Last week I wrote about Lawrence Lessig and Michael Eisen’s efforts to draw attention to and stop Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) from passing a bill that would “result in a lot of government-funded research being published exclusively in for-profit journals — inaccessible to the general public.”

At the end of last week Rep. Conyers finally responded and more of less said that Lessig crosses the line and is too loose with his application of the word “corrupt.”

Well now Lessig has posted his own response to Rep. Conyers in which he explains his feelings on substance and corruption:

Second, as to “corruption”: There are corrupt Members in Congress — fewer, I believe, than at any time in our history, but the Randy “Duke” Cunninghams or Ted “A Series of Tubes” Stevens mean there must be at least some. John Conyers is not one of that class — and nothing in what I wrote said anything different. I neither accused him of “shilling” nor labeled his “motivations” as “corrupt.” The word “shilling” appeared in a question, begged by the combination of a disproportionate contribution and sponsorship of a baseless law. The word “corrupt” described a system, not a Member.

takepart to read the entire response to keep up to date with this important debate.

Also, be sure to takepart and join the donor strike if you haven’t already.