Tim, you’ve just descended into a type of moral relativism and cynicism, although perhaps unintentionally.

In a sense, all interests can be said to be ‘special interests’ For example, the special interest group against Global Warming is confined to that special interest group of those who actually care about the future of the human race. So, yes all interests are special, but some are more special than others.

Regarding your disdain for changing procedural rules, you would have to make the case that the present system is the best of all possible systems, before you can make the case that procedural changes shouldn’t be attempted.

A system that does not make the needed adjustments in the face of Global Warming is malfunctioning by definition.

That the corruption is so directly funded by those who directly benefit (see http://www.exxonsecrets.org) is evidence enough that the system is being run by the rich, who have been terinally blinded by their avarice and greed. Why should we let them pull the rest of the human race down with them?

“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.” Albert Einstein

I guess I misspoke before. I think that imperfections in both the political and financial systems (lack of adequate information, for example) allow for corruption, and that both need some oversight.

And it seems to me there are plenty of examples of companies acting in the financial system in an analogous way to special interests in the political system: when a company uses loopholes to avoid paying taxes, isn’t cheating us all, the same way as if it had got a special piece of legislation out of its favorite congressperson?(legality put aside, of course).

In Chapter 12 of Code, he spends several pages discussing possible “architectures that zone speech” and he elaborated about how such speech zoning and “tagging” laws might apply to cyberspace in an article for Wired magazine a few years ago.

Just what we need; another Net censor in Congress.

If Lessig were to get elected (anything is possible in a special election in California, even Schwarzenegger) it’s likely that he’d become a novelty legislator like Ron Paul, and would probably drop out in fairly short order. Lessig has rock star status in his little world today, but the Congress is full of legends and he’d have a hard time finding a niche.

So the question about the Lessig candidacy is probably whether Jackie Speier is elected to the House this year or in the next election after Congressman Lessig loses interest in “corruption” and goes after some other cause.

The political process is different because generally special interests don’t cheat a specific person, but taxpayers or consumers in general. That means there isn’t any individual with a vested interest in opposing it. And so you can pass all the rules you like, but they’ll be chronically under-enforced, because it’s not worth any specific person’s trouble to ensure they get enforced.

With that said, obviously procedural reforms can be worthwhile. It’s a good thing that bribery is illegal, and I’d like to see reforms like term limits and a balanced budget amendment enacted. But I have no illusions that any of these reforms are going to “clean up” politics. Politics just is a spoils system. I don’t think you can change that, but what I’m interested in doing is reducing the size and power of government, so that there are fewer spoils to be had.

I think you’re very much right about characterizing the political process as the clash of special interestets. But on the other hand, the mechanics of that clash are extremely important.

The particular details of how those special interests are able to have their voices heard by politicians should matter a huge deal, even if there’s no silver bullet that will be able to solve the problem permanently.

Same is true, it seems to me, with the financial system: there are enormous incentives to cheat (tax loopholes, fantasy accounting, etc.). We don’t just say about those things that they are a systematic part of the market economy and that we shouldn’t do anything about them. Instead, we understand we need to be vigilant and act when necessary to correct the problems.

Why should the political process be any different?