congressional budget office director and the former researcher. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. monday on see spanish2, of -- on cspan2, a british investigation on phone hacking. a 13-rolled and who was murdered will be covered every day this will cover a 13-year- old who was -- this will cover a 13-year-old who was murdered. >> this week on "q & a", lawrence lessig discusses his new book "republic, lost: how money corrupts congress - and a plan to stop it."

>> your book, the first chapter. i spent a month alone at a beach reading novels. i had just finished clerking at the supreme court. that to press me beyond measure. i had idolized the court. humans worked there. >> i am pretty young and naive. i just come from the judge to i believe is the greatest of our time. the court was not built with a bunch of them. i felt the court had too much influence from clerks. i have enormous respect from them coming to recognize how imperfect i thought this perfect institution was.

as i point out later, i come to think of the institution as the only institution that is anywhere close to what the framers imagined it to be and have enormous respect for the fact of a protect themselves from the influence of corruption. >> what did you say you did not like? >> what i felt i did not like was a different kind of compromise. it was an institution that felt like there was too many moments where political influence and the flavor of political influence was part of what was going on. much less than most people think, the court decides many cases unanimously and the justices rarely get into a political squabble. it was not what i thought it would be. i was really just trying to find a way to clear my head.

it was going to be teaching at the university of chicago that fall. i needed to be back into some better mood about what it was. >> before he got to the clerkship, where had you gone to school? >> i graduated from yale. i followed a woman to yale. i graduated before that from cambridge university where i studied philosophy. before that pennsylvania were studied economics and management. >> one thing i would like to know is the journey to voting for barack obama and using you are a liberal. how did that start? >> i was the youngest member of a delegation in the republican convention of 1980. i screamed as loud as i could for ronald reagan. i worked to get him elected.

i do not think i change. i was a libertarian. i believe protecting liberty is an essential part of what we need to do. i began to see the infrastructure that was necessary including infrastructure of a quality. the importance of public education and systems that make sure we have markets that function effectively by being regulated in the right way. these all brought me back to policies that are close to the democratic policies. i would have no hesitation to go for a republican candidates. fore's only one candidates president, and republican u.s. articulated issues that seem to be this. i have strong disagreements.

he is singing a very clear song. >> how do you get that coming out of yale? how does that work? >> i spent a year ain chicago. a professor i had spoke to him. he was concern that i was too much of a philosopher. he wanted me to know that it was not the job. that was revealing. he is the founder of be economics movement. there were a number of times where there was a theoretical answer to the problem and you brushed that aside and asked what the law requires. i convinced him out of the

enough of a lawyer. >> antonin scalia. you clerked for him. how? >> it was a very funny episode. he had me come down to interview with him in october. we had an intense argument about a statutory interpretation case. he said you need to talk to my clerks. i did. the clerks were very conservative. they marked me as a liberal. i was the christian and this was the coliseum and the lions were called then. i had to be beaten up by these conservatives. justice scalia came and said i'm going to lunch. talk to me. he said i am going to give you

the job that you cannot tell my clerks. i had to go out and not fumble for the next two hours before my plane left. i continue the conversation. six months later, they said you need to hire your fourth car. he said i did. they were outraged that he hired someone who's not of the party. it was an amazing experience. scalia is reviled by many. i learned a very important lesson of how to think about what constitutional law is about from him. i spent much of my early career struggling with his conception of our regionalism and how to make it makes sense. there were many times where he demonstrated that his commitments to a set of principles and not to a

political ideology. he would do things that seemed a liberal but they were not liberal because he was a liberal. they were liberal because they came from his beliefs about the constitution. i left that job with him having enormous respect for him even though on very important issues i disagree. >> what has been your relationship for the next 20 years? >> cordial. i have had lunch and seen him at a number of events. he is a very warm and welcoming justice. he is eager to me your kids. >> how often did you find yourself having to write an opinion that you disagreed with? how do you do that? >> are rarely. posner is one of the few judges that does his own riding completely. he goes home and comes back the next day with a 230 page of opinions. he gives them to you. your job is to write a critical memo.

i would write critical memos. he would take his opinions and do another draft. that was a completely easy job from a sampling of what was going on. i never had to compromise anything. i was worried. clerks are much more involved in the riding of opinions. that is very different. and justice scalia, they would draft an opinion. he spends all of this time editing and working for everything. it is not fair to say it was not his opinion. it is completely his opinion. you pick your case is based on what you are interested in. the campaign cases that do not have any strong opposition. i could do that for almost all cases. i thought of my job as making

justice scalia the best he could be. my job was not to convince them to be justice brennan or suitor. you had to study who he was and hold him to these ideals. it was refreshing. it is not every justice that is like that. it is not every justice that would be embarrassed that he was inconsistent with himself. he could use it in a way that he will be one of the most important ones in the history of the quiet. >> what kind of the environment did you grow up in? >> my father is a capitalist. he ran a fabricating company in central pennsylvania. he did not have much patience for politics for law professors. i'm not sure what he thinks about me spending time arguing about politics.

he was a hard-working person. use up every morning to work for his company. my mother later worked as a real estate agent. he did not work at home. >> brothers and sisters? >> i have a younger sister. i have two older siblings. >> currently, you directed the ethics at harvard university. who was he? >> and he was a founder of the republic bank. he is an extraordinary figure in the history of banking. he had a very important ethic about how he believed the money

should be made. it was a very conservative and balanced perspective. he died a number of years ago. his wife had been a very generous supporter of the center before i came there. she had another extraordinary gift. though they had no connection to the running of the center, i was very happy to be able to do the kind of work i enduing. it is supported by a man and a tradition that was exemplified in a life i think we should see more in wall street. >> you are a professor that thinks it is ok to read wikepedia. >> i use it in my book.

>> i wanted to know how it happens as some on with this kind of a background end up finding a harvard program. he was a jewish lebanese banker. he died in a fire that attracted white media interests. it was due to arson. why is it that money and of going to a place like harvard? does it worry you where the

money comes from? >> i would be worried because in a position of raising money? i have a very strict not corruption principal about what context i will participate in raising money and what relationships i would get myself into so i can speak in a way that nobody doubts is a function of what i believe. it was the enormous gift to me to be able to come to the center already fully in dallas with got the most recent gift that was in place before i came. she made a commitment to give it from a legal dispute number of charities. it is enormous gift to me that i could do my work and not worry about the issue of how i raise money. if you need to worry about that question, people worry if you

are focused on the right way about how to raise your money. i'm not a fundraiser for my center. i met her a number of times. i'm happy to work on a number of things. i am erik and the context of people who do not have to worry about money in a way that migh bring into question the integrity of their work. >> on the question of death, did you look into that? de have a sense of how he did die? >> i read just the music accounts of it. it was enormously tragic. one of these events where there is a million places where you

wonder why the system did not respond better. it is a tragedy. that was long before had anything to do with the center. >> where did you form your views along the way? this book is about corruption in government. >> i went to stanford in 2000. we started in 2001. the center was focused on their relationship between technology and policy. one area that is interesting is copyright policy. how you embed creative works inside a technology will affect people's access to it. that is the issue that copyright law is meant to govern. we studied all of these issues were these things conflict. i ran that until i came to harvard. i came back in 2009.

>> what was the impact of it? who would find something like that? >> i was in a position to negotiate for what i wanted. what i wanted was the assurance of a center that would do that kind of work. i went there with that commitment. i was not in a position of raising money. it was a little difference. there is not an endowment sitting there that i came to. we opened it up. we hire people. it did a wide range of the issue from privacy to architecture of the network. as we saw, there was a concern

about the way policymakers did or did not understand the full range of the issues. one of the issues that i realize i was not as smart as i thought i was they did not understand all sides of the issues. they did not have a lot of money to get in here getting access to lobbyists. that was the beginning of me thinking there was a deeper problem to these questions about internet policies. it is not just esoteric. it was more fundamental questions about global warming are bigger issue -- or pick your issues.

>> you talk about being friends with barack obama. >> i was a professor at the university of chicago when barack obama was an adjunct professor. then he became a regular professor part-time because he was also running a legal practice. we have had dinner and spoke about a number of issues. when you started to run political campaigns, i was a strong supporter of him. as i write, there is something extraordinary about him. that is what really compelled me to be a strong supporter of him. even from his very first campaign, i had a sense said there was something about this now. i think we saw his success. >> you are pretty critical of him. >> i am. >> i probably would've supported him regardless.

i think americans can say the reason to support him over hillary clinton is that he made it a central part of his campaign, the idea that we have to take up fights to change of the way washington works. it was about changing the corruption. it was about the recognition that the current system made impossible for problems to get solved in a way that advance the interests of the left or right. he said this is the reason i am running for president to challenge us system. it seemed that when he was a but dick, that would be a central part of what he did. it seemed as though he became the hillary clinton administration. hillary clinton said she was there to change the system here. he played the game and the same

way and never put on the field a strategy for how we were going to change. it feels like a big trial. if there's one person to bring about the kind of change the system needed, it was president obama on that day. i think he could have had he executed on how this reform should happen. >> he surrounded himself with tiny minds. >> i gather larry summers is someone you're not a big fan of.

>> i think rahm emanuel is a fantastic mayor of the city of chicago. and he needed to be playing a hired game. i wrote a piece on the nation. people convince me was too aggressive. i regret not naming that. that is the picture. you have these people. many people from the original clinton administration populated this administration. there's a conception of how politics should work.

it is smaller than how politics should work that obama brought to washington. there's a story i was told that when obama was given the first budget there were 6000 in march and a. his instinct was to veto the budget. he was told by his lobbyists that there is no way you can do it. you cannot cut the ties with the democrats. had he vetoed it, he would have been the tea party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the system and the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that now breaks out all over the world because of its frustration with the current wave that the murders he does not function. >> he went into the middle of a tea party rally. when?

>> in arizona. it is the most credible of the two-party movements. it is a row grass-roots movement. it is not tied to the washington lobbyists. it is bounded by martin and meckler. jenny b eth is from atlanta. i went to their convention just to hang out and to meet these people and talk to them. i saw 2000 people. they were intensely eager to find a way to make government work again. they're not talking about a rights or the right to abortion or any of the traditional separating and polarizing issues, they're talking about a government out of control. i am concerned about a

government out of control. if we had a chance with the tea party populists that we could come to an agreement about why this government is out of control. it is out of control because we have a system more congressmen are focused on funders and some of the people. the funders are not the people. >> have you ever worked in government? >> no. >> did you ever consider working with the obama administration? >> they did not offer me anything. i was a controversial figure. i had done a work with copyrights. i do not think there's much chance that i could have been appointed to anything. >> what media controversy all over copywriting?

>> i saw an enormous potential that the internet was presented as for people to share creativity. the law was stepping in and locking down a lot of these opportunities in ways that seemed in the way. i became quite active in trying to push for more balanced copyright redeems. i helped found a group which enables creators to make their works more easily excess of both. in the context of that, i became a villain of hollywood even though by the end of the battles, some of my closest friends or people from that movement. i have enormous respect with the head of the motion picture association of america. it is not like anybody generally felt like they were villains but i was identified strongly as one of the anti people in the movements. >> i was reading somewhere a review of your book. they were really offended that you had written where they said initially that for somebody that believes that the step ought to be available for everybody, he did not put his book on google. he said later i just found that he did but he did not at the

time he was selling it. what is your philosophy of things like this book? you are selling it. she knew the copyright protection? >> copyright law gives me ownership over the book for my life plus 70 years. i believe aany author is entitled to the protection. some feel making their work more accessible is better. when my book was published, it was the publisher who said why do we make this available under

a trade of commons license tax if permitted people for non- commercial purposes to copy the work and share it. what happened is that people started doing all sorts of extraordinary remixes. they were translated into audio versions. they would put it into every format for every reading device. they were eager to spread the message of the book. we had had a section on the web sites were all of these different volunteer activities were there. maybe we will lose some sales because some people will get the book for free rather than buying it. that decrease in sales could be swapped by the number of people who never would of had any access at all because they would not have heard about it. now they have heard about it. they decided they wanted to buy it. maybe john grisham should never use this strategy.

everybody knows john grisham. there's no spread factor. lessig is no grisham. maybe we should experiment on what is a better way. i was eager to do that. after that, my earlier books were made available. remix was the last of the series. it was also made under accretive, is licensed. we're trying to experiment with what is the right relationship with the publisher to make sure that everybody gets what they need. publishers are in the business of making money. i am all for that. authors get paid. i am ultimately, because i am

not a john grisham making millions of dollars, i am more interested in the book being widely accessible. it was an important condition. >> let me go back to a question i had earlier. when did it start for you? when did you start to have a strong issue about policies and ethics? >> from my father. my father, in his disdain of politics, did not hate the idea of government. he hated the lack of integrity. the aged people who did not seem to live up to the ideals.

new -- he hated people who did not seem to live up to their ideals. the feeling is a constant spring of that in politics. you see the same thing with the republican herman cain, who inspired a sense of, he is different because he is willing to say what others are not sent -- are not, so the idea of integrity was part of the education i have with my dad. the most important lesson my dad taught me was that he was in business where they had to bid for contracts, and he forgot $1 million in one of the contracts.

his bid was $1 million low, and there were 1 million ways he could have gotten out of that debt, and he said, this is the price, and i was working at the firm at the time. i remember being astonished. it is another thing to say $1 million of your money is gone, because he made a mistake, and i am going to live up to this. that is the sense of integrity, so as i have grown up, institutions and people who have been in this institution

have been a focus for me. >> you lived near harvard. you have somebody running for the seventh named elizabeth warren, who was a harvard professor -- running for senate named elizabeth warren, who was on a harvard professor. is there a campaign for you in the future? >> no, i have committed my firstborn male child if i ever run for congress, and i made this decision subconsciously because when my congressman died, a lot of people tried to and push me to run. they raised something like $100,000 to support the campaign, and i spent a good two weeks trying to figure out if i would run, partly because i

thought there is no way to do the work i want to do, which is trying to change the system while living in the system, so you cannot be a congressman without spending an enormous amount of money. i made a commitment then that i was doing reform work. and not because i wanted to be a congressman or i was running for anything. i wanted to join a large number of politicians in -- in a sense of people would not want to go into government -- one person spent his whole career in congress. he was an enormous inspiration. i think any more people like it.

i was in this for the purpose of changing the system. people wonder in the background if you are doing this because you want to run for office because you are attracted to the position. >> chapter 9. in 1974, the total spent was $77 million. why? >> a lot of things are happening. the cost of campaigns go up. the competitiveness of congress goes up as well. newt gingrich when it in control

of congress for the republicans, there was a time when we could be the majority party. structurally, -- both parties recognize that there has been this year's fight every two years to control congress. the control premium is huge for the government. both parties begin this race to race as much to defeat the other party. they ask us and the very ethic of being in congress changes. by 2005, leadership is based on the basis of who is going to lead the most on fund raising efforts. it affects a good leader as well. what distinguishes people is the capacity to deliver on the

single party recent need. we spent a lot of time with congressman jim cooper. he describes the democratic policy committee, the early part of congress -- there were talking about should we do this, what would they think? what is the right thing to do with the democratic values. today, the question is how -- have you met your quota? have you raise the amount of money you need to raise. if you want to the committee chair, you have to do your job. you have to make sure you raised the right amount of money. >> in the back, you list a whole

bunch of websites. i am sorry, it is about the author. it talks about how you served on a board. map light, money and politics, building technology, making it easier to see the relationship between money and politics. that is a foundation set up to fund some production of films by robert greenwald. >> a wide range of issues including progressives and the others from the conservative. >> did he do the fox? >> yes. >> change congress. >> that was an organization i started with joe.

it was an organization trying to focus reform efforts on congress. it evolves into this something where when the republicans grab control of congress, we tried to bring in a version of public funding. wheat entered a term called route strikers. -- we entered a term called root strikers. the effort here is to get people to focus on what is the underlying cause of all these different issues we want to complain about both on the right and the left. >> are there other places you mentioned, and you also mentioned open secrets dot org. >> i am not involved with them, but they are in other great

organization taking a huge amount of data. >> follow the money dot org. >> it is a great organization face it -- but was in on state and money and politics. it were some making it easy for people to understand the effects of government. open congress is not just about money. they are trying to create more information about the bills and the way procedures work. and this organization is a pledge that some of the funding organizations work to get candidates to make with they commit to supporting something like fair elections now act, which is a bill used to be established public funding for congressional elections. >> if you go back and look at

all of the funding of these organizations, you see a lot of these funding groups from george soros to the rockefeller foundation and other places. if the check you can see them. of fundingjust a way from the left organizations that will bring about the change that the left wants? why don't more conservatives get involved? this is bipartisan. >> one is americans for campaign reform, which is an organization when we're strong republican support this kind of reform. the perception about this issue is somehow to the left. that is a mistake.

it is not just related to the left. it is issues on the right that it's blocked by status quo. herman cain comes forward with this idea. that plan would radically change the opportunity of members of congress to raise money to get back into congress. if they do not have a million special privileges that they hand out, they do not have a million people to call on the telephone and say, we need help on this campaign if we are not able to get this tax provision approved. the people who want simpler taxes are against extraordinary pressures that come from funding a campaign. same thing to go with a smaller government.

if we the regulated these guys, how will we raise money from them? you think about food to regulate and how far to reach the tentacles of government, in part is a function of whether we will have to call when the election season comes around to get money for their campaigns . if you want smaller government we have a conflict in interest between the current way of finding and making decisions on the basis of what the the principles -- basis of what the principles we believe. there is a great book, he tells the story of the gingrich control where the people come these ideas. there is a meeting with decide

they need to relax their commitment to these principles they need to keep control. that is the important thing. that is the way it is always going to be. >> this is out of context. i have to ask you. page 14, i know you have talked about this. it is the story you got from taylor branch. he did the tapes and all that. i am going to read it and ask you to embellish it. i have never seen it before. "it was found by the secret service on a street in pre-dawn hours. trying to fly down a taxi to take him to get pizza. he fumbled his jet history because of the allure of the bottle." we did not know that. we are dealing with this man who was head of russia. it seemed to me, that is important. >> the question is, what do you do? you need to keep on the pending a tight alliance with this person. >> you say, we should feel sorry

for the people who lost the chance for a free society. >> the point is to try to suggest the kind of problem we are dealing with. we are not dealing with criminals. we are not dealing with blagojevich. we are dealing with people who want to do the right thing. he wanted to save his nation from an authoritarian past. when you have the chance to save a great nation like russia, even then you do not have the strength to resist the temptation of your addiction in that context, the addiction was of a halt. -- was alcohol. this man who is finding himself incapable of doing the one thing that will find him as a world historical leader because of his dependency, it makes it easier to understand the dynamic we see instead of all sorts of institutions.

the one i am talking about is congress. people going wanted to do the right thing. they cannot help but be inside this addiction to raising money. the one thing i would have done differently, many people drink because they like to drink. a better addiction is a cigarette. most people do not want to be addicted to cigarettes. they are. they cannot break it. that is a better picture. these and not people who love to raise money. they hate it. they hate it more and more. they do not want to change it. this system will eventually benefit them. it is not a picture of great leaders. it is not to of the bidders were 40 years ago. it is radically -- it is not to our leaders were 40 years ago. it is radically altering them to do what is right.

>> how does a man get out in the street with his underwear when you have secret service who are assigned to him? do you think this is true? >> i have had a couple sources for this. i do think it is true. i have no clue about how it happened. >> chapter 2, you write, "we spent bill -- billions benin agencies -- i guess the question here, you read about billions have been been spent on regulations -- right about billions having been spent on regulation. >> the part i am making is what of the conditions for trust?

i am talking about dpa, it is a chemical, and estrogenic chemicals. the thing about estrogen is in certain moments, estrogen is very dangerous. if it is developed a protection against it. the question raised is, did the body protect against this man- made chemical? it turns out, it did not. this chemical was affecting the development of the fetus. they begin testing it. they were concerned. this was a disaster for the development of fetuses. the question is, is it actually dangerous? the point i am making in the book is, there is a lot of research in both directions.

when people hear that they say it is a contested field. we do not know the answer. when you separate out the research based on who funded the research, overwhelmingly, the research funded by industry finds no problem. the research funded independently finds a problem. when people hear that, then they are -- than their attitude changes. they say, maybe this is not a happy coincidence. maybe there is something about the research that is biasing it one way for either side. the point is, the conditions under which we need to trust do not exist where we have this kind of funding to undermine our recent to have faith. i did the same thing in a number

of areas. we did some tests about people's attitudes as he began to suggest different funding mechanisms. what we found is quite startling. the extent to which this is true. you have to suggest, even a hint there might be some funding relationship and it undermines people's confidence. it collapses in many cases. not in all cases. some people still a rough stuff respected enough. politicians, -- some people like doctors are respected and not. politicians, there is a dynamic. if you do not build a system that people can trust, people will not trust it. i am using that to show why we need to be worried about how we are funding the elections of members to congress. 75% of members believe money by results. they see congressman dancing around. the people on wall street are saying we are the 99%. they should be saying we are the -9.95%.

--99.95%. those of the people who never give the maximum contribution to any candidate. it is the maximum contribution that if you on the radar screen. >> the quote two people in the beginning of chapter 10. as i read it, i can tell you what i did, considered two statement by two prominent republicans. the first by tom coburn, thousand of instances against -- the new quote but this mitt, the former federal elections commission chairman. my first thought when i read that was, tom coburn is not going to run again. he is from the most republican state. he takes no chance.

that was my first thought. all we have gotten used to in this town. bradley smith, i do not know what he does. he is probably a lawyer. he is saying something that would probably favor his clients. i am not accusing either one of them of that. we are so cynical watching this process. here you go again. >> you have demonstrated my point. you look at what you think of the influences that might be affecting both of them. you read the truth of delhi. i think that for both of them, -- truth value. i think that for both of them, there is integrity. smith works with a research group that the policy advocacy. he does not depend on the clement's. -- on his clients. it is an important question. >> another one of want to talk to you about.

you have the tea party and up by wall street. i have what the liberals say the occupied wall street -- watched the liberals say occupy wall street is fabulous. how'd you get to the truth of that? >> one of the biggest problems we have, media has become so competitive that the only way to compete is to become more polarized. there is a business model of teaching us to hate each other. that is the only way we drive sales. that is true on the left and on the right. it is extremely hard on either of these two extremes to get people to recognize that maybe it is not as simple as fox news would present it.

in fact, we had a conference co- sponsored by the tea party patriot act harper -- patriots at harvard. there was an impassioned speech about resisting hate. people are out there who depend upon dividing us and finding a way to show us why we do not like each other. we need to work in context where we can find common ground. with the tea party and occupy wall street, they would find a common ground even though the talking heads might not want to see the common ground. >> have you been asked to be on fox? i was on foxx and friends. i am eager to be on fox. >> how did they treat you? >> perfectly respectably. >> why would they treat you fairly? >> i have not as much of a

chance on fox. when they introduced the book they called it "republic, lost." i think there are people on fox. bill o'reilly, who sees the problem in a way that we should be able to connect. he said the republic is the corruption of the system. he talks about the content on the left and the content on the right. spending time raising money. there is a commonality. we have not seen fox news willing to openly embrace the charge that there is corruption that comes from money. that would be an enormous hope. the one candidate who has not allowed in any of these debates who is the most qualified from the standpoint of having the most time in government, a

governor and four term congressman, having run a business for 20 years, but the romer -- buddy roemer, is one argument is this system is corrupted. fox news has not allow that to be prominent in the reporting. we say this is because they like the system as it is. i know there are people on the network who do not like the system with that kind of corp. -- corp. -- corruption operates. >> you have a long process of explaining how this can be changed. people can buy your book and find out what it is. you are looking for a constitutional convention. you are looking for amendment.

what chance do you get it, given the influence of money in this town? >> the convention is the one gift our framers gave us of a way to deal with corruption in congress itself. here is congress that is a problem. a convention is a way around it. i do not give it a huge chance. as i described, there is a woman who asked me this question. she said, you convince me, there is no hope. i had this image, what if a doctor told me your son has terminal brain cancer. there is nothing you can do. would i do nothing? you recognize what love is about. love is a but acting even when it is irrational. i think there is a love of country. soldiers go out and risk their

lives for love of country. i want to practice and get others to practice a similar love of country. not to risk your life, but to fight as hard as you can to reclaim it republic which i think, from beneath their reading of what this is, has been lost. i think there is no reason not to fight for it. >> the author, a professor at harvard law school. the name of the book is "republic, lost." we thank you for doing in us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> for a dvd copy, call 1-877-

662-7726. for free transcripts, visit us at q-and-a.org. >> upcoming guests include this journalist who has written over 20 books in his career. and producer director carl colby as a documentary film about his father, a former cia director. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" discuss the joint deficit-reduction committee, and the impact of a plan or lack of a plant that it can have on