Recently, Lessig posted a two-part election reform proposal for comment: 

I propose a two part “citizens’ funding of the Nation’s elections” bill: 

(1) modeled on the clean money systems of Arizona, Maine, and the Durbin-Specter bill in Congress, this part provides national funding to candidates who meet a threshold of support. That funding would be designed to enable a candidate to compete effectively in a race for Congress, or the Senate, with the precise amount determined by the cost of media in the particular districts; 

(2) inspired by the Obama campaign, every candidate would be free to supplement national funding by an unlimited amount raised through small contributions (I recommend a ceiling of no more than $250 per citizen but keeping it small is the key). 

While this appears to be a noble cause to some, my reply makes clear how ignoble I feel it actually is:

By what right does one have to limit how I choose to spend my money? As a business owner, by what right does one have to limit my expenses?

Lessig, I am sure your goal is well-intended but do you value your liberty and that of others so little that you propose its loss as a solution?

Doesn’t it seem wrong to any of you that this proposes the loss of your liberty as the solution — and if this were to pass– that loss would be kept from you by force?

The real solution is clear: there is little reason to bribe someone with little power.

How we limit the power given to those likely to be bribed is the real problem here, not how are we to further limit the liberty of individuals.