TL;DR The problem wont fix its self. The system will prevent solutions that limit it. Nothing will change until you do something. That something needs to be withing the current rules of the game.

What I find most amazing about any analysis piece on the problems of democracy and what to do about it is that they are almost always self-defeating. By this, I mean the very proposal to solve the problem prevents the problem from being solved.

The article is correct about what (one of) the problem is. Institutional corruption is analogous to the principal-agent problem except the issue is the asymmetry influence, not information.

But suggesting that the existing 'system' recognise the problem and then take action against itself is pure naivety. If politicians, those empowered by us to represent us, are being corrupted by special interest enough not to represent our interests, then those same special interests are going to ensure that measures to restrict their influence are thwarted. The system can't be changed from the outside without revolution, and revolution won't happen until things get really bad (and then generally turn out just as bad later)

The problem of special interest can only occur when the net benefits (expected outcome - cost of lobbying) for special interest groups exceed the net costs for individuals to fight it. Sadly, the benefit to the few is great and despite a net social cost, spread amongst the population the cost to the many is little.

The only way to solve the problem is to do so in a way that doesn't change the system. One way of doing this (and the only viable option I can think of) is to form a non-partisan political party who's only policy is to do what the electorate tells it. The candidate signs a legally binding contract to vote according to the will of their electorate and some kind of public/electronic forum allows issues to be discussed and voted. As long as everything is sailing along nicely, you wouldn't have to have any involvement if you didn't want. But, if a bad law is proposed (SOPA comes to mind), then there is no way it could pass if the majority was against it.

I'm sure that there will be opposition to this - it is devolving power to the populous and making politicians simple spokespeople, not deciders of the public will - but isn't this what #occupy needs? A way to use the existing system to devolve power to the 99% (well actually to the 100%).

I'm fine with banning corporate money in politics as long as all groups are banned from giving money (e.g. unions). U.S. Citizens should be able to contribute individually in a non-tax deductible manner as they want to a candidate directly or a registered political party, but no other group or person. The obvious exception would be the political parties themselves (new tax status or maybe it exists now).

I would also like all public money pulled. We have a budget crisis and need to stop all non-essential spending. If you cannot convince people to give you money then you are not going to convince anyone to vote for you either.

Seems to me that as long as votes are for sale, somebody will buy them, and the system will be corrupt. The only real solution, and it's not an easy one, is that voters have stop being so easily influenced. They need to become critical thinkers that actively research their opinions. All the ingredients are in place for this to happen, but it's going to take at least a generation to catch on.

Public money for public office.

Although the logistics are hairy to work out, I think that the most important reform that could be made would be banning private contributions to campaigns entirely, and making every candidate equally funded through tax funds.

Every candidate should have an equal voice, and should not have to sell their souls or pander to large donors in order to be competitive in their campaign.

Money is not speech.

If money were speech, then the government forcing me to pay taxes would be a violation of the first amendment.

If money were speech, the government telling me not to give money to terrorists would be a violation of the first amendment.

The supreme court justices are idiots. Plain and simple.

tldr: You might as well try to "fix" VMS.

I find it a little difficult to think seriously about "fixing democracy" when on the same day I see something like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/free-the-fda.html

"The precedent risks placing the real power for drug approval not just with a cabinet secretary, but with the White House itself. The only solution, then, is to make the F.D.A. truly independent."

In other words, it's an essential aspect of American democracy that your elected officials have no actual power at all. Presumably Prof. Lessig reads the NYT?

Because frankly, if elected politicians have no actual authority, and this is a feature rather than a bug - I'm struggling to figure out why we should care so much whether or not they're on all on the take.

I'm not disputing that they're all on the take. The worst part is that if you make a political office symbolic in reality, its professional occupants rapidly grow entirely incapable of exercising actual power and become, basically, actors - worthless celebrities. You're selecting for Rick Perry and you'll get Rick Perry.