他展示了对私人竞选资金的无休止追求如何瘫痪了治理并摧毁了公众信任。为打破这一动态，莱斯格提出了“格兰特与富兰克林计划”——这是一套将50美元选民直投民主代金券与小额捐款上限相结合的制度。他强调，传统政客和游说者绝不会改革让他们获利的现状，因此呼吁公民抛弃被动的旁观态度，跨越意识形态分歧团结起来，寻求诸如召开宪法第五条制宪公约等大胆的救济手段。 劳伦斯·莱斯格将美国政治瘫痪诊断为制度性的“依赖腐败”，议员将30%到70%的时间花在从仅占0.05%的精英捐款人中筹集资金，而非仅仅依赖于人民。 (15:11) 包括马丁·吉伦斯对887起政策争议的分析在内的实证研究表明，当偏好出现分歧时，联邦政策反映的是收入前10%人群的诉求，而与中低收入公民的偏好几乎零相关。 (19:26) 为斩断金主的支配地位，莱斯格提出了“格兰特与富兰克林计划”，向每位选民发放50美元的退税代金券，并设置100美元的私人捐款上限，以此产生多达60亿美元的廉洁竞选资金。 (26:01) 由于超过40%的离任议员转型进入高薪的K街游说岗位，莱斯格认为传统的法定改革已不可能，因此主张由各州主导召开宪法第五条制宪公约，以强制推行结构性改革。 (30:25)

Lawrence Lessig argues that the American republic has succumbed to "dependence corruption," trading its constitutional reliance on the people for an institutional dependence on the 0.05% of wealthy campaign funders. He contends that this systemic defect paralyzes governance and distorts public policy, and can only be resolved if citizens bypass political elites to enact structural election reforms. The Mechanism of Dependence Corruption (15:11) Lessig contrasts the constitutional blueprint established in Federalist No. 52—a legislative branch designed to be "dependent upon the people alone"—with the modern reality where lawmakers spend 30% to 70% of their working hours soliciting campaign funds. This shift does not operate like 19th-century criminal bribery; instead, it functions as legal "dependence corruption," conditioning politicians to develop a sixth sense for appeasing the 0.05% of Americans who contribute the maximum allowable donations. This structural diversion produces a profound collapse in institutional trust. In a survey conducted for Lessig's book, 75% of Americans agreed that money buys results in Congress, while Gallup and contemporary polls tracked public confidence in Congress between 9% and 12%. In turn, voter participation drops significantly; Lessig notes that Rock the Vote members cited the unchecked influence of corporate interests as the leading reason for sitting out the 2010 midterm elections. Distorted Agendas and Legislative Capture (19:26) Rejecting claims by campaign-finance apologists like former FEC chairman Bradley Smith, Lessig highlights empirical studies documenting widespread contributor influence. Sociologist Clayton Peoples identified statistically significant donor impact in seven of eight congressional sessions between 1991 and 2006. Even more starkly, Princeton professor Martin Gilens analyzed 887 policy clashes between the top 10% and bottom 90% of income earners, demonstrating that government decisions align almost exclusively with the preferences of the affluent elite, showing virtually zero correlation with the desires of the majority. This financial dynamic warps not just votes, but the congressional agenda itself. Lessig cites the retrospective Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, passed after $6 million in entertainment contributions despite no prospective economic rationale, alongside pre-2008 financial deregulation that allowed 90% of traded assets to bypass New Deal transparency rules. Rather than addressing unemployment, healthcare, or financial stability, Congress focuses sustained legislative energy on narrow, cash-generating battles like debit card swipe fees, where giant retailers and Wall Street banks shower competing lawmakers with donations. The Grant and Franklins Funding Blueprint (26:01) To sever the link between private wealth and public policy, Lessig advocates for the "Grant and Franklins Project," a system of universal small-dollar public campaign financing. Under this framework, the first $50 of federal taxes already paid by every citizen is returned as a "Democracy Voucher" earmarked for congressional candidates of their choice. To qualify for these vouchers, candidates must voluntarily agree to reject large donors and cap all other private contributions at $100 per citizen. At full participation, the model would inject approximately $6 billion into an election cycle, completely eclipsing the $1.8 billion spent across all congressional races in 2010. Lessig asserts that this mechanism would provide candidates with abundant clean money, removing the imperative to court wealthy benefactors and restoring public confidence that congressional decisions are based on competing political visions rather than cash. Bypassing Capitol Hill via Article V (30:25) Conventional statutory reform is structurally blocked, Lessig argues, because Capitol Hill has become a "farm league for K Street." Citing Public Citizen data, he notes that between 1998 and 2004, 50% of departing U.S. Senators and 42% of House members became registered lobbyists, capitalizing on a revolving door that multiplies their salaries. Recounting how President Bill Clinton publicly humiliated major donor Arnold Hiatt in 1997 for urging a domestic war against donor influence, Lessig warns that politicians will never voluntarily overhaul the system that empowers them. Instead, Lessig advocates for an Article V constitutional convention, a constitutional mechanism permitting two-thirds of state legislatures (34 states) to bypass Congress and propose amendments. Because ratification requires approval by three-fourths of the states (38 states), a coalition of 13 states can block runaway or hyper-partisan measures, ensuring that only broad-based, structural anti-corruption reforms can succeed. Lessig concludes that real change requires citizens to move beyond passive consumption and stop diffusing energy across hundreds of fragmented grievances, as seen in movements like Occupy Seattle. Drawing an analogy to the crew of the Exxon Valdez who stood by as an impaired captain ran aground, Lessig cautions that representative democracy will be lost unless engaged citizens strike directly at the root cause of financial dependence.

Lawrence Lessig 认为，美国代议民主制的根本危机源于制度性的“依赖性腐败”：国会议员被迫依赖仅占人口 0.05% 的巨额献金提供者，背离了建国者确立的“仅依赖于人民”的宪政初衷，导致国家治理全面陷入僵局并引发公众信任崩溃。 资本献金驱动的治理失灵与信任危机 (5:01) Lessig 指出，美国当前的体制困局并非源于公民潜力的衰退，而是公共立法已被利益集团的政治献金深度绑架。在版权领域，国会无视 17 位经济学家（包括保守派学者 Milton Friedman）关于延长既有版权无法提供创作激励的共识，全票通过《桑尼·博诺版权期限延长法案》，其关键推力是来自华特迪士尼等娱乐公司超过 600 万美元的献金游说。在金融监管层面，2008 年金融危机源于金融衍生品在 1990 年代起被系统性免除透明监管，结合政府隐性兜底所制造的道德风险，最终使华尔街在危机后凭借雄厚资金影响力免于结构性重整，反使金融与保险业成为国会最大的献金来源。类似反差亦见于能源监管：深水地平线钻井平台仅凭 17 页环评即获开采豁免，而清洁能源项目却需经历 9 年审查与万页报告。 这种以金钱换取政策豁免的模式彻底摧毁了公民对制度的信任。《Republic, Lost》开展的民意调查显示，75% 的受访美国人认定金钱直接决定了国会的立法结果。多项同期民调显示，公众对国会的信任度已滑落至 9% 至 12% 的历史低位；青年选民动员组织 Rock the Vote 的调查也表明，年轻人选择放弃投票的最主要原因，正是认定无论谁赢得选举，企业利益集团仍将全面主导权力并阻挠实质变革。 依赖性腐败如何扭曲国家政策议程 (15:11) 依据《联邦党人文集》第 52 篇，代议制共和国的设计原则在于立法分支必须“仅依赖于人民”。然而 Lessig 强调，现代国会议员需耗费 30% 至 70% 的工作时间向私人募资以维持连任，而在 2010 年仅有 0.05% 的极少数人群能够顶格捐助。这种结构催生了“依赖性腐败”——它不同于非法的公文包现金贿赂，而是一种合法的制度异化，促使政客对核心金主的诉求形成本能迎合。社会学家 Clayton Peoples 对 1991 至 2006 年间 7,000 次立法投票的分析证实，8 个国会会期中有 7 个存在显著的捐助者影响力；普林斯顿学者 Martin Gilens 对 887 项政策冲突的研究更表明，当高收入者与中低收入群体诉求对立时，政府决策几乎完全遵从前 10% 富裕阶层的偏好，与大众意志几乎毫无统计关联。 更为严重的是，竞选资金的追逐彻底扭曲了国会的轻重缓急排序。Lessig 援引国会议员私下披露的信息指出，国会耗费大量宝贵会期反复纠缠于大银行与大型零售巨头之间的借记卡刷卡费上限争端，却将失业救济、全民医疗与气候危机等国家核心议题边缘化，其根本原因在于服务两造商业巨头的博弈能够换来源源不断的献金流入，而解决普遍民生困境却无法为议员带来政治募款收益。 格林特与富兰克林计划的资金重组 (26:01) 为解除议员对巨额私人资金的生存依附，Lessig 在《Republic, Lost》中提出了以公共资金重塑竞选生态的“格兰特与富兰克林计划”。该方案提议，将每位美国纳税人已缴纳的前 50 美元税款以“民主代金券”形式返还给选民，公民可自由将其定向指派给支持的国会候选人；若选民未做选择，资金则沉淀回公共政党或民主支持基金。自愿接受代金券的候选人必须签署具有约束力的协议，承诺除代金券外，对每位公民的私人竞选捐款设立 100 美元的严格上限，完全拒收大额企业与富豪资助。 以全美选民人口测算，该机制每届选举周期可向政治体系注入约 60 亿美元的清洁资金，其规模数倍于 2010 年中期选举全美 18 亿美元的总支出。Lessig 论证道，小额资助机制能够修复受损的宪政信任：一旦切断了立法与金钱的利益绑架，公众对国会失误的评价将回归理性的政策或意识形态分歧，而不必再普遍怀疑决策背后存在腐败操控。 游说旋转门困境与宪法第五条路径 (30:25) 推动竞选财务改革的最大障碍来自于国会既得利益体制。众议员 Jim Cooper 曾向 Lessig 直言，国会山早已退化为华盛顿 K 街游说产业的“后备农场”。倡导组织 Public Citizen 的数据表明，1998 至 2004 年间离任的参议员中有 50%、众议员中有 42% 直接转岗成为职业游说客，换取数倍于公职薪资的优厚回报。鉴于政客、幕僚与官僚已在现行体系中形成了稳固的离任变现机制，寄望国会通过常规法案进行自我革新在政治上几无可能。 面对常规机制的失效，Lessig 主张依据美国宪法第五条，由三分之二的州议会（34 个州）直接绕开国会召集宪法会议提出修正案。由于任何宪法修正案均需四分之三的州（38 个州）核准才能生效，这意味着仅需 13 个州结盟即可否决任何提案，在全美政治版图明确划分为红蓝阵营的现实下，具有党派偏见的极端修宪议案注定流产，唯有聚焦于根除金钱政治这一超越党派分歧的基础反腐方案，才具备跨越门槛的制度可行性。 Lessig 援引 1989 年埃克森·瓦尔迪兹号油轮海难指出，灾难不仅缘于船长个人的酗酒失职，更根源于全体船员知情却保持集体沉默；同理，现代美国代议民主的沦陷不仅是少数特权者的谋利结果，更是广大具有特权的公众长期政治冷漠与妥协所致。他强调反腐运动必须摒弃发散且杂乱的政策清单，直击私有资金垄断公权力这一制度根源，由公民自身发起主动抗争以践行富兰克林当年关于“守住共和国”的嘱托。

[35:05] Lawrence Lessig: The root cause is a democracy or a republic where the people are no longer the intended beneficiary exclusively, where the government is no longer exclusively dependent upon them.

[0:00] [Applause] [0:03] thank you it's it's wonderful to be here [0:05] uh my wife and I spent nine glorious [0:08] years in this area um and I haven't been [0:12] back in a while and this is my sixth [0:14] talk in three days uh the last before I [0:17] have to go to Los Angeles but it's [0:19] really wonderful to end this trip here [0:21] it's such a wonderful venue in an [0:23] extraordinary place so thank you for [0:25] coming out tonight so I have just one [0:28] sacred text [0:31] there are a thousand [0:32] hacking at the branches of [0:36] evil Henry David thoro 1846 on Walden [0:40] there are a thousand hacking at the [0:42] branches of evil to one who was striking [0:46] at the [0:49] root so imagine a letter written by a [0:52] young [0:53] woman there were two clocks regulating [0:56] our life the one on the wall [1:00] and the one in the [1:02] bottle we built our life around those [1:05] clocks he slept late so mornings were [1:08] Bliss we could play and laugh without [1:11] fear but at some point he would awake [1:14] and soon after he woke the bottle was [1:17] opened and then the older the day grew [1:20] the more terrifying life became he was [1:23] happy at first just before dinner the [1:26] most happy that's the only time I spoke [1:28] to him a moment to pretend I had a [1:30] father who had a feeling of Love he'd [1:33] smile he'd laugh but soon he'd grow [1:35] irritated and by the end of dinner he [1:37] was angry and if we were not gone [1:40] usually just hiding in our room by 9ine [1:42] he would be violent and he hid me more [1:44] than [1:45] once once he tried to do something worse [1:48] than hitting me and I left and I never [1:50] went [1:51] back we struggled to do many things then [1:55] in that house we struggled to keep food [1:58] in the house to keep the winter out of [2:01] the house to keep the [2:04] house but we never even spoke about [2:07] getting him to stop I don't know why the [2:11] bottle was just part of our life we [2:13] learned to live with it anything more [2:16] just seemed [2:19] impossible now the thing about us about [2:22] us humans is that we learn to [2:24] adapt we learn to adjust we learn to [2:27] live with it until we can't [2:31] and then a certain fever breaks out and [2:33] if we're lucky we have a thorian [2:37] Insight we learn to stop hacking at [2:40] branches of [2:42] evil we learn to strike at the root we [2:44] learn to become a root [2:49] Striker so here's my [2:53] argument I think there's a feeling today [2:56] among too many [2:57] [Music] [2:58] Americans that we just might not make [3:02] it not that the end is near or that Doom [3:05] is around the corner but that a [3:07] distinctly American feeling of [3:09] inevitability of greatness culturally [3:13] economically politically is [3:16] gone that we have become Britain or Rome [3:19] or [3:21] Greece a generation ago Ronald Reagan [3:24] rallied the nation to deny a similar [3:26] charge by Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter's [3:28] fear that we had fallen into a state of [3:30] malaise and I confess I was one of those [3:33] so rallied and I still believe Reagan [3:36] was [3:37] right but the feeling I'm talking about [3:39] today is [3:41] differ not that we as a people have lost [3:45] anything of our [3:47] potential but that we as a republic [3:50] have that our capacity for [3:53] governing the product of a constitution [3:56] we have revered for more than two [3:57] centuries has come to an end that the [4:00] thing we were once most proud of this [4:04] our Republic is the one thing we all [4:07] have learned to ignore government is an [4:10] embarrassment it has lost the capacity [4:12] to make the most essential [4:15] decisions and slowly it Dawns upon us [4:18] that a ship that cannot be steered is a [4:20] ship that will [4:22] sink this is not a Democratic or [4:24] republican point this is a [4:26] multi-partisan [4:28] frustration view that this government [4:30] doesn't work is fed by many cues on both [4:34] the left and the right as policies get [4:36] blocked systematically blocked in ways [4:39] that each side recognizes and when that [4:43] happens we need to practice a skill to [4:47] seek for this the roian [4:51] route so my objective is to brainwash [4:54] you a little bit [4:56] tonight about what that thorian root [4:59] might be [5:01] let me give you some [5:02] examples so the first begins with the [5:04] life I had before I started this work I [5:08] focused in the area of [5:09] copyright on October 27th 1998 I became [5:13] a copyright [5:15] activist when Bill Clinton signed into [5:17] law statute honoring this great [5:21] American the sunny Bono copyright term [5:25] extension act now this was a statute [5:28] that extended the term of existing [5:30] copyrights by 20 years and the question [5:33] Congress was to ask when it passed the [5:35] statute was did it Advance the public [5:38] good to extend the term of existing [5:41] copyrights by 20 years now a copyright [5:44] is supposed to work by giving people an [5:45] incentive to create great new work we [5:48] give you a monopoly you get that [5:50] Monopoly in exchange for creating great [5:51] new work but the thing about [5:53] incentives in this universe maybe not [5:56] Star Trek's universe but this universe [5:58] is that incentives are [6:01] prospective not even the United States [6:03] Congress can get George gerswin to [6:05] produce anything [6:07] more so it's obvious that extending the [6:10] term of an existing copyright's not [6:12] going to increase any incentives The [6:14] Works has already been created so when [6:16] we challenged this Statute in the [6:18] Supreme Court we had a brief sign by 13 [6:21] economists including five Nobel prize [6:23] winning economists including this [6:25] leftist economist wait I'm sorry that's [6:27] Milton Friedman right-wing Nobel [6:29] prizewinning Economist who said he would [6:31] only join the brief if the word [6:33] no-brainer was in the [6:36] brief so obvious was it that extending [6:39] the term of an existing copyright could [6:41] not Advance the public good but [6:43] apparently there were no brains in this [6:45] place when Congress unanimously extended [6:48] the term of the existing copyright what [6:50] there was was more than $6 million in [6:53] campaign contributions from the Disney [6:55] Corporation and related companies all [6:57] eager to see their copyright extend Ed [7:00] the public good be [7:01] damned it's another example think about [7:04] Wall [7:04] Street we' just seen extraordinary [7:07] collapse in our economy triggered by a [7:09] collapse on Wall Street what explains [7:11] that [7:12] collapse well according to Simon Johnson [7:14] and James quack in this really great [7:17] book what explains it is a kind of [7:19] perverse mix of both too little [7:22] government and too much [7:24] government to little governments in the [7:27] form of [7:28] deregulation of course course in the [7:30] 1990s the financial innovators innovated [7:33] in extraordinary ways in producing new [7:35] financial instruments primarily what we [7:38] call [7:39] derivatives but different those [7:42] Innovations were invisible to the [7:45] market because a series of regulatory [7:47] changes begun in the 1990s deregulated [7:51] those financial instruments and made it [7:53] so they did not have to satisfy the [7:56] standard rules exchange-based rules that [7:59] applied every other Financial instrument [8:01] since the New Deal exchange-based rules [8:04] that required trades be on a public [8:06] exchange transparent and subject to [8:08] antifraud [8:10] requirements so in 1980 my colleague FR [8:13] partner calculates 98% of assets traded [8:16] were traded subject to those New Deal [8:19] rules but by 2008 90% of the assets [8:24] traded in our economy were Exempted from [8:27] those New Deal rules traded without any [8:29] transparent requirement traded not on [8:31] any public exchange nobody knew anything [8:33] about what there was in this economy it [8:35] was a shadow banking economy which [8:38] encouraged the bubble which when it [8:41] burst brought our economy [8:43] down but Johnson and quat say that alone [8:46] isn't enough to explain this in addition [8:49] you've got to see how there was too much [8:51] government throughout the 1990s the [8:54] government sent a clear Beacon to Wall [8:57] Street that there was was in effect a [9:00] government guarantee so that when this [9:02] Bubble Burst there would be in effect a [9:04] bailout on the other end producing the [9:08] dumbest form of Socialism ever invented [9:11] by man we socialized the risk but [9:14] privatized the benefit they got the [9:17] upside we paid the [9:19] downside now I apologize I understand [9:21] this isn't a room of lawyers and this is [9:23] a technical legal term but this is an [9:25] insanely stupid way [9:29] to set up a financial market and all of [9:32] that stupidity is the one before 2008 it [9:35] gets worse after 2008 we have the uh [9:39] insult here added to injury because [9:42] after [9:43] 2008 after we had suffered the worst [9:46] financial crisis since the depression [9:48] after all who were independent of Wall [9:50] Street had concluded that a significant [9:53] cause of that crisis was the [9:56] misregulation of Wall Street after the [9:59] dean of deregulation the Aon Randy and [10:02] Allen Greenspan testified to Congress [10:04] that he had been quote mistaken in his [10:06] assumption that the banks would act in [10:08] the public interest rather than in their [10:10] own private interest all of that after [10:13] all of that Wall Street still had the [10:17] power to Blackmail our Congress into [10:21] giving them effectively a get out of [10:22] jail free card and not changing at all [10:26] the basic architecture that led to the [10:28] instability ility that brought our [10:30] economy over the cliff if the banks were [10:33] too big to fail in 2008 they've only [10:36] become too bigger to fail after 2008 [10:40] because of the quote Financial reform [10:42] that we have passed since 2008 now what [10:46] explains the consistent inability of us [10:49] to regulate sensibly in this context [10:52] well there are lots of possible answers [10:54] but here's the one thing we can point to [10:56] with confidence since the 1990s the fact [10:59] fastest growing sector for campaign [11:01] contributions has been the financial and [11:04] security sector and in the 2010 election [11:07] the largest sector of contributions to [11:10] congress's campaigns came from finance [11:13] and the insurance industry or one more [11:16] example here I'm sure many of you when [11:18] you saw these horrible images of the [11:21] deep water Horizon thought to yourself [11:23] how is it [11:25] exactly that such an experimental [11:27] drilling technology [11:30] could be launched without extensive [11:32] environmental impact and risk [11:35] studies I mean after all where I come [11:37] from we've just spent nine years and [11:40] 10,000 pages of environmental impact [11:43] studies to allow us to build this clean [11:47] energy technology so exactly what was [11:50] required before they were permitted to [11:53] drill this experimental deep waterer [11:55] Horizon [11:57] platform and the answer here is 17 pages [12:01] of environmental impact analysis before [12:03] it was Exempted from any further [12:06] obligation to demonstrate its safety and [12:09] when Congress heard this Congress was of [12:10] course [12:11] shocked shock shocked [12:14] [Applause] [12:19] by yet of course it had been Congress [12:22] that had required these FastTrack [12:24] approval processes and why did Congress [12:26] do that well lots of possible reasons [12:28] but the one thing we know is the endless [12:30] campaign cach that drove to that [12:32] conclusion now here's the point no [12:35] respectable liberal or libertarian or [12:39] conservative could defend these cases [12:44] each of them is an Abomination from each [12:46] of these three theories of government so [12:48] how is it that these Abominations become [12:51] our law now political scientists are a [12:54] little uncertain they say the politics [12:57] is complex [12:59] but here's the thing we can be certain [13:02] of you believe you [13:04] know all I had to do is to point to [13:08] money and you believe you know the root [13:10] cause of the craziness in each of these [13:13] cases and my claim is number one it is [13:17] because of cases like this that [13:18] Americans believe quote money buys [13:21] results in Congress in a poll we [13:24] conducted for this book 75% of Americans [13:27] said money buys results in con Congress [13:29] a few more Democrats than Republicans [13:31] but I can guarantee when the Democrats [13:33] controlled Congress the numbers were [13:35] just reversed so whether it's 23 or 34s [13:39] here is the one thing we all agree about [13:42] as Americans that money buys results in [13:45] Congress and that leads to number two [13:48] this belief erodes trust trust in our [13:52] institution so Gallup calculated last [13:55] year that 11% of Americans have [13:58] confidence in Congress things are a [14:00] little bit better according to Gallup [14:01] this year it was [14:02] 12% New York Times this morning reported [14:05] this reported this morning that now it's [14:07] only 9% of Americans have confidence in [14:10] Congress we should put this in some [14:12] context it's certainly the case that [14:15] there were more Americans who believed [14:17] in the British crown at the time of the [14:19] Revolution than who believe in our [14:22] Congress [14:24] today and that leads to number three low [14:27] trust in this institution erods [14:32] participation so Rock the vote the Youth [14:34] Organization that registers and turns [14:36] out people to vote and turned out the [14:38] largest number of young people to vote [14:40] in the last presidential election quite [14:42] plausibly handing the election to Barack [14:45] Obama found that in 2010 many of their [14:47] voters their members were not going to [14:49] vote so they pulled them they wanted to [14:50] know why and the number one reason by [14:52] far two to one over the second highest [14:54] reason was quote no matter who wins [14:57] corporate interests will still have too [15:00] much power and prevent real change and [15:03] it's not just kids vast majority did not [15:06] vote in this last election at least in [15:07] part because of precisely this belief [15:11] now this where I shift into law [15:14] professor mode here's my Blackboard it [15:16] wasn't supposed to be this [15:18] way framers of our constitution gave us [15:21] as conservatives like to remind us a [15:24] republic but what they meant by a [15:27] republic was a represent ative [15:30] democracy and what that meant according [15:33] to Federalist 52 was a democracy with a [15:36] branch that would be quote dependent [15:39] upon the people [15:41] alone right so here's a model of [15:43] government we have the people we have [15:45] the government I do my own slides that's [15:47] really cool the way that bounces [15:48] right okay people in the government this [15:51] marionette relationship dependency clear [15:54] simple and [15:56] exclusive but the problem is Congress [15:58] has evolved the different dependence not [16:00] a dependence upon the people [16:02] increasingly a dependence upon the [16:05] funders as members of Congress spend [16:07] between 30 and 70% of their time raising [16:12] money to get back to Congress or to get [16:14] their party back into power they like [16:17] all of us would develop a sixth sense a [16:21] constant awareness about how what they [16:24] do might affect their ability to raise [16:27] money they become in the words of the X [16:29] Files shape shifters as they constantly [16:32] adjust their views not about the top 10 [16:34] issues but Issue 11 to 500 in light of [16:38] what they know will raise the money [16:40] lesle burn a Democrat from Virginia [16:42] describes that when she went to the [16:44] house she was told by a colleague quote [16:46] always lean to the green and then to [16:49] clarify she went on he was not an [16:54] environmentalist now the point is this [16:56] is a dependence too [17:00] a dependence [17:02] too but it's a different and conflicting [17:05] dependence from the dependence upon the [17:07] people alone because surprise surprise [17:11] the funders are not the people indeed if [17:16] you're ever inside Congressional [17:17] elections you recognize that the funders [17:19] who have the real attention of the [17:20] candidates are those that max out in [17:23] contributions so in 2010 what percentage [17:26] of Americans maxed out [17:29] 2010 [17:31] 0.05% of Americans maxed out in at least [17:34] one cycle in the congressional election [17:37] campaign contributions [17:40] 05% so the occupied Wall Street people [17:43] are really proud of their slogan we are [17:44] the 99% bad marketing bad marketing they [17:47] are the [17:50] 99.95% who have no equivalent access to [17:53] the [17:54] 05% merely because the 05% are the most [17:58] significant most reliable most important [18:01] funders of [18:03] campaigns now this is Supreme Court [18:06] doesn't get this yet but they will [18:07] eventually this is [18:10] corruption it's not the corruption of [18:13] money secreted and brown paper bags to [18:16] members of Congress that was of course [18:19] the problem in the 19th century and [18:21] through much of the 20th century members [18:23] of Congress had safes in their office [18:26] you think gez I didn't know they paid [18:28] members of Congress in cash they didn't [18:30] it's just members of Congress would find [18:32] bags of cash on their desk and they [18:34] needed a place to keep it safe so they [18:36] put it in their safes in their desk but [18:39] that kind of corruption is long gone [18:43] from our federal government in that [18:45] sense our federal government is the [18:46] cleanest Congress that we have ever had [18:49] I'm not talking about any criminal [18:51] activity here all of the corruption I'm [18:53] talking about is perfectly legal this is [18:56] not a problem of multiple Rob is racing [19:00] around Capitol Hill this is a [19:03] corruption because it's a Corruption of [19:06] the intended dependence our framers had [19:10] they intended this dependence that [19:12] dependence has been perverted and it is [19:15] therefore dependence corruption because [19:17] we have the wrong corrupt uh dependence [19:20] inside of our Core Democratic [19:23] institution so what does this corruption [19:26] do well we can think about it in two [19:28] Dimensions one is substance so exactly [19:32] how does the money bend the [19:35] results and I know you're going to be a [19:37] little impatient with this but it turns [19:39] out this is controversial among [19:43] academics many wonder whether we can [19:46] actually show that money affects the [19:48] results many [19:51] believe maybe we don't have to worry [19:53] because though there's billions spent in [19:56] lobbying and billions in Camp [19:59] contributions we don't have good data to [20:01] demonstrate that it actually changes any [20:03] results so the former chairman of the [20:07] federal elections commission talk about [20:09] Fox guarding the hen house former [20:12] chairman of the federal elections [20:13] commission Bradley Smith in a debate [20:15] with me said this the evidence is pretty [20:18] overwhelming that the money does not [20:20] play much of a role in what goes on in [20:22] terms of legislative voting patterns and [20:24] legislative Behavior the consensus about [20:27] that among people who have studied it is [20:30] roughly the same as the consensus among [20:32] scientists that global warming is taking [20:36] place now this former chairman of the [20:38] Federal Election Commission is not a [20:40] global warming denier he is a corruption [20:43] denier and I was so astonished when he [20:45] said this I had to tweet in the middle [20:47] of the radio show and then I got in [20:49] trouble for my hashtag but that just [20:51] means Bradley Smith that's all [20:54] I okay so then what is the evidence that [20:57] the results are being driven by the well [20:58] there's an increasing range of [21:00] statistical evidence that's [21:01] demonstrating exactly why we should [21:03] believe because we have the numbers what [21:06] we believe because we're all humans that [21:08] the money is driving the results so my [21:10] favorite recent study is Clayton peoples [21:13] who put together 7,000 different votes [21:16] and was able to conclude that there was [21:18] a statistically significant contributor [21:20] influence in seven of the Eight houses [21:22] that he study between 1991 and 2006 the [21:25] one house where he couldn't find it was [21:27] the one house that passed the me fine [21:29] gold campaign Reform Act but more [21:31] interesting to me is this study by [21:33] Martin gin professor at [21:35] Princeton so Guin collected 1,700 [21:39] surveys of attitudes of Americans about [21:42] what the government should do and he [21:44] picked out of those 1700 [21:47] 887 where the top 10% of Americans the [21:50] richest 10% had a view about what [21:53] America should do that was different [21:54] from the bottom [21:56] 90% so the top 10 wanted to to go one [21:59] way the bottom 90 wanted us to go the [22:01] other way and then he asked the question [22:03] what happens when the top 10 want us to [22:06] go one way and the bottom 90 want us to [22:08] go the other way what policy does the [22:10] government adopt what he found was when [22:14] Americans with different income levels [22:16] differ in their policy preferences [22:18] actual policy outcomes strongly reflect [22:21] the preferences of the most affluent but [22:24] bear virtually no relationship to the [22:27] preferences of the poor or middle inome [22:29] Americans there is a vast discrepancy he [22:32] describes between what the government [22:34] would be doing if it were following the [22:36] will of the people and what the [22:38] government does given it follows the [22:40] will of the tiny selection of people who [22:43] happen to fund our campaigns now you [22:45] might think well the wealthy are just [22:47] the educated and I'm sorry to disappoint [22:50] you it turns out the wealthy are not the [22:52] most educated the most educated are not [22:55] the most wealthy um as a professor it's [22:57] a sad fact to confess but so we're not [22:59] talking about the wise policy makers or [23:02] the people who know something about what [23:04] should happen we're talking about the [23:05] people with the most influence because [23:08] they have the most wealth that gets [23:09] diverted into a political system where [23:12] wealth is power okay that's substance [23:15] but think about agenda because Bradley [23:17] Smith also said that there's no evidence [23:19] that affects legislative behavior and [23:22] this I think is completely baseless so [23:25] here's just one example if I asked you [23:27] what was the number one issue that [23:31] Congress addressed in the first four [23:33] months of this year right we're in the [23:35] middle of two Wars huge unemployment [23:38] problem um uh huge budget deficit issue [23:43] we still haven't address global warming [23:44] at all we have lots of questions about [23:47] Healthcare to work through so what was [23:48] the issue they spent most of their time [23:52] on no not [23:55] abortion they're yeah they spent most of [23:59] their time on the bank swipe fee [24:04] controversy Bank swipe fee controversy [24:08] dominated the Congressional agenda now [24:10] what is the bank swipe fee controversy [24:12] well when you use your debit card if you [24:14] use a debit card the banks charge a [24:16] certain amount every time you swipe it [24:18] and the fight was whether that amount [24:20] could go up or whether it had to go down [24:23] really critical issue of national [24:25] importance I mean to those two interests [24:28] the banks and the retailers but to [24:31] America not very important really at all [24:35] so what explains Congress directing [24:36] their attention to that rather than [24:38] unemployment or any of these other [24:39] issues well as a senator commented [24:43] anonymously he was too embarrassed to [24:45] say this publicly for the article [24:47] written by Zack Carter and Ryan Grim for [24:49] The Huffington Post quote the fights [24:51] down here can be put into two or three [24:53] categories the big greedy bastards [24:55] against the big greedy bastards the big [24:58] grey GRE bastards against the little [24:59] greedy bastards and some cases even the [25:02] other little greedy bastards against the [25:03] other little greedy [25:06] bastards this is the dynamic of how [25:08] Washington works and here's the critical [25:10] money quote I don't even think that they [25:12] quite realized how significant was when [25:14] they wrote it the clock never ticks down [25:16] to zero in Washington one year's law is [25:19] the next year's repeal Target [25:22] politicians showered with cash from card [25:24] companies and giant retailers alike have [25:26] been moving back and forth between camps [25:29] paid handsomely for their shifting [25:33] allegiances and he slowly Dawns on you [25:35] this kind of terrifying recognition [25:37] which is obvious once you see it the [25:40] agenda of what Congress pays its [25:43] attention to is driven at least in part [25:47] by the recognition of what issues will [25:49] flush the most money into the political [25:52] campaign process so why don't we deal [25:55] with unemployment turns out unemployment [25:57] doesn't pay so well in that way okay now [26:01] I think we need to change [26:04] this I think we need to fix this [26:07] dependence if the problem here is that [26:08] the funders are not the [26:10] people the solution is a system to make [26:14] the funders the people the solution is [26:17] to give them away that's two words I [26:19] don't mean give Congress a away I mean [26:21] give Congress a way give them a way to [26:25] fund without faou to fund without [26:27] selling their soul and thereby [26:30] alienating [26:32] America and one way and increasingly I [26:35] think the only way to do this is to [26:37] finally commit to publicly funding [26:40] public [26:43] [Applause] [26:46] elections now there are lots of flavors [26:48] of Public Funding but the one I want to [26:50] push here is one that tries to [26:51] substitute large dollar funded campaigns [26:54] with small dollar funded campaigns and [26:57] we have examples and experiments of this [27:00] in the states Arizona and Maine and [27:03] Connecticut all have small dollar funded [27:05] systems for their state legislatures [27:08] these are systems where candidates opt [27:10] into a contract where they take small [27:13] dollar contributions only but those [27:15] small contributions are then Amplified [27:17] by the state to make it possible to fund [27:20] their campaigns in a way that makes them [27:22] competitive without ever asking for the [27:24] large contributions that otherwise they [27:27] would have to request and there are many [27:29] ways to do this in my book I introduce a [27:32] slight ver variation on this of course [27:34] it's much better than the other ones but [27:35] here it is let me lay it out for you [27:37] here I call it the Granton Franklin's [27:39] project so the way the Granton Franklin [27:42] project works you first have to [27:43] stipulate that um every voter in [27:46] America contributes at least $50 to the [27:50] federal [27:51] treasury whether it's through income tax [27:54] or gasoline tax or uh um um [27:58] um sales tax or wage tax or you know tax [28:01] on um uh employment all of these are [28:04] ways in which we contribute to the [28:05] treasury all of us at least contribute [28:07] 50 all right so under this plan we [28:11] rebate the first $50 that you contribute [28:14] in the form of a democracy voucher you [28:16] get a democracy voucher for [28:18] $50 and with that democracy voucher for [28:21] $50 you can give it to candidates for [28:25] Congress and candidates can accept it [28:27] and spend that money if they agree to [28:31] limit their source of funds to democracy [28:35] vouchers and contributions of up to $100 [28:39] per citizen so they have two ways to get [28:42] money democracy vouchers or $100 [28:45] contributions I steal that from Buddy [28:47] romer's $100 limit if people don't [28:50] allocate their voucher then the money [28:51] goes to the political parties or if [28:53] they're not allied with a political [28:55] party then back to the system to support [28:57] democracy functions but the thing to [28:59] think about here is if it's $50 per [29:01] voter that's $6 billion in an election [29:05] cycle the total amount in raised and [29:07] spent in 2010 was $1.8 billion so this [29:11] is real money that makes is made [29:14] available in a way that requires no [29:17] candidate ever to ask for large [29:19] contributions again now whether it's my [29:22] system or the main system or another [29:24] version of this like the fair elections [29:25] now act here's the thing to consider if [29:27] we had a congress where members the vast [29:31] majority of members funded their [29:32] campaigns with small dollar [29:34] contributions [29:36] only then we could believe as we all [29:40] want to believe that when Congress did [29:43] something stupid it might be because [29:45] they're too many Democrats or too many [29:47] Republicans or because they don't know [29:49] anything about what they're talking [29:50] about but not because of the money [29:53] because this essential component to the [29:56] cynicism of our current current view of [29:58] Congress would have been removed and we [30:01] would have an ability to view their [30:03] actions on the merits and criticize [30:05] their actions on the merits now this is [30:08] a way I believe to address the competing [30:12] dependencies and to restore a single [30:15] dependency and possibly to restore some [30:18] of the confidence so our Congress is [30:20] liked at least as much as King George [30:23] okay now that's the argument here's the [30:25] hard part how do we get there [30:29] because I don't think it's hard to see [30:30] the problem you all believed you saw the [30:32] problem before you came in tonight and I [30:35] don't think it's hard to describe a [30:37] solution to the problem I've done a [30:39] little bit here and much more in the [30:41] book what's hard and maybe impossibly [30:45] hard is to imagine the political [30:48] movement that brings about this [30:51] reform and the reason that is so hard [30:54] was signal to me in a conversation I had [30:57] with an extraord Ary Congressman Jim [30:59] Cooper Democrat from Tennessee man who's [31:01] been in Congress as long as all but [31:03] about 20 other members of Congress [31:06] interview he said to me the problem with [31:08] Congress now is that Capitol Hill has [31:10] become a quote farm league for K stre K [31:14] Street the street where lobbyists live [31:17] and his point is that members and [31:19] staffers and bureaucrats have an [31:21] increasingly common business model [31:23] business model focused on their life [31:25] after government their life as lobbyists [31:29] where they will be paid two to three to [31:30] four times the amount they get paid as a [31:33] government servant so public citizen [31:36] calculator between 1998 and 2004 50% of [31:40] members of the Senate left to become [31:42] lobbyist 42% of members of the House [31:45] those numbers have only grown so this is [31:47] a system where everybody [31:50] depends on the currently corrupt system [31:54] surviving so that they have a future [31:56] after their time as a government service [31:58] ends servant ends and so the question is [32:01] in a world where they all depend on the [32:03] system surviving how are we ever going [32:05] to change this [32:09] system so again I in my book I outlined [32:12] four ideas one of them is the ordinary [32:14] idea a statute passed by Congress [32:18] creating something like the Democracy [32:20] voucher system I set up and I'm sorry to [32:23] say the more I think about this the more [32:25] I think that the ordinary strategy the [32:28] conventional game is Just impossible [32:31] that this entity is not about to [32:33] radically change the way in which it [32:35] lives and does its business and protects [32:38] its future so that forces me to begin to [32:41] consider three insane ideas for how we [32:45] might bring about this change and I [32:47] think these are actually only improbable [32:48] not impossible and the third of these [32:51] ideas the one that I think ultimately [32:52] might be the most effective is to use [32:55] the strategy our framers had for dealing [32:57] with precisely this problem in the [33:00] Constitution Article 5 describes how the [33:03] Constitution gets [33:04] amended and the ordinary way to amend is [33:07] that Congress proposes amendments and [33:09] then three4 of the states have to ratify [33:11] the amendment but the question was asked [33:13] of the convention what if Congress is [33:15] the problem they're not going to propose [33:17] an amendment to fix themselves so what [33:20] do we do and this the answer was we'll [33:23] create an alternative path for amending [33:24] the [33:25] Constitution so this alternative path [33:28] gives the states the power to say to [33:30] Congress you must constitute a [33:32] convention and the convention's job is [33:34] simply to propose amendments which [33:37] themselves have to be passed in the same [33:39] way with three4 of the states ratifying [33:41] the amendment so 38 States meaning 13 [33:44] states can block any Amendment and in [33:46] our country there are plainly 13 solid [33:49] red States and 13 solid blue States [33:51] meaning the only amendment that could [33:53] ever get through this process is one [33:54] that had broad-based Universal support [33:58] but the thing about all three of these [33:59] insane ideas is that they are all way [34:03] around what is now I think we should see [34:06] the cancer that is at the center of our [34:09] government that makes it impossible for [34:12] that entity itself to address the [34:14] problems in a way it ordinarily was [34:16] intended to address and this is the key [34:17] here I think we've entered a time when [34:20] we have to recognize ordinary means are [34:22] not appropriate in extraordinary times [34:26] instead what we need now is the Capac [34:27] capacity to do something that we've [34:30] actually not done in a very long time to [34:34] build a [34:36] politics that is different from this [34:39] politics that is different from a [34:41] passive [34:43] consuming politics that listens to the [34:46] commands on a television broadcast and [34:49] reacts instead a active an Engaged [34:52] politics where we reclaim the politics [34:56] for ourselves a way from the control of [35:00] the professional [35:03] politicians now I don't actually think [35:05] we [35:06] know whether we have the capacity to do [35:10] that there not a lot of [35:13] evidence that we can do it so [35:16] professionalized has our politics become [35:18] so cynical Have We Become in reaction to [35:21] that professional politics that it's [35:24] hard to imagine how we actually motivate [35:27] the broad [35:28] based reaction against that but I do [35:32] think we know how that politics [35:36] starts and it starts first with a [35:38] certain kind of [35:40] clarity the clarity of thorough the [35:43] clarity of the root [35:46] Striker so it might not be surprising [35:49] that occupy Seattle is the Occupy [35:52] Movement with the coolest [35:54] website all sorts of social tools to [35:57] organize people and do stuff and they [35:59] have this demand section of their [36:01] website which lists all the demands that [36:04] occupy Seattle is interested in pursuing [36:07] and they're going to vote to see which [36:08] are the most important but literally [36:10] hundreds of Demands from protect the [36:13] environment to my favorite and the [36:15] industrial prison complex which is [36:18] important to many states like California [36:20] too but one of a list of [36:23] hundreds now I think the clarity that's [36:27] required [36:28] here needs to cue us to an obvious fact [36:33] that this list this endless list is [36:36] noise to the political process that we [36:40] have to find a way to focus these [36:43] demands in a way that can connect with [36:45] the widest range of [36:47] Americans and that happens by us first [36:50] celebrating the diversity of America and [36:54] our political views recognizing there [36:57] are people on the left and people on the [36:59] right and nothing we should do should [37:03] demand anybody give up their principles [37:05] and as someone from the left as a [37:07] liberal I in particular insist we not [37:11] compromise on our principles we've seen [37:13] nothing comp but compromise about our [37:15] principles for the last 30 years and [37:17] that's enough no more [37:20] compromising but without compromising on [37:24] our [37:25] principles we can see whether there is [37:28] Common [37:28] Ground among people with very different [37:33] views we can see whether despite not [37:36] having a common goal we all might have a [37:40] common enemy indeed if we want to speak [37:43] for the [37:45] 99% that's a very high bar to cross to [37:50] be able to say something that the 99% [37:53] actually all could stand up and say yes [37:56] I agree with you [37:58] I think this requires almost a kind of [38:00] exercise imagine getting people together [38:02] and saying okay we on the left believe [38:04] these [38:05] things and then another group says we on [38:07] the right believe these [38:08] things but then can we describe the [38:11] things that all of us [38:13] believe the things that all of us [38:15] believe are problems that we must [38:18] address distinct from the things we on [38:20] the left and the right believe but that [38:22] Define us As Americans and my belief is [38:24] that if we focus that inquiry in that [38:27] way and got people to reflect on all the [38:30] issues that drive them nuts on the left [38:32] and the right and get them to begin to [38:34] connect the dots between those very [38:37] different issues and ask what is it [38:40] that's [38:41] explaining the frustration in all of [38:43] these issues whether it's health care [38:45] for the left or government bailouts for [38:48] the right whether it's global warming [38:50] for the left or complex tax systems for [38:52] the right whether it's Financial reform [38:54] for the left or financial reform for the [38:56] right whatever the issue is we can get [38:59] them to see that there is here a root [39:02] cause to the frustration that all of us [39:05] are feeling and the root cause is this [39:08] picture the root cause is a democracy or [39:12] a [39:14] republic where the people are no longer [39:18] the intended beneficiary exclusively [39:22] where the government is no longer [39:24] exclusively dependent upon them if we [39:27] can become root Strikers in this [39:30] process focusing on this underlying [39:33] cause and getting the people to see [39:37] it then I think there's hope for [39:39] motivating a movement that is much more [39:43] than the factions that now seem to [39:45] Define these extraordinarily important [39:48] po important populist movements that we [39:50] see breaking out all across the country [39:52] that's number one Clarity number two [39:54] maybe equally important is courage [39:58] so my friend Arnold hayatt is a very shy [40:00] man he lives in Boston this is the [40:02] biggest picture I have found of him on [40:04] the [40:06] internet he was the president of strid [40:08] right they make great shoes like KS he's [40:10] also a loyal [40:12] Democrat 1996 he was the second largest [40:15] contributor to the Democratic [40:17] party so in [40:19] 1997 Bill Clinton invited him and 30 [40:22] other large contributors to a dinner at [40:24] the Mayflower [40:25] Hotel a dinner for these Fat Cats to sit [40:28] there and tell the [40:30] president what the President should be [40:32] doing for the remaining four years of [40:34] his [40:36] term and we don't have pictures of the [40:38] events but uh um I kind of Envision it [40:41] sort of like this Arie is the last one [40:43] to stand up and talk and he stands and [40:45] looks at the president straight in the [40:46] eye and he says Mr President I know [40:49] you're an admirer of Franklin Delano [40:53] Roosevelt so I want you to put yourself [40:56] in Roosevelt shes in [41:00] 1940 when Roosevelt reluctantly came to [41:04] recognize that he needed to convince a [41:06] reluctant Nation to wage a war to save [41:13] democracy because he said Mr President [41:15] you too must convince a reluctant Nation [41:18] to wage a war to save [41:21] democracy not a war against fascists [41:28] but a war against a system that [41:31] privileges Fat [41:33] Cats a war against a system where the [41:37] rich believe merely because they are [41:40] wealthy they are entitled to direct [41:42] government policy merely because they're [41:45] successful in the market they have the [41:47] right to have dinner with the president [41:50] people who have convinced America that [41:53] democracy does not [41:55] work I want you to think a little bit [41:58] about the kind of Courage it would take [41:59] to say that among your friends and the [42:02] president and imagine the silence that [42:05] was greeted uh Arie as he finished and [42:08] people a little bit of discomfort [42:10] shuffling in their seats and the [42:12] president stood up and spoke and as the [42:14] only recorded account characterizes it [42:17] Clinton's response effectively slashed H [42:20] to Pieces humiliating him in front of [42:23] the [42:25] group now 14 years ler later I think [42:27] it's time we all recognize that it was [42:29] Arnold hayatt that night who was right [42:31] that we do need to convince a reluctant [42:33] Nation to wage a war no guns but a war [42:38] to save [42:40] democracy but where AR Hyatt was [42:43] wrong was in his belief that it would be [42:46] politicians that would wage that war [42:49] it's not going to be politicians it's [42:52] going to be citizens it's going to be us [42:55] it's going to be root Strikers it's [42:56] going to to be you it's our job it [43:00] requires our courage for it's our [43:03] Republic here that has been lost ours [43:06] not [43:07] theirs they took it [43:10] away but we let them take it [43:15] away I'm end with one more story I'm [43:18] sure most of you remember this tragic [43:20] event in 1989 when a ship under the [43:22] command of Ja Captain Joseph [43:24] Hazelwood ran ground in the prince [43:27] William sound and dumped 11 million [43:29] gallons of oil into the [43:31] ocean this is Captain Hazelwood calling [43:34] in the disaster [44:13] uh if you want so you're notified [44:16] over I'm sure many of you are wondering [44:20] a question that was asked immediately [44:21] after the event was Captain Hazelwood [44:25] intoxicated when he was captaining a [44:27] super [44:28] tanker he said he had only had four [44:31] vodkas before he got on the ship his [44:33] blood level alcohol indicated he must [44:35] have been at least six times the legal [44:37] limit when he got on the ship there was [44:40] a huge fight his lawyers said he wasn't [44:43] intoxicated in fact they concluded that [44:45] they didn't have enough evidence to find [44:47] him intoxicated so he was not convicted [44:50] so let's say there was doubt about [44:52] whether he was [44:53] drunk what there was no doubt about was [44:57] it he had a problem with [44:58] alcohol his mother testified he had a [45:01] problem with alcohol 1985 4 years before [45:04] the accident Exxon treated him for his [45:07] alcohol problem after the accident [45:10] exxon's president said they thought he [45:11] had mastered the problem but in 1986 his [45:14] driver's license was revoked for a DUI [45:17] and in 1988 his driver's license was [45:20] revoked for a DUI at the time he was [45:23] captaining a super tanker he was not [45:25] allowed to drive a v W [45:28] Beetle right now forget for a moment [45:31] Captain Hazelwood I want you to think [45:33] about those around [45:37] him I want you to think about the other [45:40] officers the people could have picked up [45:42] a [45:43] phone while a drunk was driving a super [45:46] tanker I want you to think about the [45:47] people who did [45:48] nothing what do we think about [45:52] them as I asked this question because [45:55] the more I think about where we are the [45:58] more I think we are [46:02] they our nation faces these critical [46:05] problems requiring serious attention but [46:07] we have institutions incapable of that [46:09] attention [46:11] distracted unable to focus and who is to [46:15] blame for that who is [46:18] responsible it's too easy to point to [46:21] the Rob liches to the evil people and [46:25] hold them responsible of of course [46:27] they're responsible for [46:30] part but more important are the good [46:33] people the decent people the people who [46:36] could have picked up a phone [46:38] us we the most privileged are [46:44] responsible because the most outrageous [46:46] part of the story I've told tonight is [46:48] that while the Corruptions here were [46:50] primed by the most [46:52] privileged they were also permitted by [46:55] the passivity of the most privileged as [46:58] well [47:02] permitted when Franklin was carried from [47:04] the Constitutional Convention in 1787 he [47:06] was stopped on the Streets of [47:07] Philadelphia by a woman who said Mr [47:09] Franklin what have you wrought and [47:11] Franklin [47:12] replied a republic Madame if you can [47:16] keep [47:18] it a [47:20] republic a representative [47:23] democracy a democracy dependent upon the [47:26] people people [47:29] alone we have lost that [47:34] Republic and all of us have to act now [47:37] to get it back thank you very much [47:40] [Applause] [47:57] d [48:00] [Applause]