Lawrence Lessig interviews Jack Abramoff 

So very well done! Thanks for posting this...it seems having these civilized people engage in such a contentious subject without becoming objectionable is exactly what we need as a corner stone of civility.

This interview is extraordinary for a couple of reasons. First it touches on almost all of the issues relevant to corruption in modern day US politics and makes it clear that banning any sort of special interest favor or conflict of interest *alone* is not a strong solution (and therefore in addition we need something like a tax rebate for contributions). Second, while I do believe Jack is sincere, this interview shows that he has a personality type which is incapable of shutting off the rhetoric and the rationalization of his own wrong doing (and he makes it clear that many other people that are successful in D.C. are the same). At several points of the interview you can see him struggling to fight this nature (and yet he had still affected a good portion of the audience by the end of the interview). Lessig on the other hand is clearly accustomed to this type of character.

Thx for this

Awesome interview

1:11:20 is the most interesting question to me, where he describes the initial process of temptation of an elected idealist towards political corruption.

About 5 years ago, I confronted my local GOP State representative (in an elevator) at that time (who is now deceased) when the Kentucky GOP gave $15,000 to Abramoff for a lecture on (believe it or not) "ethics"; I told this State representative, that Abramoff was going to make more money than me for the year, believe it or not, by giving a lecture to State Senators about being corrupt. The State representative simply responded: :he didn't choose the lecturer:. If memory serves, Jack set up some terrible sweetshops in Bahamas - which, in my opinion, might have been worse morally, than his bribery convictions. I would love to know if Abramoff actually turned over the $15,000 speaking fee, mentioned above, to help pay down his court-mandated restitution requirements.

You can see why this guy was the top lobbyist in DC - he is extremely intelligent.

why are comments ten years old if this is LIVE?

@W0rdMule One cannot in jail without forming a concept of suffering. I think you should really watch the Question starting at 42:26 since it almost exactly address your complaint. Does it matter if he's sincere or not? I honestly don't see that it does. He's a criminal. He served his time. He wrote a book. Judging a rational argument by attacking the person making it instead of actually thinking about it is a great representation of everything that is wrong with humanity.

exactly, when higher learning institutions won't tell the public who's paying their salaries, you know the institution is bought and corrupt. this is especially true in economics but is seeping into all manners of research and lectures disguised as unbiased entities.

I curious as to what the average percentage of contributions members of congress receive from lobbyists come in the form envelops stuffed with hundred dollar bills???

"Merits are interesting, but they don't usually win" - This describes exactly too much of how our politics and business are being run.

Arrogance and stupidity is very common in America.

I subscribe to the belief that the best way to solve our problems is to innovate our way out of them. Furthermore it is my belief that legal action only serves as a band-aid solution to problems when no technical solution is immediately realized. Thus understanding that the underlying issue is the money influence within our political system, especially in the realm of campaign finance, my question then becomes what types of technical solutions can create the conditions under which money and its influence over our politicians is no longer relevant? To answer that question I am first inclined to ask another. In the age of information, where we have immediate access to all forms of media ranging from the written word to video representations, and where we have the proportionate ability to immediately distribute those same forms of media just as readily; All for little more than the price of a computer and a video camera. Why is it that the election process, In the hitherto mentioned age of information, requires so much money in the first place? Why is it so expensive to run a campaign? I find this question strikingly hard to answer. I can understand the cost associated with travel, of booking a venue and of buying a few billboards. But all these things seem to me to add up to a total that dwarfs in comparison to the amount of money these candidates accept in campaign contributions. There seems to be some fundamental disconnect, the campaign system is incredibly inefficient, and appears to be corrupting by its very nature. So then the question becomes, how can we implement recent advents of technology into the election process that would dramatically cut the cost of running for office? My answer: Create an open platform (.gov website) for candidates running for office to obtain campaign finance directly from the electorate. Candidates would post their political platform, their credentials, their past voting records, basically all information relevant for the public to make an informed decision. But here in my view is the interesting bit, every dollar contributed through this website can be tracked and represented in some sort of mathematical diagram and compared to the total amount received by the candidate for his/her campaign. If such a system were in place and were socially recognized as the authority in matters relating to a campaign, we would be able to see what groups have financed each politician. you would be able to see some thing like, this politician has received (x) amount of campaign dollars by undisclosed sources and (y) amount of campaign dollars by disclosed sources. From this you would be able to figure out what percentage of the total amount received comes from sources that are open about their motivations, which in essence would be a measure of how much you can trust a specific politician. The beauty in a solution like this is that it requires no reform on a legislative level. All that is required is a consensus be reached by the people to value openness and honesty in our political leaders. It seems to me that such a website if widely adopted by the public would create a platform that enables a politician to voice their ideas and explain their proposed policies for nearly no money at all, effectively restricting the influence money has over campaigns in the first place. ......................................................... I would greatly appreciate any feedback.

interesting how abramoff cites the constitutional right of "petitioning", or lobbying the government, the use of "agents" to lobby, and being able to 'ban together" to petition the government. yet somehow righties will argue the opposite for workers to do the same thing... the elitist hypocrisy is palpable here. not to mention that harvard is bought to. i'd have to reference charles ferguson's "predator nation", but i think harvard doesn't reveal who pays its staff outside the university.

Alert shallow comment: he looks like David Wallas in The Office

Jack Abramoff has institutional memory on so many levels.. The Council for National Policy funded Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson .. the rise of the "Christian right" before this group was formed, The Fellowship operated in DC as the National Prayer Breakfast.. funding for The Fellowship came from Paul Temple, an attorney with Pillsbury Madison Sutro in SF.. he founded Institute of Noetic Sciences .. a New Age operation.. he funded both sides of these synthetic pseudo-religious organizations.. there are links to Reverend Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church which is a massive cult and Scientology which is another cult .. They all worked to topple communism in the old USSR and Gorbachev has been active in the push for the one world government we see coming out of the World Economic Forum.. dang .. what a time to be alive..

A monster, and why do you claim that? You don't like shoes?

How could you possibly think it was a good idea to bring this fraud on stage ? His political dealing are legendarily corrupt.