THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY TO FIX CAMPAIGN FINANCE

Today's N.Y. Times featured an Op-Ed piece by Lawrence Lessig ("The Only Realistic Way to Fix Campaign Finance") Lessig, a prominent Harvard law professor, is a leading light in the movement to reform campaign finance, having founded Rootstrikers, "a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization fighting the corrupting influence of money in politics as the root of America's problems."

In his piece, Lessig acknowledges the desirability of a constitutional amendment to limit campaign funding, but acknowledges the chances of one passing are remote to non-existent. Instead, he believes "real reform will require changing the way campaigns are funded -- moving from large-dollar private funding to small-dollar public funding." He cites various proposals by Democrats, Republicans and state governments, concluding: "We won't end the corruption of a system beholden to the funders until we, the citizens are the funders." I suspect a majority of the electorate already supports the desirability of public funding. 

Unfortunately, all proposals now on the table for public funding suffer from the same fatal flaw: they require the cooperation of legislators, the majority of whom depend on campaign contributions from Big Money, and are, therefore, little inclined to commit political suicide by undermining the power of their benefactors (which, of course, is why prominent presidential candidates back the non-viable solution of a constitutional amendment).

What is needed is a radically new, cost-effective, citizen-funded, effective political process which renders obsolete the present system dominated by TV -- a ridiculously expensive dominant political medium favoring candidates funded by Big Money. 

Here's an expanded version of my comment submitted to the N.Y. Times in response to Lessig's piece:

Hard truths: No reform is viable which a) requires incumbents to curtail the flow of funds from Big Money contributors to whom they owe their offices, b) continues to rely on TV as the dominant political medium for achieving a winning electoral consensus.  

Real campaign finance reform will come only through the development of a radically new political process which bypasses TV (and the need, therefore, for massive fundraising); inspires grass-roots participation; relies solely on small contributions from individuals; and elevates candidates who rise through the process and are funded solely by it.

Bernie Sanders has taken a step in that direction by organizing simultaneous gatherings in more than 1,000 homes, restaurants, and other locations across the country to interact via video with Bernie, organize and raise money at the grass-roots level. He is emulating Narenda Modi who used this process to become prime minister of India. 

It's a promising start, but needs expanding, so as to elevate the supporting cast of congressional candidates needed to implement his agenda should he become president. The blueprint for such a political process is available in "Occupy Theaters -- A revolutionary New Process to Reorient Government to Serve the People," available on Amazon Kindle for 99 cents.  

At the core of "Occupy Theaters," the Internet replaces TV as the dominant political medium; a nationwide interactive network of multiplex movie theaters replaces the couch in front of the TV as the dominant political venue, and ticket sales to the assemblies at the theaters replace Big Money as the source of funding. 

Such assemblies are held periodically at times when the theaters are normally dark and participants not at work, such as Saturday mornings or late Saturday night. Each auditorium in participating theaters is dedicated to a specific single-issue, thereby overcoming the disorganization typical of liberal gatherings where each participant wants only to discuss his/her hot-button issue. Following an initial period of politicking on single-issues, the screens in each auditorium are networked interactively and reports and plans of action from each are shared so as to achieve a theater-wide consensus on a broad range of issues, in effect, building a platform reflecting consensus of the participants and plans of action to achieve those ends. Polls are taken via cell phones, very much like "America's Got Talent," or "The Voice." 

Gradually, participating theaters become linked interactively in ever-widening sets -- neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, states and, ultimately nationally. Candidates will come forth, pledged to gather support only through the system and to refuse Big Money contributions and ads on TV, thereby aligning their interests with those of the participants. With majorities achieved in local, state and national councils of government, the Occupy Theaters movement will break Big Money's present stranglehold on government so as to achieve the reforms so desperately needed by the People, yet resolutely blocked by Big Money. 

Bypassing the present political establishment and television, Occupy Theaters is the only realistic way to fix campaign financing and reorient government to serve the People.