Do you think Larry would do more good for the US in the House or as a private citizen? I guess this is obvious from your post, so instead: why do you think that?

I know that Lessig has started working on issues of public corruption, but I think that his earlier work on intellectual property, copyright, media, etc. would actually be more valuable. Our Congress has experts on education, political reform, agriculture, counterproliferation, etc. It could really change the dynamic if there was a knowledgable and passionate advocate on issues related to new (and old) media.

Tim: Totally agree. Somebody who is really smart abt the internet (which is, by the way, not a series of tubes) & new media is crucial.

And PoN, I guess I feel like if Lessig stays out of Congress, his main goal is going to be signing up legislative allies. If he's in, he gets one for free, and (I think?) a better position to build the coalition he wants.

Although, I'm reading this terrific book On Capitol Hill right now, a comprehensive account of congressional reform efforts over the last century or so -- and it's a bit harrowing. Not an easy chamber to change.

But, it's like Al Gore says: Change in nonlinear. Nothing seems to budge... and then the landslide. And so far, "On Capitol Hill" actually bears that out. So our challenge is creating the conditions for a new landslide in our main means of representative government.

I'm thinking more about my invocation of Al Gore at the end there and the lessons we've learned from that man about the efficacy of official political power vs. informal private power. I might not actually be so sure that Congress is the right move for Lessig. (Though I definitely do find the more general idea of technologically-literate lawmakers intoxicating, either way.)

Don't you think that Al Gore's powers as a not-so-private citizen have been greatly expanded by the fact that he has been a Senator, a Vice President, and an extremely popular (vote-winning) Presidential candidate? Also, there's the reverse dynamic at play -- Al Gore has been so influential in his post-political life because he knows how to reach large groups of people, how to work with large bodies, how to run a political campaign, how to think about legislation, etc. Public officeholders often find that they can do more in the private sector, but you have to say that their influence, access, publicity, and knowledge are greatly expanded by having been in public office first.

Yeah, no question about Al and the public/private combo -- but at the same time, Lessig already HAS a pretty powerful platform. A lot of people pay attention to him today, sans a seat in congress. Will the publicity/influence benefit of being an official member of Congress outweigh the time/commitment cost of actually serving?

Answer is quite possibly yes -- I have no idea how to gauge.

Before I watched his video, I was leaning towards the notion that he is more effective as a powerful, "unimpeachable" advocate outside of the system. Once in congress, he will start to lose his magnificent status as the main advocate of virtual civil liberies. But he will gain greatly in his ability to advocate for the fixing of the root problems in the system, because he can show a transparent example of what the newer, improved congressperson acts like. It's one thing to advocate for change, it's another to exemplify it---and Lessig is an expert in making sure that any exemplary behavior will be transparent and easily amplified and communicated.

More importantly, the specific change he is advocating for requires his expertise. It's not enough to remove lobbyist power--you have to replace it with people power. The mechanisms for that will require the internet.

Did anyone see Lessig's endorsement of Obama? video I thought the arguments were very compelling, minus his funny style of presentation.

I'm hoping he gets put on the Supreme Court!