http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/11/senator_wants_to_rethink_purch.html

The type of lobbying that Gore does is cynical and self-serving–pretty much like all the other lobbying that other people do. It’s all the same to me. One hopes, fruitlessly, I fear, that legislators will be able to balance the perspectives and come up with policies for the common good.

On the whole, I think we do better with gridlock.

I agree with you that the rules don’t work and I don’t believe they will work for the reasons you stated. I wasn’t pointing a negative finger at Kleiner Perkins – rather I was questioning the context of Gore being a position advocate and also standing to profit off that position – I was not generalizing.

Also, I don’t think we can rely on the Fourth Estate to ensure transparency, the accounting and editorial aspects are too tightly intertwined. The path forward involves getting a LOT more of the population up to speed on issues so that BS (biased, wrong, etc) laws and regulations can’t slip through like they currently do.

Concerning your last paragraph, the subject is so emotionally charged that it is nearly impossible to discuss, especially in a public forum. Hence, I am solely asking about the apparent inconsistency. I am generally a fan of Lessig but I don’t see how he can question the influence of money on congress in one section and then state that environmental policy is clear but it is ok for Gore to profit. Whether or not you agree with Gore’s environmental position, how is this not the same basis for mistrust that Lessig spends so much time discussing related to congress?

Pardon me for being cynical, but none of these rules really work. Politicians find loopholes and ways around them, just as businesses find loopholes and ways around regulations, and individuals organize their finances to minimize taxes. It’s in the nature of humans to optimize whatever rules are in place to their own benefit.

When the role of money is being discussed in politics, the fingers are usually pointed negatively at corporations and their lobbying organizations, as you have done by focusing on Kleiner Perkins. This ignores the fact that there are equally well-funded and powerful lobbies for non-business groups, like environmentalists, pro-abortion advocates, and labor unions. Their role in distorting legislative decisionmaking is as sigificant as the role of corporations.

Witness the current discussion about rescuing the auto industry. Congress is faced with having to placate both the UAW and the environmental lobby. The UAW wants taxpayer money to subsidize the generous wages, benefits, and pensions paid to UAW members. At the same time, the environmental lobby doesn’t want to divert the already approved $25 billion loan package for producing clean cars to the short-term rescue of Detroit. This is why Congress is deadlocked on the issue; they can’t easily placate both the UAW and the environmental lobby.

One solution that is often discussed to reduce the role of money in politics is public financing. Each citizen would pay something small, and the aggregate would finance campaigns and leave them free of the undue outside influence of large donors.

There are many problems with public financing of political campaigns. One is that it greatly favors incumbents, who can use their existing positions to obtain free media coverage and thus overwhelm the messages of challengers. Another problem is that the pool of money so collected would undoubtedly become a slush fund for politicians to use in ways not originally intended. A third problem is that citizens like me would object to being compelled to contribute to such a fund.

At the end of the day, I believe that any individual or organization should be allowed to donate any amount of money to any cause or politician that they want to. The one requirement that I would have is absolute and transparent disclosure. It would then be up to the Fourth Estate to do its job in tracking subsequent relationships between donors and elected officials and being watchdogs to ensure that the money doesn’t result in undue influence.

As to Al Gore, he has more problems than just the appearance (and probable reality) of impropriety in his investment activities. He has distorted global warming science to create a political panic for action that could and likely will result in massive distortions of the economy and massive costs to you and me. The sooner he shuts up, the better off we will all be.