The controversy over Rep. John Conyers sponsoring a bad piece of legislation and the resulting criticism from Larry Lessig continues apace. Lessig has replied to my commentary on the matter and denies that he is accusing Conyers of anything illegal or even unethical by pointing to campaign contributions given to the legislator by publishing companies. He quotes me saying:
 

Lessig is arguing that that the bill is bad policy and that Conyers is being paid off by the publishing industry to get the measure passed.

And replies:

No. No. And again, Ed, no. To be “paid off by the publishing industry” is a crime. It’s called bribery. To be given a campaign contribution in exchange for introducing or passing legislation is also a crime. Any quid-pro-quo for legislative action is banned six ways to Sunday.

But as I said and said and said, I am not accusing anyone of any crime. I’m not even accusing anyone of anything unethical. My charge is that by (a) introducing legislation that has no good public policy justification behind it and which (b) does not benefit your own constituents while (c) being disproportionately supported in financial contributions by the single industry that would benefit from the legislation, you invite the charge (as 88% of citizens in my district believe) that “money buys results in Congress.” WHETHER OR NOT “money bought” this result, you have committed this wrong. The wrong is the relationship, and the suggestion the relationship begs. It is not — and again, NOT — that the person accused is “being paid off” by anyone.

But it seems to me that A and B are the ones that truly matter, and on those questions I absolutely agree with Lessig. The bill that Conyers is sponsoring is a terrible idea that has no good public policy justification and that does not benefit not only his own constituents, but the public in general either. On that, we absolutely agree.

But why not stop there? Those are the real reasons why the bill is bad and that is more than enough reason to attack the bill. But in the Huffington Post article that launched this controversy, Lessig goes further and clearly suggests that the real reason Conyers is doing this is for the money being donated to him by those the bill favors. The very title of the article – Is John Conyers Shilling for Special Interests? – clearly makes that implication. So does the text:

Why on earth would anyone propose this? A new report by transparency group MAPLight.org shows that sponsors of this bill — led by Rep. John Conyers — received twice as much money from the publishing industry as those on the relevant committee who are not sponsors.

This is exactly the kind of money-for-influence scheme that constantly happens behind our backs and erodes the public’s trust in government.

I don’t think it could be much plainer what Lessig is accusing Conyers of. If calling it a “money-for-influence scheme” is not an accusation that Conyers is being bought off, then Lessig must be working from a different dictionary than I am. And on that count, as I have pointed out in great detail, the data offered by that MAPLight report simply doesn’t support the accusation.

The data shows no correlation at all, much less any causal relationship, between publishing industry contributions and support for this legislation. Several members of the committee who are not supporting the legislation received more contributions from the publishing industry than Conyers did. And the amounts received by all of them were a mere pittance. If Conyers can be influenced by a mere $9,000 when he is in perhaps the single safest district in the entire country, we’re in far more trouble than we could possibly imagine.

The point I have been making all along is that Conyers is wrong on the substance of the bill. And that is quite enough, isn’t it? I need no other reason to criticize him for sponsoring the legislation. To use contrived analyses of contributions that don’t tell the whole story in order to question his motivations as well is both unnecessary and unjustified.