Althouse: "So yes, according to the Senate, Scott Brown isn’t a 'lobbyist.' But I submit to anyone else in the world..."

September 8, 2014

"So yes, according to the Senate, Scott Brown isn’t a 'lobbyist.' But I submit to anyone else in the world..."

"... a former Senator joining a 'law and lobbying firm' to help with Wall St’s 'business and governmental affairs' is to make him a lobbyist. Because to anyone else in the world, when you sell your influence to affect 'business and governmental affairs,' you are a lobbyist."

Professor Lessig stands by his use of the word "lobbyist" in response to a stern demand from Scott Brown's campaign manager that he retract his statement.

26 comments:

Robert Cook said...: Hey, when you're right, you're right. He's right!; 9/8/14, 12:07 PM
David Smith said...: Can't help wondering whether Lessig et al are more upset that he's an attorney with a firm that also hires lobbyists, or that he's a Fox News contributor.; 9/8/14, 12:19 PM
MadisonMan said...: The guy from the Scott Brown Campaign -- is he related to Joe Freeman Britt?

He sounds like a horrible lawyer, and clueless when it comes to PR. I guess I know why he works in politics.; 9/8/14, 12:20 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "when you sell your influence to affect 'business and governmental affairs,' you are a lobbyist."
Since Lessig started MAYDAY PAC to affect "business and governmental affairs", Lessig is a lobbyist by his own definition.; 9/8/14, 12:25 PM
Henry said...: Terry beat me to it.

We're all lobbyists now.; 9/8/14, 12:29 PM
Brennan said...: If only Scott Brown had crossed Mexico and made the triathlete swim across the Rio Grande, he could become our very first undocumented maybe lobbyist. This of course would make him eligible for Dream Act grants and credentialed for a post in the Obama Administration.; 9/8/14, 12:36 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: Yes, I trust the opinion of someone who names their non-partisan group after International Worker's Day.; 9/8/14, 12:37 PM
Drago said...: Words mean whatever the left needs them to mean.; 9/8/14, 12:38 PM
Todd said...: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

We are all Humpty Dumpty now...; 9/8/14, 12:44 PM
Christy said...: Back in the day when lobbyists would drag me around to talk to lawmakers about my area of expertise, I was lectured quite sternly that I was not a lobbyist and was never to describe what I did as lobbying. I had replied to someone casually that I was in the capital to lobby about a bill. Learned my lesson. Lobbying is quite carefully defined.; 9/8/14, 1:24 PM
Peter said...: In constitutional terms perhaps you could call him a "petitioner" (as in, "the right of the people...to petition the Government..."

Yes, at some point government does become so large, pervasive and interusive that all citizens become petitioners (aka lobbyists).; 9/8/14, 1:51 PM
Drago said...: Christy: "Lobbying is quite carefully defined."

The left doesn't care.

They need a more "robust" definition with which to attack Brown, thus, new "definition"!!

Voila!

You can bet the MSM will fall right in line.; 9/8/14, 1:54 PM
The Godfather said...: It may be true that ignorant people think that some activities constitute "lobbying" that in fact aren't lobbying. This guy apparently is either one of those ignorant people or he wants to take advantage of their ignorance to promote his political goals. "Lobbying" is defined by law and highly regulated. If Brown was engaged in lobbying without being registered as a lobbyist, he was breaking the law. It's hardly surprising that his campaign took umbrage at the accusation of illegal conduct (assuming it was false).; 9/8/14, 1:57 PM
Big Mike said...: The Godfather is quite right, but beyond that I'd have to wonder whether Prof. Lessig would regard the receptionist or the mail clerk as lobbyists under his broad definition?

A lobbyist is legally defined to be a person who meets with legislators to influence pending legislation or to suggest possible legislation. It's quite clear from the description that Brown's role is very different. His role is to explain to businesses what the Hell the latest legislation and regulations mean. This is not trivial, as the recent kerfluffle over whether people are entitled to subsidies if their state did not set up an Obamacare web site illustrates. As a *(recent) past member of the Senate, Brown is in a nearly unique position to help his clients.

So that makes Lessig -- and Cookie -- wrong again. What's new?; 9/8/14, 2:31 PM
Big Mike said...: The Godfather is quite right, but beyond that I'd have to wonder whether Prof. Lessig would regard the receptionist or the mail clerk as lobbyists under his broad definition?

A lobbyist is legally defined to be a person who meets with legislators to influence pending legislation or to suggest possible legislation. It's quite clear from the description that Brown's role is very different. His role is to explain to businesses what the Hell the latest legislation and regulations mean. This is not trivial, as the recent kerfluffle over whether people are entitled to subsidies if their state did not set up an Obamacare web site illustrates. As a *(recent) past member of the Senate, Brown is in a nearly unique position to help his clients.

So that makes Lessig -- and Cookie -- wrong again. What's new?; 9/8/14, 2:31 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Lobbying is quite carefully defined."

Yes...so is "torture." Yet, that doesn't make "enhanced interrogation" not torture. It just means the definition of torture was changed to protect the guilty.; 9/8/14, 4:04 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: The purpose of Lessig's Mayday Pac is to pass election finance reform.
Lessig wants the federal government to pass legislation with as little public input as possible. Especially he wants the people with the least or most to gain from legislation to have less influence in crafting it.
Scratch a liberal, find a totalitarian.; 9/8/14, 4:08 PM
Drago said...: Cookie: " It just means the definition of torture was changed to protect the guilty."

No it wasn't.

It's just that you in particular, and the left in general for the last 100 years, have decided that actual torture by non-Western/capitalistic/democratic gov'ts must be denied, minimized and then applied in a morally equivalent way to non-torture by western nations.

But then again, your thinking is typical of the bizarro mindset of the insane conspiracy crowds.; 9/8/14, 5:03 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: You're torturing rhetoric right now, Cook.
Stop it.; 9/8/14, 5:03 PM
Big Mike said...: @Cookie, the terms "lobbyist" and "lobbying" are legally defined. I think you and Lessig are overlooking that.

Deliberately.; 9/8/14, 5:27 PM
mccullough said...: I suppose influence peddler would be more accurate.

Thankfully the First Amendment protects Lessig's statement.; 9/8/14, 6:40 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Follow the money.

The self-proclaimed super PAC to end all super PACs, MAYDAY has relied financially on tech moguls since it started its push to take money out of politics. The organization recently released a list of donors that gave more than $10,000, including some of Silicon Valley’s wealthiest players who gave the committee millions.

One of the tech sector’s most active political donors, Sean Parker, topped the list with a donation of $500,000. Prior to his MAYDAY donation, the Napster founder had spent about $4 million in political donations and announced his latest venture Brigade Media would focus on civic engagement.

Since MAYDAY’s launch, TED director Chris Anderson, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalists Fred and Joanne Wilson and Brad Burnham have been critical supporters. They were among the super PAC’s first stage donors, matching the $1 million MAYDAY raised in its first 13 days.

Anderson contributed $250,000, Hoffman and Thiel gave $150,000 and the Wilsons and Burnham donated $100,000.

Other notable members of the technological community on the big donor list included Ian Simmons, David Milner, Matt and Cindy Cutts, William Von Mueffling, Shawn Byers and Jonathan Soros.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/lessigs-mayday-reports-donations-from-tech-magnates-to-get-money-out-of-politics/; 9/8/14, 8:11 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Lessig's Mayday Pac is engaged in some funny election-manipulation in NH:
By supporting Rubens, are you opposing incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D), a champion of reform?
The campaign we announced is in the Republican Primary in New Hampshire. In that race, we’re supporting Jim Rubens against Scott Brown.

If Jim Rubens wins the primary, then both candidates in the NH Senate race will be for public funding of elections. Our work will be done. We have no reason to be supporting one pro-public funding candidate against another.

We will wait for the results of the primary before deciding whether to take further steps in the NH Senate race.
Rubens has no chance against Shaheen. A vote for Rubens is a vote for Shaheen.
"Champion of Reform" Jeanne Shaheen's husband is a lawyer who works for law firm that advertises itself as lobbying law firm: http://www.shaheengordon.com/Government-Relations-Lobbying.aspx

As a lobbyist, Bill Shaheen helped clients collect money Jeanne Shaheen voted to spend in the stimulus.
Meet the new boss, etc.; 9/8/14, 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: "when you sell your influence"

Brown's influence?; 9/8/14, 11:04 PM
Robert Cook said...: "You're torturing rhetoric right now, Cook.
Stop it."

Often, when one states an unpleasant truth, someone else will exclaim how oh so ridiculous one is being.; 9/9/14, 7:02 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I hope that you don't believe that you were stating an unpleasant truth, Robert Cook.
An unpleasant truth would be something like "given the low achievement rates of minorities who attend public schools, it is not reasonable to expect minorities to be proportionally represented in higher education."; 9/9/14, 1:45 PM