Hmm. He's been living in California for too long.

I'd still blow him, though.

Every time politicians say they are going to get the money out of elections, they end up doing the opposite. This election cycle, for example started a year in advance of normal. Think that doesn't cost money? I guarantee you this will be the most expensive election in history, and it has all been done with many small contribution, plus of course the candidates ability to spend their own money.

Their efforts so far have in fact made it even harder for an ordinary person to run for public office.

This issue is the poster child for the law of unintended consequences. It makes the point that there are many things for which the best thing government to do is nothing.

I never cease to be amazed when supporters of Open Source, Open Standards and the relative anarchy that such regimes allow turn to the government sector and want to do just the opposite: centralize everything.

I have little doubt that they will eventually succeed as well. We will have absolute central control over every aspect of our lives, but because of the involvement of people like Lessig, we will think of it as a Libertarian utopia. You'll be free to do whatever you want, as long as you agree to only want to do the specified things.

Here's a one point plan that beats Lessig's:

Reduce the ridiculous size and scope of the government, thus slashing the stake that big business and other interests have in campaigns. You can have big government or you can have the money out of politics, but you can't have both.

How about gerrymandering of districts, this is the most joke part of the American political system