Little will be fixed before we fix Congress.

Newsflash: Congress is broken.

Yeah, I know, this is not exactly breaking news, but from the tech/legal/academic front comes an effort to address it. A list of what's broken about Congress would be long, but ultimately most of them comes down to one thing: Fuckin' money.

I know it's simplistic, but...

• It's why we're in Iraq.
• It's why almost nothing has been done by the U.S. on global warming.
• It's why our healthcare system is broken.
• It's why George Fucking Bush got elected.

Professor Larry Lessig, a prominent Stanford law professor and widely read blogger on technology and the law, has launched change-congress.org, a new effort to reduce the influence of money in politics.

In essence, he is asking for public pressure to get candidates (incumbents and challengers) to agree to four basic principles:

1. promise not to accept PAC or lobbyist contributions;
2. commit vote to abolish "earmarks" permanently;
3. commit to vote to support public financing of public elections, and;
4. commit to compel complete transparency in the functioning of Congress and the government.

Many on the right are stridently against public financing of elections and contribution limits (limits free speech, they say). Lessig makes a strong pitch to them:

(from David Weigel's post in the libertarian rag Reason)

"The most interesting part, so far, has been Lessig's argument to conservatives for why we need public financing. First, the idea he semi-endorsed is not full public campaign finance. It is public financing for incumbents, an idea he credits to Paul Begala and James Carville. Incumbents would be prohibited from raising any money, at all, period. Their funds will come from the U.S. Treasury and be a function of how much their opponents raise. If Challenger Jones raises $1 million, Congressman Smith gets a check for $800,000.

"Why should conservatives and libertarians support this, given that Lessig accepts a $2 billion estimate of the cost? 'Why is government so big?' Lessig asks, rhetorically. 'Because Congressmen must get elected. The insidious relationship between the desire to regulate and the need for congressmen to get re-elected drives the expansion of government.' Compare that $2 billion cost, Lessig suggests, to a radically shrunken (and less busy) FEC and the diminishment of loopholes and handouts."

I find Carville and Begala's idea to be worth close examination. Think about it. A challenger could raise as much money as he or she wants. The incumbent's campaign would get a check for the same amount from the government. Once elected, a member of Congress would never have to ask anyone for money again.

If you are frustrated that Congress can't seem to get anything meaningful done...look at the fuckin' money.

And sign up at change-congress.org.