Lessig has done a lot of good things, and I admire his idealism and dedication.
But money in politics is there because politicians have the power to choose winners and losers, to rig markets, to implement regulations that protect incumbents, to choose who is taxed and who isn't, etc., etc., etc.
As long as politicians have those powers (as opposed to the far more limited powers intended by the founders), those with power and wealth will find ways to influence politicians - one way or another.
No law can prevent that - laws can only force the influence under the table, underground where it can't be seen.
Money in politics is the symptom. Too much power in the hands of politicians is the disease.
Well, I agree that FPTP is a horribly poor reflection of real voter sentiments, and that a better system would be an improvement.
(Personally, I find the idea of "delegative representation"; similar to what they call "liquid democracy" in Europe, intriguing. Tho I think I wouldn't support changes in delegation between elections.)
But the larger question is - even if we have a system that accurately reflects voter sentiment - is the voting public smart enough to make reasonable decisions? Does the majority even care about the erosion of their liberties?
Just talking to my neighbors, there are a huge number of people who fundamentally don't understand or support the idea of "rights" at all - except for the right of a majority (50% plus one) to impose its arbitrary will on a minority.
Revolutions famously eat their young. And are bloody. Looking around the world, I see few places that are doing substantially better than the US. It is far from clear to me that a revolution would (a) succeed, or (b) result in an improvement.