Two senses of wrong. 2+2=5 wrong. For example, the Sonny Bono act which extended existing and future copyrights 20 years. Extending existing copyrights clearly does not serve the public policy purpose of copyright, which is to incent people to create works. Another example: the US sugar industry lobbied the US Senate to change the World Health Organization to say at most 25% of your caloric intake should come from added sugar, rather than 10% as the WHO drafted it.

Global warming is another example of this kind of wrong. Over a period when 0% of peer-reviewed articles called into question the consensus around global warming (that it's real, important, human-created, important to stop, and possible to stop), 53% of media articles called it into question, and Congress delayed action.

Second sense of wrong. "That's just wrong" wrong. Example: Fannie Mae's "socialized risk, privatized benefits." Crony capitalism. Steven Paine, who was caught on tape soliciting donations to the Bush 43 library in exchange for access. The administration said this is "completely ordinary". Third example: Congressman Rangel soliticed donations to the Charlie B Rangel Center for Public Service from the people he regulates. Launched an inquiry into himself to prove there was no conflict of interest according to the standards of Washington. Wrong because corrupt.

Wrongs of the second kind lead to wrongs of the first kind.

Framers were obsessed circa 1785 with independence. Incredible corruption in Federated US driven by lack of independence among representatives. The US Constitution, however, failed to achieve this. Bribery was not criminalized in Congress until 1853. The 20th century is much better than the 19th century in this sense, but a new form of corruption arrives. Abramof and Cunningham's kind of corruption is the exception; the real problem is the need for constant attention to money to retain tenure in Congress. Incumbent re-election rates have reached almost 100%.

The costs to our society from this dependency. In 1994, Al Gore proposed to deregulate telecommunications; Congress refused because this would undermine the ability of Congresspeople to raise money from the industry. Most importantly, this dependency destroys trust.

Between March and June 2008, 94 Congressional Democrats changed from voting no to voting yes on telecom immunity. Those who had changed their vote had received twice the donations that other members had.

Public approval of Congress is down to 9%, the lowest level ever measured. This is a bankrupt institution. As Congress fails, power shifts to the president and to the courts.

The Change Congress organization, founded by Lessig and Joe Trippi, intends to coordinate and intensify existing efforts to reform. Layer 1 gets people to pledge to one of four complementary platforms of reform. Layer 2 intends to publicize the contrast between actual and pledged support by members of congress. Layer 3 is to steer support in the way that Emily's List does.

Dependency may not be the most important political problem, but it's the first problem that must be addressed because it undermines any other solutions.

Q: How does this dependency affect academics? A: The best academics simply avoid public policy issues.

Q: What about term limits? A:I used to support them, but now, because of California's experience, I oppose them. Lobbyists know more than politicians about how government actually works, so term limits shift power to lobbyists. We need more dedicated, career legislators.

Q: How can the movement you've described take advantage of the presidential candidates' rhetoric of change? A: I'm conflicted. I'm a strong supporter of Barack Obama. I was disappointed when he decided not to take public funding. There are two public funding problems, one around the president and the other around Congress. We won't be able to fund local elections through online contributions in the next ten years even if presidential candidates can.

Q: Can you comment on the decision that corporations are persons and can therefore ... free speech ... campaign contributions? A: This is a hard question for Constitutional law scholars. The Supreme court never actually acknowledged that corporations are people; instead a court reporter added that notion, which then became lore. The Supreme Court is not going to change in any interesting way in the next 25 years. We should therefore focus on what we can do; pass laws that would be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Q: Is there a resource someone can go to to see who companies contribute to? A: That's a softball question, it must come from someone from Maplight.

Q: How do you mass-market this idea to the American people? A: That's too hard. The only way you're allowed to talk about public policy such that the media will cover it is to run for something. But to run for something, you have to become part of the problem. We want to show people how whatever specific concerns they have have been mistreated by Congress because of the dependency problem. We're in a long-term strategy; we expect the Pledge campaign to take three or four cycles. We expect some campaigns to take 10 or 20 years to run.

Q: comprehensive energy policy in context of corruption? A: All evidence is no.

Q: What about eliminating riders and earmarks? A: Our Congress originally had very strong germaneness requirements. But it's better for everybody in Congress if bills are compromise bills instead of single-issue bills. (Joel's note: i.e., an institutional design flaw in Congress allows members of Congress to serve their own political needs at the expense of their intended function.)

Q: You suggested the 19th century had worse corruption, but more damage is being done today. Is this because modern government has more power. A: The 19th century Congress is full of genuinely bad people. The modern Congress is full of good people in an awful system and not taking responsibility for fixing that awful system. If they were personally corrupt, it might be better because their personal bribe needs would be much smaller than re-election costs. Increasingly Congress is just the farm league for K street, where the real money is. This is the same model as my law students: work as an associate and become a partner, somewhat the same pay structure, but I don't want my students running the government.

Q: This seems to be a big jump from your career as a lawyer. What prompted it? A: I started as a constitutional law professor. This is constitutional law; this is our government failing to function. I want to see parties actively content; the constitutional framework within which parties contest must be one we can trust, and this one isn't.

Q: What kind of organization is Change Congress? A: We are a c(3), which is a non-profit; a c(4), which is a interest group organization, and a PAC.

Q: How do you keep lobbyists from infiltrating Change Congress? A: I think lobbyists are an important part of change. But there's the same line as with lawyers in front of the Supreme Court. Note that Members can pay for lots of personal luxuries with campaign funds. That's the line we need to draw.

Q: Twenty years from now, having a conversation with your adult son, what change would you like Change Congress to have achieved. A: Judge Scalia has a line that every generation takes certain things for granted. We look back and can't believe how people were so racist, increasingly sexual orientation is like that. I want my son to say, "how could anyone has thought it would be okay for people to influence congress in the way they did? How could you have wasted your time on that when you could have been playing with me?"