Add new comment

This article makes two fatally flawed errors. 1) It assumes that piecemeal, incrmental reforms are worth pursuing. In fact, in a systematically corrupt system like the US, they more often than not do more harm than good. For example a) the DISCLOSE just makes it easier to coordinate "indpendent" expenditures with campaigns, though it does serve the interests of some NGO's who distribute information about candidate and policy funding that reach very few voters due to the control of the mass media by the same moneyed interests that control government b) Public funding of elections simply constitutes a susbsidy to the media industry that supports the Democratic Party. There should be no public funding until the broadcast spectrum that Clinton gave away is returned to the People for use in electioneering. 2) It assumes that a Constitutional Amendment is a useful or even possible means to overturn Citizens United. It is not. This a trope of professional activists for raising funds, and in neither needed nor possible and indeed would almost certainly be counterproductive, if adopted. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/09/why-a-constitutional-amendment-isnt-needed-to-overturn-citizens-united/