Editor’s note: This commentary is by Rick Hubbard, who is a retired attorney and former economic consultant. He lives in South Burlington.
[I] always thought we voters were supposed to select our primary candidates, not have them pre-selected for us by the Democratic National Committee.
Something’s rotten at the Democratic National Committee as Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (former co-chair for Hillary Clinton in 2008) limits the number and scheduling of debates to best serve Hillary Clinton, minimize exposure for Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, and works to keep Larry Lessig, and his urgent political system reform message, out of the Democratic debates altogether. (Editor’s note: Larry Lessig withdrew from the primary race on Monday, saying the Democratic Party’s new debate rules excluded him from the debates.)
Fundraising numbers through Sept. 30 spotlight this discrimination.
• Lessig raised more than $1 million from 10,000-plus individuals, and has already qualified for federal matching funds.
• Lincoln Chaffee raised $408,000, of which $363,000 were loans to his campaign.
• Jim Webb raised $697,000.
Yet DNC leaders lobbied to keep Lessig’s name off candidate preference polls used to select candidates for debate participation, specifically requested Iowa Democrats not invite him to their Oct. 24 Jefferson Jackson dinner, and are barring Lessig from debates on Nov. 6 and 14. There’s much more on this at https://lessig2016.us. Once there, check under News & Updates.
Lessig’s detailed plans for reform complement Bernie’s important and passionate message on inequality and its effect on all Americans, whether progressive, liberal, moderate or conservative.
There’s a big story here. It’s more evidence for wholesale reform of our political system to provide proper representation for citizens. Sadly, major media aren’t covering it sufficiently.
Although most Americans likely do not know Lessig, a great many of those who do believe he’s a bright, articulate champion of the need to reform our political system and that it’s the number one issue, that underlies and distorts progress on almost all other issues. These supporters have either read his book, “Republic Lost,” or listened to his TED talks, or attended one or more of his few hundred talks to groups across the country discussing his proposals for reform.
But if candidate Lessig can generate this much enthusiastic support from the relatively small number of American voters who have heard of him, shouldn’t he deserve the chance to more broadly reach voters who haven’t yet gotten to know and evaluate him?
Apparently some leaders of the Democratic National Committee don’t think so.
What’s the DNC afraid of? More importantly, how does keeping Lessig out of the debates serve the interest of all potential voters to get to know a full range of candidates before casting their vote? And as citizens, how do we feel about our national party leaders working to actively limit the candidates we actually get to hear more about?
Lessig speaks about all this differently and in greater detail than Bernie Sanders, for example, even though they’re both getting at the same problem. Lessig’s detailed plans for reform complement Bernie’s important and passionate message on inequality and its effect on all Americans, whether progressive, liberal, moderate or conservative. We all usually pay more and are adversely affected by the distorting influence of big money on political outcomes that regularly favor interests of the wealthiest campaign funders at the expense of the majority of all citizens.
Listened to together, Sanders and Lessig would make a wonderful team. They each, in their own way, can use their responses to debate questions to highlight both the complete dysfunction of our current federal political system in serving the broad public interests of voters, and to advocate for why comprehensive reform is the paramount issue of our time.
