By Kathie Obradovich

Embrace the irony. That's the slogan of a new super PAC that has budgeted $2 million to spend in Iowa's 3rd Congressional District race. It's a special-interest organization, but Mayday PAC is not like others lined up to influence voters.

It is taking advantage of the legal framework that allows such groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, from individuals and corporations, on political campaigns. Mayday PAC has raised over $7.7 million of its $12 million goal, its website says. Organizers expect to run TV ads and set up field operations, just like other super PACs. Mayday has even issued a vaguely threatening statement that candidates should "inoculate themselves" from a challenge by embracing Mayday's issue position.

That's pretty typical of the political activity we've seen since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the floodgates on unlimited spending by megadonors and corporations in the Citizens United ruling. One big difference: The goal of Mayday PAC is to make itself, and other big-money political action committees, obsolete through campaign finance reform. Unlike most other super PACS, Mayday is also disclosing its donors, which include co-founders of Linked­In and PayPal, among other executives.

The PAC is supporting two candidates so far, both of whom support public financing in congressional races: Democrat Staci Appel in Iowa and Republican Senate candidate Jim Rubens in New Hampshire. The frontrunner in the New Hampshire GOP primary is Scott Brown, the former Massachusetts senator. The primary is Sept. 9.

Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig co-founded Mayday PAC with Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. Lessig says he's not bothered by the idea of using super-PAC tactics to fight against a system he considers a menace to American democracy.

"I'm not queasy about it," he said. "I'm pretty confident the Mayday PAC has a single focus and once we're successful, we will disappear because the PACs will disappear."

Lessig compares Mayday's effort to the process of winning emancipation for women. Women who sought the right to vote didn't encourage men to boycott the ballot box. They worked through the existing process to elect men who would work to extend the vote to women. "An unjust system was used to produce a more just system," he said.

Mayday PAC supports legislation to make it easier for federal candidates to raise money from small donors. One such proposal, the Government by the People Act, would give qualified voters $50 vouchers that they could use to contribute to federal candidates in $5 increments. Mayday says Appel supports this bill.

Her campaign didn't immediately return a call seeking comment. Republican candidate David Young's campaign also didn't answer questions about his position on campaign finance reform, but he sent me a statement saying he won't be distracted by the millions being spent by Appel's "liberal allies in Washington, D.C."

Lessig notes this approach does not simply dole out money to candidates, creating equality among campaigns regardless of their ability to appeal to donors.

I tend to agree that short of amending the Constitution to limit or eliminate corporate contributions, the only way to dilute the influence of giant donations is through a flood of small contributions.

The choice of Iowa and New Hampshire was more about the candidates than the fact these states host the first presidential caucus and primary, Lessig said. Rubens was the only Republican Senate candidate to support public financing, he said, and Appel has a record of support for campaign finance reform. Iowa's role in presidential politics was a factor.

Appel raised a little over $1.1 million for the race by the end of June. Young, who had five primary opponents, raised $800,000. If Mayday PAC really spends $2 million, it could end up spending nearly as much as one of the candidates.

Wouldn't that be ironic?