[onewaystreet]

> This is why common sense laws that have majority support from the voters (gun control, marijuana legalization etc...) never get the traction they should. The funders don't want them, and they have the final say, not the voters.

The idea that most politicians are just empty shells that do whatever their funders tell them is just wrong. The truth is that it's cheaper and much more effective for funders to give money to politicians that already support their positions.

Lessig believes that if big money is taken out of politics that politicians will suddenly vote for fixing climate change, pass gun control, etc. But they wont because the ones that are against these things aren't against them because they are told to be, they are against them because they genuinely believe that they are bad policies. It's ideology, not money, that drives them.

[Riesling]

Ok, even if this was the case, I fail to see the relevance of it?

The effect would be the same. Less money for candidates that vote against fixing the climate. Hence less chances for them winning in the elections.

[icebraining]

His political ideas have little traction because they're fallacious? I'm pretty sure that already counts as a rare achievement.