Just when it seemed the corrosive influence of big money on American politics could not be greater, the Supreme Court gave corporations full license to exercise ‘free speech’ during campaign season. Renowned legal scholar Lawrence Lessig and his respondents debate the most effective response to the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which, Lessig claims, poses an imminent danger to our democracy. Consider how corporate political clout has shaped critical areas of public policy, Lessig begins. For instance, subsidies to influential corn producers in the past three decades have led to shifts in food production, such as feeding cattle antibiotics to help them digest corn fodder, and high fructose corn syrup pervasive in food and soda. The result: an epidemic of obesity and antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria — both antithetical to public health. Industries engage in “rent seeking,” contributing to politicians in exchange for some kind of economic advantage, and blocking action in the public interest in the process: fossil fuel industries defeat climate change legislation; financial services defeat tough banking regulation; the health insurance sector defeats truly comprehensive health care law. Now, says Lessig, the Supreme Court has “taken a bad situation and made it much worse,” by lifting restrictions on corporations at election time. Lessig does not disagree with the essence of the decision -- that the First Amendment permits corporations to engage in political speech. But he takes issue with the Court’s reasoning, which ignores what he describes as “dependency corruption.” The framers of the Constitution intended that Congress depend exclusively on its citizens. This is no longer the case, says Lessig: “People have increasingly been replaced by the funders.” (Political scientist Gabriel Lenz confirms this perception, citing studies showing that when it comes to enacting policy changes, “Congress is mostly responsive to the 99th percentile in terms of inco...