The public comment period for this legislation has ended.

Stop Undisclosed Payments in Elections from Ruining Public Accountability in Campaigns (SuperPAC Act)

94 bill comments, 7 section comments

To establish comprehensive disclosure requirements with respect to spending in federal elections, creating a system of real-­‐time, online transparency.
  1. TITLE I - Short Title
  2. TITLE II - Promoting Disclosure of Influential Money in Elections
    1. Sec. 201. Independent Expenditures (4 comments)
    2. Sec. 202. Electioneering Communications
    3. Sec. 203. Additional Information Required to be Included in Reports on Disbursements by Covered Organizations
    4. Sec. 204. Rules Regarding Use of General Treasury Funds by Covered Organizations for Campaign-Related Activity (1 comment)
    5. Sec. 205. Optional Use of Separate Account by Covered Organizations for Campaign-Related Activity
  3. TITLE III - Promoting Real Time On-Line Disclosure of All Reports
    1. Sec. 301. Uniform 24-­‐Hour Reporting For Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications (1 comment)
  4. TITLE IV - Requiring Disclaimers for Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications
    1. Sec. 401. Modification of Rules Relating to Disclaimer Statements Required for Certain Communications
  5. TITLE V - Ensuring Disclosure Data is Publicly Available in Real Time and Available for Re-Use
    1. Sec. 501. Public Availability
  6. TITLE VI - Disclosure by Registered Lobbyists
    1. Sec. 601. Requiring Registered Lobbyists to Report Information on Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications
  7. TITLE VII - Promoting Transparency of Campaign Activity by Requiring All Candidates to Electronically File Their Campaign Finance Reports
    1. Sec. 701. Filing by Senate Candidates with Commission (1 comment)

General Comments on Stop Undisclosed Payments in Elections from Ruining Public Accountability in Campaigns (SuperPAC Act)

Patricia Lindsey on January 12, 2012

Stop Undisclosed Payments in Elections from Ruining Public Accountability in Campaigns (SuperPAC Act):

Make it Public Who Donates to any Politician running for any Office or Appointments, that is suppose to represent the People of the United States.

Matthew Hart on January 12, 2012

If we don't pass this act, the United States will be owned by corporations and the top 1%. The road you travel in the pursuit of happiness will be fraught with corporate tripwires, and loopholes to keep you in line.

Nick Mantas on January 12, 2012

Democracy and secret money are fundamentally incompatible. We need to go back to strict public financing of political campaigns. If we allow private financing the least we need to have is clear and public disclosure of every penny that is used in the elections.

Calvin K. Claus on January 12, 2012

In one stroke this proposed legislation gets very close to fulfilling the 1787 Constitutional Convention's expectation of forming a more perfect union.

Raymond Nash on January 12, 2012

SuperPACs are just licenses to elections briberies that bypasses the rules of ordinary PACs. Simply saying on a piece of paper your intentions as from a PAC is the key that opens the door to criminality that is being allowed due to the SCOTUS devastating Citizen's United debacled decision givng our Democracy over to the highest bidder. The Kochs have 50 billion dollars, and could spend $10 every second(846,000 per 24 hour day) for about the next 150 years before going broke, but they don't need that much time to screw the people's Democracy and give it over to the investor class special interests, and their cronies, therefore, I would write in the bill that it is unlawful for the wealthy to buy politiicians, through SuperPACs, or even PACs, since their money is made through the businesses that sell to the people goods and services that the rich have as investments. A Democracy is about "we the people," not we the very rich people. The US motto should not be, "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Jerry S. Caccavaro on January 12, 2012

The present primary is a great example of money buying power. Romney would not even be in the game if he didn't have the funds to buy advertising. The best canidate is Ron Paul, but he is not funded enough to win.

Eileen Chieco on January 12, 2012

We need to have publicly funded elections, period. That is the only way to eliminate the bribery that goes by the name of 'campaign contributions.'

Bryce Lynch on January 12, 2012

We need to know who is financing our politicians. We as citizens should demand total transparency to the public of any PAC, "Super" or otherwise, even individual donations as soon the funds are dispersed. No loopholes, no parlor tricks, transparency without objection!

Eldon Rollins on January 12, 2012

Technically, a corporation "exists" merely because a signed document is registered with a state government. They exist at all solely because a governmental institution, representing the will of the people, allows them to exist. Corporations are not people, and under our constitution their very existence is, and of right should be, contingent upon the public good. When things get to the point where corporate interests are contrary to the public good, their power needs to be curtailed; abruptly, and with finality.

Orlando R Reyes Sr on January 12, 2012

It is hard to believe how hard it is for so many of us to accept the fact that this system of governing has failed, is broken, is cancerous. Stay alert, educate yourself. Live and love within your means!...?

JA on January 12, 2012

Effective decision-making requires sufficient information about the source to "consider the source" and determine the degree to which the source has a vested interest in the outcome or other source of obvious bias; such requires complete disclosure of those funding advertisements and other campaign activities in the political process even more than other venues.

bill monier on January 12, 2012

SuperPac Funds are blatant attempts to unfairly influence our political system TO favor BIG MONEY INTERESTS, and to control.... CONTROL....C O N T R O L the rest of us.

Dave on January 12, 2012

If we knew the name of every person behind every dollar sent to a Pol, what could we do about it? ZIP, NADA, NOTHING... except perhaps embarrass them publicly, which seems to be the intent of this proposed legislation. A "PAC" is nothing more than a group of people who pool their money to support one cause/person/issue or another. That was the idea behind the law to begin with and it's the same concept now. We can label it dark or shadowy or suspicious or corrupt or immoral or whatever name we want to put on it. The bottom line is that it is a FREE and LEGAL way to express an opinion. Although it seems we like to envision some monstrous "corporate machine" manipulating the strings of the government marionette, we fail to realize the basic freedoms removed when we MUST advertise our desires, our likes, or our dislikes to everyone in order to express them. The fact is, I might not want you to know my name in relation to what I do or do not support. And you have no right to know it.

Dave on January 12, 2012

@Michael Follman: I think you are confusing 'Government' and 'Democracy'.

Government should be transparent... because "it" is "us". Elected officials doing OUR work.

Democracy is, by design, personal, private, and secretive. That's why there's a curtain on the voting booth.

Vincent Gormley on January 12, 2012

Dear Corporate America, You have forced we the people in to an unwanted relationship we herewith demand an immediate separation and divorce. We seek custody and sole rights to our country. You may only visit.

Don Rehrer on January 12, 2012

I think this should be a constitutional amendment,so government become easier understand for all people,and Big Business will also be out in the open,in the form of just what company own what politicians,so they can be ousted from power.

Richard C Hover on January 12, 2012

Elections should be paid for by a government fund. No private contributions accepted. Anyone accepting [private funds, for election purposes, should be banned from office.

Ronald Cadby on January 12, 2012

The SuperPAC Act could simply be limited to having full disclosure via the web with search query capability for source, amount and definitive reason(s) for each contribution.

Further, all PACs should be open and voluntary, not collected or sponsored by any government agency.

The success of Ron Paul's "bombs" which prove that individual responses to well defined pleas for support result in a capability to acrue large funds in small amounts as opposed to so-called "rich" sources for profit making. In other words, there is no need to allow or include corporate level PACs.

Finally, the SuperPAC Act should distribute its funds using a public web request system that shows which campaigns will accept and approve the purpose(s) of the PAC.

Thomas G Spencer on January 12, 2012

The super PACs are the result of a disgraceful partisan supreme court ruling. They made a very serious free speech error in allowing unlimited political contributions by corporations. Essentially, they gave corporations a First Amendment right to buy a Congress that will promote their greed at the expense of the human public well being. They agreed with the saying that "money talks", and decided that money was to have free speech.

This was NOT a matter of free speech as they asserted. It IS a matter of one-man-one-vote in a republican form of government. By allowing unlimited contributions by corporations they have essentially given them as many votes as they can afford. It is the equivalent of saying that votes can be had for every x number of dollars, or that only landowners can vote; a concept proposed and rejected by our founders.

In addition, they have ignored the laws that prohibit political contributions by foreign interests, because almost all publicly held companies have some stock owned by non citizens. Further, because there is no reporting requirement for contributors, foreign interests can make direct anonymous contributions to these Super PACs. Shouldn't it be a violation to let foreign interests decide who is going to be a US public servant?

Corporations are NOT people; they are commercial and legal paper entities, and they have legal protections people do not. They do not have children who need good schools, they cannot get cancer from a polluted environment, they cannot lose their lives in wars of choice, they cannot be sent to prison or jail, and they do not benefit from a happy populace. Their sole interest is in monetary profit. When corporations enter political debates with vast expenditures and propaganda, they seek to further their own interest, not those of humans. Far too often their interests prevail at the expense of the public well being because of their immense wealth.

The ruling was a fiasco that threatens the very nature of our republic. It leads us towards an oligarchy, which in our case will be a plutocracy, a rule by wealthy... paper entities with money, with some level of foreign ownership influence.

It's really scary to know your republican form of government might depend on disease or accident to alter the bent of the SCOTUS. We have the worst, most partisan, Supreme Court in history. Maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment limiting SCOTUS terms or allowing for public recall.

Meanwhile...Senator Sanders has started a petition for another amendment to overturn this ugly ruling. If you don't think this was a good decision, go to SIGN THE PETITION

Ken Stone on January 12, 2012

Dave above got me thinking. He has some good arguments... The problem is, the poor tax paying working class doesn't have the resources($) that the rich and the corporations have. It is a legal system of bribery and influence. The only thing that is remotely equalizing is transparency/disclosure. Information is power. Let's say corporation X gets Rich Brat elected. We all could (with the power of the internet) quit spending our money at corporation X... "They" came from money. "They" represent money. "They" just want our tax dollars and labor. Not really much of a change for 3000 years or so. Please be quiet and go back to work.

Barbara A. Bondurant on January 12, 2012

I wholeheartedly support this action.

One step further would be regarding the media: Whenever public "servants" appear in the media, full disclosure of their corporate affiliations/corporate supporters should accompany every media coverage granted to them. We need to know, everytime, who is speaking or acting along with, or behind, them.

Anthony A Capobianco on January 12, 2012

I'm sorry to say, but there's so much corruption in our government that no matter what I or anybody else says or does, election practices will continue to benefit the folks who have big bucks and power by way of big business or related positions.

linda greenberg on January 12, 2012

it is a disgrace that the amount of $$ raised when people are losing jobs, our economeny is in the tank and just our politicans are getting richer

Why are teachers, fireman, etc losing jobs when $$$ are going out the window for unnessary expenditures

All it is doing is allowing corporations to run our country and not care about the people

SCOTT W on January 12, 2012

Wow -- great work ,,

I would not know what else to add to this ...

I believe you have it covered .. Remember, you must think like a lobbyiest /special interest -- -how to get around all this ...scott

Kenneth Biggs on January 12, 2012

Stop the ability for corporations to give unlimited funds and still allow those in the Corporations to contribute more as a single person. Corporations are not People I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Duncan McDougall on January 12, 2012

Lets face it; It has always been the undisclosed money that runs our nation. All of our old time Senators and House of representvies members walk away with millions. Lets give them some walking papers and let the younger leader have a stab at being honest and forthright! "Amen"

Ba Smith on January 12, 2012

This is proof that Corporate America has too much power and influence over society. Corporate America and the military-industrial complex are the rulers of society. This must stop.

Jerry Gahan on January 12, 2012

Big business has always had too much voice in our government. Citizens United has given them a legal platform to illegally control our government. Business is NOT people !

KEITH SMITH on January 12, 2012

A plutarchy is exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid. Our supreme Court seems intent on destroying the constitution and opening the door for the creation of a fourth reich. No matter how they spin it(the right) is hell-bent on the overthrow of America.

Sandra Zylberman on January 12, 2012

We need to know who is donating what to SuperPACs in order to properly vet a candidate for possible conflict of interest or misconduct charges in doing the bidding for those who have vested interests in buying an elected official to push a corporate agenda.

Robert Peeler on January 12, 2012

As an individual, I am limited by rules as to how much I can give, am I not? Why can these PAC's give unlimited amounts without having any rules? My voice has been lost it seems to me. Candidates should start on a level playing field.....their own personal funds should not even be allowed; and they should all have to compete in each primary/caucus or be disqualified.

John Satchell on January 12, 2012

Isn't it bought and sold already!!!!??? The Federal Elections entity should have some TEETH AND A CLEAR MANDATE TO USE THEM. If it takes an amendment to the Constitution so be it.

E.E. MOSS on January 12, 2012

All T.V.time for the candidates should be donated by the stations as a civic duty . All candidates should receive equal time .

Cheryl Liniman on January 12, 2012

I feel that unlimited CORPORATE contributions gives the rich the capability to BUY our elections. This is NOT government "OF by the people, BY the people or FOR the people". There is no level playing field and this was a dangerous ruling for our democracy. In the end, it will destroy our country by the shift of power from the people to corporate entities who have a narrow agenda focused on their own wealth rather than the good of the country.

Gwenythe b. Harvey on January 12, 2012

These SuperPACs are very discriminatory in nature and thus completely unfair to every USA citizen. Every donation that We the People give as citizens are a matter of public record and often published. Thus, the same should be true of any corporation, union, or other entity that are presently allowed to hide behind the screen of secrecy that a SuperPAC affords them.

Edwin Davis on January 12, 2012

Action. Action. Action. Action is the only way to "reduce" this problem. Some friends laughed at Occupy America. Yet, they got more accomplished than the terabytes of good meaning text.

If it took stringing up a couple of these folk to get the seriousness shoved in their faces and put fear back in their souls it would be worth it.

Peace is everything!!!! Change is Action!!!

Robert Shorin, ACSW, BCD on January 12, 2012

America is supposed to be a democracy. If our elections continue to be influenced by huge donations to election campaigns from rich individuals and rich corporations, we run the risk of becoming a plutocracy where the needs and rights of the individual can be ignored in favor of the greed served by our elected officials.

RICK BISSONNETTE on January 12, 2012

The greatest threat to our democracy is not from outside us, not the terrorists and from other nations, but from within. It will not be sudden but a gradual death that will come while we were either sleeping or applauding.

Richard J Bissonnette on January 12, 2012

The greatest threat to our democracy is not from terrorists or other nations, but from within. And it won't be sudden, but a gradual death while were were either sleeping or applauding.

Luis Lozano on January 12, 2012

Why not just make it illegal to contribute money from a corporate treasury over a certain amount directly or indirectly to a candidate for elected office.

Nick Hardy on January 12, 2012

We need public accountability in our government, it needs to be out in the open, not hidden and secretive. If we as citizens are to believe our governemnt, then it needs to be open and transparent. NOW.

Barbara Spratt on January 12, 2012

I believe that campaigns should be funded by citizens and not corporations or banks or unions or any other for profit organization. I know that would solve the corruption within the system.

rellimed on January 13, 2012

First, let me applaud the work done at I have been a member for the past few years. I scanned the comments above and downloaded the proposed legislation to my kindle for further review. I scanned over the legislation and I certainly applaud the efforts to draft legislation that would seem to through 'apparent' transparency allow the electorate to as one comment mentions 'avoid spending their money at corporation X'. Not what you do if the violating entity is some professional organization, like let's say some (and please do not take this to mean that I think this is the case) some doctor's professional organization. Do we all stop going to the doctor? Any organized group can give this money. Granted not all of them are nefarious, but how do we determine and weed out just the nefarious donations? And who gets to determine which donations are nefarious and which aren't? Unfortunately, I think the entities with the amounts of money in play are way ahead of this game already. Even with electioneering transparency the media is not always what it seems to be. Through the magic of 24 hour news "reporters" (editorial commentators) from which the vast majority of the electorate gets their political views, transparency won't mean anything as they supposedly are just reporting the "news". On top of that, I can see so many ways entities with power and money can indirectly move money to political organizations that even full disclosure by the receiving organizations would not tell anyone the full story.
From the comments above, the closest any of the ideas can come to controlling this beast is publicly financed elections. Then you have the problem of who, how many and how much of the public money does each candidate get? Is there a limit to the number of candidates? Is it first come first serve? If the money is not divided equally, then the one that gets the most money has a distinct advantage over any of the other candidates.

I truly do want to remove money from the electoral process as I am not sure transparency is enough. I am just not sure the electorate is ready. I wish it was.

In spite of my negativity, I think this legislation might move the pointer in the right direction. I certainly hope so for all our sakes.

James Salsman on January 13, 2012

I respectfully refrain to participate in or support this effort, because I believe it detracts from the need to amend the Constitution to institute public campaign finance. Any measures short of that, including disclosure requirements, will not solve the underlying issue which has been plaguing US politics for generations, including during times of much stronger disclosure regulations.

There is a spreadsheet of the several constitutional amendment proposals at and I believe Professor Lessig's is the best of the bunch.

Mike Carolus on January 13, 2012

Money is not equally distributed and has no place in politics. The people who run for elective office are to serve people not their corporate sponsors.

Elaine Donovan on January 13, 2012

SuperPac disclosure and all that it entails is a necessary if we are to remain a democracy that is recognizable. Otherwise, graft and corruption will continue to rule our politics. The Presidency, Congress and the Senate will be peopled by those that are the most easily bought. Shame on us if we do not do everything in our power to make SuperPacs accountable.

Henry E. Matson, Jr. on January 13, 2012

This is Illegal Laws created by the United States Supreme Court-they are Fascist Nazis and they need to be IMPEACHED, CONVICTED and IMPRISONED for the REST OF THEIR LIVES and a DAY.

sharon resnick on January 13, 2012

I agree with most of the suggestions-how to deal with the congress, the parties and the supremes is beyond what I think is possible. Until we get more unbiased members on the supreme court-we are stuck with their horrific policies.

Martin A. Dyckman on January 13, 2012

America needs to undo not just Citizens United but also the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo that gave a sinister new meaning to the phrase "money talks." The Sanders-Deutch amendment is an excellent tool for achieving both ends, but it will take years to enact it. Instant, realistic disclosure as proposed in your bill is essential if American democracy is to survive the ravages created by the Supreme Court

frank belcastro on January 13, 2012

Our politicians are bought. Everyone knows it. Conservatives know it just as much as liberals do. And libertarians have probably known it all along. The Democrats are bought and the Republicans even more so. They don't represent us. They represent their donors. We have taxation without representation. Our democracy is in serious trouble.

We must regain our ability to make a difference, to have our votes count. Right now, corporate interests and special interests dominate our politics because they can spend unlimited money.

So, how can we change that? But we have to concentrate all of our resources into one single attack -- making sure we take corporate money out of politics. There is one answer though. It is the one thing that is above Congress and the Supreme Court -- a constitutional amendment. We must pass an amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to spend money to buy our politicians.

Here is how we're going to do it. We must gather up an a fighting force. We need programmers and organizers and lawyers and leaders. We need this movement to be in all 50 states.

Unfortunately it appears that our Congress is completely infected with the virus. So proposing an amendment through Congress seems hopeless. But luckily there is another way. We can do this purely at the state level. The states can call for a constitutional convention and they can ratify an amendment that comes out of one. And there is nothing our corrupt federal government can do about it.

Dave Choquette on January 13, 2012


1.) BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT   2.) SINGLE PURPOSE BILLS ONLY (NO RIDERS) or at least OUTLAW EARMARKS COMPLETELY   3.) TAX REFORM SUCH AS THE FAIR TAX or something close to it.   4.) We are tired of the politicians getting rich off the public coffers, which seems to be typical of virtually every politician from Washington down to our local governments and the main reason WE NEED CAMPAIN REFORM (misspelled intentionally).        A) Make independent and corporate contributions what they are, BRIBERY, punishable as a felony to both the purchaser and the purchased with jail time.        B)  Although definately not the first choice subsidizeing elections is better than paying for their ties to their bribers, er I mean contributers. This is done by giving ALL candidates that run for office the same amount of “credits” to purchase tv, radio, or print. These “credits” will be bought back buy the gov. only from advertisers that allow fair and equal access to all candidates. Those that don’t are prosecuted for bribery. Obviously the lower level offices require lower funding levels for running (mayor or city council ), just as higher offices require more funding to campaign nationwide (president)       C) Candidates cannot use their own money to run, and must return any unused funds after election day, failure to do so is THEFT. If the “credits” don’t last till the end of the election tough, if they can’t balance that budget I sure don’t want them with their fingers in the cookie jar.        D) NO PAID POSITIONS in the campaign by the candidate or by any outside entity, volunteers only which will bring gov. back to the people. This will also keep any entity from influencing the campaign with indirect money.        E) These are the basic rules I’m sure a few extras will be needed, but not 1000 pages and very few if any exceptions. COMMON SENSE SHOULD RULE SUPREME 5.) GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE ORIGINAL 14 AMENDMENTS (I know this one is much harder to say than to do, but #3 will make this one step easier) Thank You for listening, please don't waste the opportunity,

PJ Washington on January 13, 2012

Bills are written and interpreted at the will of the person applying the express words of that bill, therefore to enact a bill with such strict scrutiny is only the "principle" of disclosure. The application of such bill; as is with all laws, once they become final, is the mountain America must climb.

John Stewart on January 13, 2012

The 5 idiots who signed the CU opinion failed to mention this:

Natural persons, and they alone, are entitled to the privileges and immunities which § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment secures for "citizens of the United States." [n22] Only the individual respondents may, therefore, maintain this suit.

Hague v CIO (1939) 307 U.S. 496

Alain Garceau on January 14, 2012

If transparency not present in every government departments it open the door to corruption and become very hard to fight. Just look at many corrupted countries and trying to clean the problem once corruption is present become almost impossible.

Contributions should be withdraw on workers and self-employed workers paycheck with employer match and money send in a fund for election campaigns and redistribute to the parties and both employees/employers would contribute to fund the campaigns. And any voluntary contribution should not be acceptable.

Doing this would create a few more government jobs for administrating the fund as well. It is a everyday job to keep our country corruption free !

Fred Bonnell on January 14, 2012

After reading through the first three sections of the proposed bill I do not think I can make any constructive suggestions.

Do I think highly motivated people will work diligently to find ways to circumvent the letter and intent of the bill? You bet.

I think a simpler approach is to work on removing the incentives for them to spend these vast sums of money on trying to influence, or buy, elected representatives.

Dale Patrick Patterson on January 14, 2012

Undisclosed contributions/payments is literally "BRIBES". No such monies should be anonymous OR of such size so-as-to make the receiver favor the contributors position based on the financial donation. Such payments must be disclosed, as to their origin and be limited to no more then $100.00 per term in office for a politician from each contributor.

Frank Arsenault on January 15, 2012

These amendments or something very much like them are necessary if we are to preserve democracy in this country. Why should the people in other countries with plutocratic (Russia) or autocratic (Syria) governments listen to us when we are willing to sell our government to the highest bidder, anonymous bidders at that.

Noreen Mullin on January 15, 2012

I believe the entire area of campaign finances should be scrutinized and reformed. There should be a limited period for campaigns (8 weeks?), public airway or network contributed time for maybe 4 debates; and that's it. The amount of money spent on campaigns is obscene; in addition, it amounts to buying the presidency and /or other offices by the candidate with the biggest pocketbook! I am disgusted!

hugh jorgan on January 15, 2012

I think there should be a federal fund to be divided equally among all the vetted candidates and NO other monies allowed. You have to be a multi-millionaire or in bed with one to be a senator nowadays and it just should not be that way. I don't feel millionaires are familiar with or really care about my day to day needs nor understand how best to govern for and by me.

Gus Wynn on January 16, 2012

I oppose the very existence of SuperPACs because I don't believe there is basic fairness in elections or media.

If you need money to get your message out, something is wrong - if we are a representative democrcay, we need honest public servants - candidates with solutions and good ideas and thereby, we need money out of politics.

Our politicians and campaigns are compromised by the need to raise money to get on the ballot or compete. This is not so in many other countries. Also, why should the for-profit media be enriched every election? They too are non-responsive to the political views of the public and already do not serve the public interest. Profit incentives compound this problem.

William Owen-Miller on January 18, 2012

As it stands, citizens don't have the same access to our "democracy" that corporations do because we don't have the same purchasing power. Legislation and legislators should not be dictated and selected economically, but by consent of the majority. That would be democracy.

David Schultz, Professor, Hamline University, St P on January 20, 2012

In general, the ACT needs to provide for instant disclosure on all contributions to Super-PACs over a certain amount and it also requires the same for all expenditures over a certain amount. I think same contributions of $50 or so need not be disclosed at an instant but certainly amounts of $200 or more (to parallel current federal law for political contributions) is reasonable. The threshold might be lower but my point is that we want to encourage a system that promotes smaller political contributions. Moreover, some threshold for expenditure reporting is also needed so that Super-PACS do not use so much detail to obfuscate what they are doing. I also agree that lobbyists need to indicate who they are and contributions need to report their employer, occupation, and city. Finally, the Act must provide for enough registration and disclosure that citizens can obtain reasonable information who they are. Perhaps all of their commercials should have disclaimers from the head of their PACs stating (similar to McCain-Feingold) that they are the John Doe, head of the PAC, and they support or stand behind the message here.

David Schultz, Professor Hamline University St. Paul, MN

Avery Leinova on January 20, 2012

I think that all contributions should be disclosed, no matter what the amount. Also, the names of the contributors should be disclosed, as well. There should be a $2,500 cap on corporate contributions. That includes all subsidiaries. Ideally, all campaigns would be publicly funded, with no corporate contributions at all. But I doubt that we could get this to pass the House and the Senate. Super PACs should be dismantled by these requirements.

keith jarmin on January 20, 2012

I believe that the people have a right to know who is funding thier representatives during elections. the reason for this is so the people will know if thier representatives will support their interests if they get elected or reelected.

Theresa DeLeon on January 29, 2012

Let common sense, morality and fairness prevail if we still want a democracy, stop private money in campaigns- limit spending on campaigns. The current situation is a form of insanity, billions spent on TV ads that tear apart truth and reality while real citizens are united in suffering the results of the last 30 years of legal racketeering by an elite few. I have never understood while the elite will spend millions for campaigns, yet will not spend to improve communities. Can you imagine if the millions spent on political manipulation was spent to help communities and citizens?

Arlene Montemarano on February 16, 2012

Here is our dilemma: Of course any sane justice-minded person would support this effort. But what if all our election results are subject to manipulation through the use of secret electronic vote counting that no one can see or understand? If that is the case, unless we take the electronics out of it, our elections won't allow us to put good people into office. Without good people in office, we cannot change anything. They can do what they will with us.