Bradley Tusk | Vox

How is it possible that guns are less regulated than startups?

2017-10-02T17:55:09-04:00

People run from the Route 91 Harvest country music festival after gunfire was heard on Oct. 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nev. | David Becker / Getty Images

Dear pro-gun lawmakers (most Republicans and some Democrats):

Are you f*cking kidding me? We spend all our time fighting dumb tech regulations proposed by people like you, who are bought and paid for by entrenched interests who don’t want competition. You constantly use “safety” as the fig leaf for why all these regulations are necessary (I guess saying, “because the other guys wrote a big check to my campaign” doesn’t sound as good). And then you turn around and let people buy any kind of gun they want, anytime, because you believe it’s their inherent right to do so? Seriously?

Let’s be honest: There’s not a single activity any startup I’m aware of that engages in anything nearly as dangerous as selling someone a gun. That was true before Las Vegas. It’s true now.

There’s no reason to limit who can drive who in their car, or who can let who pay to sleep in their extra bedroom, or who can pick out a fantasy lineup online and place a bet on it, or who can and can’t work on a platform, or who can legally provide consumers with cosmetology services if you don’t think there’s any reason someone can’t just walk into a store and buy an assault rifle.

If you don’t believe in regulation and intrusion, great. Let freedom ring.

But then don’t tell me FanDuel can’t operate in your state because gaming is a sin, or that Eaze can’t deliver cannabis to consumers because you think all drugs are immoral, or that new forms of cryptocurrency can’t be bought and sold because you simply don’t understand it.

Don’t tell me that public safety, health and wellness, the proper role of government, morality and your conscience all factor in when it comes to regulating everyone else, but when you’re worried about a primary on the right, suddenly none of that matters when guns are involved.

Let’s be honest: There’s not a single activity any startup I’m aware of that engages in anything nearly as dangerous as selling someone a gun. That was true before Las Vegas. It’s true now.

So let’s make a deal: In every state, tech regulations should be judged against the most lenient gun law on the books. Giving someone the tool to commit mass murder is, by definition, the single biggest risk government can take. So if you’re comfortable with that, fine. But if so, there’s no reason whatsoever to impose onerous regulations on startups trying to offer new products and services.

So let’s make a deal: In every state, tech regulations should be judged against the most lenient gun law on the books.

If you think there should be some basic rules around buying guns, then let’s have some basic rules around regulating new startups. If you believe in actual regulation of gun sales, then we can at least have a reasonable conversation about the proper role of regulating each new type of technology, platform and idea.

But beware — if your argument really just comes back to protecting your campaign donors, as is usually the case with ride-sharing, homes-haring, worker classification rules, etc., we’re still going to very publicly call you out on your corrupt behavior.

The idea that we live in a society where politicians on one hand can vigorously defend someone’s right to conveniently access tools of mass murder and then want someone who does nails to apply for three different licenses is insane. Of course we’re becoming a violent and broken society. Of course we’re struggling to create new jobs and develop new industries when we let the companies who benefit from the status quo use campaign contributions as a way to stifle growth and innovation. Of course things are a total mess.

Look, I get it. I’ve run my share of campaigns. Worked in city government, state government and federal government. I’ve worked in the executive branch and in the legislature. I understand how it goes. You ran for office because you wanted to be somebody. You need attention, you need public validation and becoming a politician was your only way to get it. If you lose your job, you lose the attention and validation that comes with it. That’s like losing access to oxygen for you. So staying in the job comes ahead of all else, and that means not pissing off powerful interests like the NRA (sure, there are a few pols who are exceptions to the rule, but odds are you’re not one of them).

There’s no company — and certainly no startup trying to create new jobs — that should face less regulation than what it takes to purchase a gun in your state.

I don’t expect you to start putting the public welfare first. I don’t even expect you to do what’s right ahead of what’s expedient. But at least take a view and stick to it. If you want to carry the NRA’s water because you’re afraid they’ll take you out in a primary otherwise, then take those talking points they hand you about personal liberty and freedom and make that your governing philosophy. If you want to do the bidding of the casinos or hotel industry or organized labor or taxi medallion owners or the big banks and impose lots of regulations to keep startups and competition in check, fine. Do that — but at least extend it to instruments of murder while you’re at it.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you truly believe that government regulation amounts to a deprivation of individual rights and liberties, fine. I don’t agree in all cases, but I respect your right to believe it. But then act like it.

There’s no company — and certainly no startup trying to create new jobs — that should face less regulation than what it takes to purchase a gun in your state. So let’s make that the bar and either move regulation up or down the scale accordingly.

Pick a standard. Stick to it. We know you already struggle to live with yourself. It’s the least you can do.

Bradley Tusk is a venture capitalist, political strategist and writer. And he’s the founder and CEO of Tusk Holdings, which includes Tusk Ventures, Tusk Strategies, Kronos Archives, Ivory Gaming and Tusk Montgomery Philanthropies, which is working to bring mobile voting to U.S. elections. Tusk Ventures is the world’s first venture capital fund to work with and invest solely in high-growth startups facing political and regulatory challenges. Tusk previous served as campaign manager for Michael Bloomberg, as deputy governor of Illinois, and as communications director for Sen. Charles Schumer. He writes a regular column for Inc. and The Observer, hosts a podcast called Firewall, and is working a book about his adventures in protecting disruptors from the bad guys. Reach him @BradleyTusk.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Want members of Congress to get stuff done? Let’s let them work from home, too.

2017-09-22T16:47:35-04:00

Donald Trump was right about one thing: Washington, D.C., and the inside-the-Beltway culture certainly is a swamp. The interests of the connected, the powerful and the highly ideological are so prevalent, so pervasive, that there’s really no escape. But while “draining the swamp” may be a great slogan, there’s no sign that anything is actually changing. Maybe there’s another way.

It’s often lamented that members of Congress no longer spend time socializing with each other — both between parties and often even within parties. Members spend their time working, voting, raising money and traveling to and from their district.

Imagine a world where members and their staffs worked in their district instead of in D.C.

If we could return to a world where members actually spent time together talking about issues, debating, negotiating, thinking and ultimately compromising on useful ideas, the people’s business might actually get done.

But that world seems long, long gone. Instead, members are mainly captive to the thousands of lobbyists, think tanks, policy groups and other special interests that make up D.C.’s institutional culture. This happens because everyone who needs to be influenced is sitting in one place. They’re easy marks.

What if they weren’t?

Working remotely is not a new concept. Skype, FaceTime, conference calls, texting, emailing, Slack, Snap and a dozen other tools and platforms make it possible to work efficiently from anywhere. Imagine a world where members and their staffs worked in their district instead of in D.C. They’d spend much more of their time with real people, real constituents and real businesses rather than spending most of it talking to lobbyists, consultants, pollsters and think tanks. Their staffs would no longer face the constant temptation of wanting to placate every special interest for fear of not upsetting anyone who might want to hire them one day. Sure, lobbyists would still try to see them, but it’s the relentless, never-ending echo chamber of never escaping their clutches no matter where you go that turns good intentions into group-think mentality.

The culture of D.C. demands that everyone think first about special-interest politics (who gets upset by any given idea or vote, and who gets taken care of). Living in the real world prevents that from happening. Members would use a variety of platforms to meet, debate and vote. And we could require them to attend hearings and meetings around the country so they can start seeing the impact of their work — good and bad — firsthand.

The track record of the last few decades makes a strong case for abandoning the status quo. And the technology exists to operate Congress remotely.

The technology already exists. People with far more tangible responsibilities than arguing and voting manage to get their work done remotely every day. The entire country — no matter where you live — feels like they send far more to Washington than they get back in return. That would change if we literally sent everyone back to their districts, and back to the people they represent. And if we could offer members a way to serve their districts without forcing them into the cesspool, and without forcing them to spend so much time away from their families, we could probably attract higher-quality candidates in the first place.

Of course, critics will say that proximity is crucial to collaboration, to negotiation, to getting things done. They’ll say that if members and staffers aren’t constantly together, they won’t be able to accomplish anything. Maybe so. But what are they getting done now? And when they do manage to pass something, whose will does it really reflect: Those paid handsomely to influence them, or the needs of real people? We all know the answer.

Sure, the White House would still be in D.C., so on those rare occasions when the president and members of Congress get together, that would still take place in D.C. The executive agencies would, for now, still be based there, too, though decentralizing more of the executive branch and forcing it to see more of the people and issues its decisions impact may not be a bad second step in the process.

If we want to give our government back to the people, why not actually return it to the people? If we want to drain the swamp, what better way than by literally excavating it? The technology exists to operate Congress remotely. The track record of the last few decades makes a strong case for abandoning the status quo. And if electing Donald Trump wasn’t a clear sign that the public wants change at literally any cost, I don’t know what is.

What we have now just isn’t working. Washington isn’t working. Complaining about it isn’t going to change things. Actually changing it will.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.