I was really looking forward to reading this book. I like Lessig and greatly enjoyed his TED talk on this subject. The book itself was both disappointing and motivating. The writing is not what I expected from a constitutional law scholar. The syntax errors are jarring and distract from the great ideas being discussed. The number of clauses that lack a subject are astonishing. The language seems pandering and colloquial which, again, distracts from the great ideas being discussed. It's as if Lessig sat down and asked "Who is my audience?" and decided it was 40 year olds who stopped their education around the 10th grade. Lessig's assessment of the problem, the corrupting influence of money and the systemic problems facing reform, is the redeeming part of the book. He rightly identifies the prime importance of addressing a bought and paid for government. No real progress can be made until this system is reformed. He rightly and smartly demonstrates that, even if there is no actual corruption, the mere appearance of corruption diminishes confidence and drives away voters. Special interest capture is retarding the progress of our country by drowning out innovators in favor for those that profit from the status quo. Of the 300 odd pages, 250 pages are dedicated to describing the problem. The remaining 75 deal with possible solutions.The first solution offered, called the "Grant and Franklin Project", is disappointing. SPOILER: Lessig advocates for a hybrid public/private funded campaign system where the candidate would opt in. The solution relies on two things that will never happen. First, it relies on the candidate not being a rational actor. The candidate must elect to hobble himself and choose to fund their campaign this way. Second, it relies on every other actor to not be rational. In order to work, the candidate must be able conduct his campaign in a vacuum without outside media intervention. So all the PACS, corporations, unions, and multitude of organizations must respect the wishes of this candidate, and not spend any of their own money on ads, mailings, etc. The four strategies offered are the same as the Grant and Franklin Project, non-starters. Lessig recognizes that the probability of any of the four strategies he proposes succeeding is abysmal. Following the section dedicated to rectifying the problem he spent the majority of the book detailing, Lessig says: "So you pick your poison, You tell me which hopeless strategy is best. Or you come up with a better one. But don't tell me this is hopeless. hopelessness is precisely the reason that citizens must fight." A great way to end a rather disheartening discussion of our "options". I didn't learn anything new about the problem from the book except that Lawrence Lessig isn't coming to save us with a perfect idea. Maybe that was the point, though - that there's no one coming to fix it with a simple solution. That we need to get off our asses and think of something. That we need to actually do something.

I've long been a believer that there is a great deal of fundamental corruption in our federal government (and state government as well). I was an enthusiastic supporter of people like Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich, and most recently Bernie Sanders, because of this concern. I think this problem is a root cause of many of the ills we see in politics, the lack of action on critically important issues, a problem (along with redistricting reform) that must be addressed before we can have any hope for change in our politics, a problem far more important than the success of any political candidate or party. I've read quite a number of very good works making this claim. *Republic, Lost* is by far the best I've yet read.Lessig argues his case rationally and simply, building from point to point in language accessible to the average citizen. He is empathic to the perspective of both sides of the political fence (or all three, if you count the libertarians he addresses), pointing issues of concern at turns to both liberals and conservatives. While very critical of the system, his statements are very sympathetic to the people who have accepted or embraced the system (more than I personally think they merit, but good for trying to persuade all sides). He covers a number of ways that this corruption distorts the political process that I hadn't considered before.The solution he offers is very compelling. It addresses most of the concerns I've ever heard over reform of campaign financing. Lessig admits that it might not be a magic solution to everything involving money and corruption, but he makes a very good case for it being a potentially consequential improvement, one that could continue to be refined over time.(as an aside, though he doesn't bother to suggest it should be part of the solution, knowing it would be very unpopular, he makes a very interesting case for significantly increasing compensation for elected officials and bureaucrats.)Recognizing that we cannot hope for the people who are enmeshed in the system to enact such changes, Lessig proposes a series of steps to implement this change through non-traditional means (what he calls "peaceful terrorism"): from running citizen candidates (not "politicians") in both party primaries and general elections--congressional and presidential--to calling for a constitutional convention to propose the necessary constitutional amendment. He does not don rose-colored glasses in his proposal: he is realistic about the chances of this working in the near future. But he ends with a very emotional and poignant plea to engage in the cause in spite of the uphill battle ahead, because it is necessary to win back a Republic--a representative democracy dependent on the people *alone.*

The strongest aspect of this book is that it covers every single aspect of campaign finance. The weakest aspect of this book is that it covers every single aspect of campaign finance. After reading it, no activist would have an excuse for failing to persuade the resistant. But the bloatedness of many chapters will likely repel curious readers.