People spend money on politics because they want government to act in a certain way. The spending can be to support or defeat a particular candidate or to insure that existing politicians attach importance to the spenders' interests. In either way, spending is an attempt to exercise some control over government.
When a lot of money is spent on politics, a statist sees a restricted government. The statist wants to free government from spenders' influence. The statist wants to give the government more freedom to act.
When a lot of money is spent on politics, an anti-statist sees an oppressed people. The anti-statist wants to free the people from government power by decreasing the importance of government. The anti-statist wants to restrict government's freedom and power.
Under this framework Lessig is a statist. He sees political spending not as a sign that government is too powerful, but rather that government is not powerful enough to act against the big spenders' interests. Lessig advocates more restrictions on the spenders. He thinks that Citizens United (rebuffing government's attempt to silence corporations) was wrongly decided.
Massive political spending is of concern to both statists and anti-statists. For statists, it is a sign that government is not acting independently and disinterestedly in the people's interests. Money is corrupting government. For anti-statists, it is a sign that government is seen by the people as a large threat or a large opportunitiy, neither of which is good because it implies that government is important, which it shouldn't be.
Little political spending is viewed favorably by both statists and anti-statists. For statists, it is a sign that special interests see political spending as futile to stop a government from acting in the common interest. For anti-statists, it is a sign that government is too weak to matter very much or is acting so neutrally that no one is complaining.
When a lot of money is spent on politics, a statist sees a restricted government. The statist wants to free government from spenders' influence. The statist wants to give the government more freedom to act... Under this framework Lessig is a statist.
The framework you outline is far too general to term someone a statist. Statists are in this subset of people yes, but so is anyone left of center.
If you want to claim Lessig leans more towards a statist school of thought than an anti-statist school of thought I will agree with you. But ultimately a statist believes the sovereignty of a nation lies with the government and not with the people. I don't think Lessig believes this. To label Lessig a statist you'll have to make a far stronger case than what you've presented here.
What do you mean by "a statist believes the sovereignty of a nation lies with the government and not with the people"?
It seems to me that the word "statist" implies a context/framework in which the state, as a coercive institution, is separated from the rest of society which is non-coercive. In this context, a statist is one who favors the state or equivalently, a statist prefers to solve social problems by relying on force rather than cooperation.
It seems to me that most people don't think in these terms. They don't distinguish between the state and everything else. Rather they think pragmatically: "How can I have a better life?" or "What's good for my country?" Lessig seems to fall in this group. So for example, he sees that copyright law is not encouraging an innovative society, and therefore he wants to change the law. Or he sees that government is acting in the best interest of corporations rather than "ordinary" folks and so he tries to change that. He's not thinking in terms of strengthening or weakening the "coercive institution of the state."
Analogous situations: Most web developers think in terms of solving technical problems, "how can I get this page to look a certain way?", rather than being standards compliant. Most general consumers think in terms of comfort, convenience, value, etc, rather than "green" (what's good for the environment) or patriotically (buy American).
So when Lessig is called a statist, he is being characterized in the framework implied by the term, which is not the framework in which he thinks.
When a lot of money is spent on politics, a statist sees a restricted government. The statist wants to free government from spenders' influence. The statist wants to give the government more freedom to act.
When a lot of money is spent on politics, an anti-statist sees an oppressed people. The anti-statist wants to free the people from government power by decreasing the importance of government. The anti-statist wants to restrict government's freedom and power.
Under this framework Lessig is a statist. He sees political spending not as a sign that government is too powerful, but rather that government is not powerful enough to act against the big spenders' interests. Lessig advocates more restrictions on the spenders. He thinks that Citizens United (rebuffing government's attempt to silence corporations) was wrongly decided.
Massive political spending is of concern to both statists and anti-statists. For statists, it is a sign that government is not acting independently and disinterestedly in the people's interests. Money is corrupting government. For anti-statists, it is a sign that government is seen by the people as a large threat or a large opportunitiy, neither of which is good because it implies that government is important, which it shouldn't be.
Little political spending is viewed favorably by both statists and anti-statists. For statists, it is a sign that special interests see political spending as futile to stop a government from acting in the common interest. For anti-statists, it is a sign that government is too weak to matter very much or is acting so neutrally that no one is complaining.