Bruce Perens and Eben Moglen on NPR

(I wish NPR would make their streams avabilable on whatever the Ogg Vorbis streaming format is!)

-Rob

Sorry to make such an insubstantial comment: more information is available at ...

Other than that I have to say, with some regret, that I agree with the Supreme Court's decision here. The court cannot capriciously strike down a law simply because they think it's "wrong." There has to be a specific conflict with some higher authority (such as the Constitution) or some specific ambiguity within the law itself.

The real issue here is systemic. Our legislature is not truly bicameral. Although we nominally have two houses (Representatives and the Senate) they are simply different flavors of the same critters (popularly elected in campaigns of attrition --- which one is least loathsome to their electorate).

The framers of our constitution envisioned two houses, one of popular representatives, the other comprised of people appointed by the states' legislatures. This house, the Senate, was to protect the interests of the states, and balance the power wielded at the federal level.

The problem with the change, (I forget which ammendment instituted) is that the federal government currently exerts unto control over the states, and thus the various lobbyists can efficiently focus just on less than 1000 representatives, senators, and administration officials to enact laws for the whole land. All of this lobbying and logrolling can happen in D.C. If the Senators were primarily answering to their states (rather than to lobbyists who are the principal source of campaign contributions for their next re-elections) than the special interests would have to disperse their influence over a large number of states and a much broader base of interested parties.

Granted, this would not solve the systemic problems with the U.S. political system. At least one other thing that's required is a major overhaul to campaign finance and campaigning in general. Unfortunately, well financed campaigns are usually more successful. Sometimes the underdog wins --- but it's not the way to bet. Worse, the two party system means that most people have no choice. People pick one or to major issues (usually somewhat superficial social issues) and are then forced to choose the party that aligns itself with those, accepting any "less important" (less emotionally charged, mostly economic) stances which ride on the coattails.

The other major part of the problem is the mainstream media --- primarily controlled by advertising, thus controlled by major moneyed interests. Although journalism is dominated by liberals (on social issues) it is really controlled by conservatives (the editors, publishers, and their customers --- the advertisers). The media has incredible influence on elections (largely due to a populace which is woefully untrained in critical thinking and classical rhetoric (logic)). Unsurprisingly, the vast bulk of campaign money goes into advertising and media events, and the media are funded (directly and indirectly) by that money.

With these broader systemic problems, I can't make simple proposals. Banning corporate campaign contributions wouldn't help --- corporations would simply fund the creation of non-profit consortia (as they already do) and funnel their influence through them. Educating the general populace to look beyond superficial issues is not feasible. A multi-party system with more than a couple parties becomes innefective in other regards (a shimmering morass of shifting "coalitions") etc.

Unfortunately we are left with the government that they deserve.

We can expect more abominations like the "Disney Mickey Mouse Control Act" (DMmCA) and probably worse. We can expect that copyright, trademark, and patent law will continue to be extended and modify so that any substantive and valuable idea, representation, picture, word, "business process" will be owned by a major corporation and available only through per use licensing.

Of course there will eventually be a popular backlash. Of course there will eventually be some sort of reform. However, the virtual illegalization of crypto serves as a grim example of how long such reform can take. It effectively mandated insecurity to the entire world of computing for close to 20 years, and it's still not officially beyond the government's own self-stated purview. Similarly the reforms to IP (intellectual property) law in this country will probably be far too little and far too late.