Serious question: given that he didn't have a snowball's chance, why did you give him money, as opposed to giving money to some other change agent that does have a chance?
@tptacek, I thought of funding Lessig as what an angel investor would describe as exploring the problem space. That is, I believe he has correctly identified a huge problem, I knew he was a smart guy who would adapt to what he learned, and I was happy to support that exploration. I'm also comfortable with him pulling the eject lever once he couldn't see a path to moving his goals forward.
I will admit to seeing a relative dearth of alternative change agents.
Who wins or loses in one election is based on its instantaneous value. But this system has long oscillation times. Some may vote to signal long-term wishes (Lessig), some short-term (Sanders). Both choices I guess are fine.
I threw $n at a shot to get an honest, articulate voice on stage at an early-primary-season debate, to hopefully influence the party/eventual candidate's agenda. It didn't work. Oh well.
I have a $500 iPad sitting on my coffee table gathering dust, too, which was the bigger waste?
It's going to take someone who doesn't go with the flow, to make any real, lasting change.
Inertia is a bitch.