We have a short time in which to pass measures limiting the impact of the SCOTUS decision.

[clear eye]

Once the members of Congress and the state legislators who have been the benefactors of the corporate largesse are seated it will be all over.

There are two points we can still affect if we act quickly.

=>One is to make sure that our states have provisions expanding on what's in McCain-Feingold at the federal level requiring that all ads about candidates for election contain visible and audible full disclosures of their funding sources. Full disclosure means not only the group or coalition name, (such as "Americans for America") but all the contributors to the creation and running of the ad.

=>The second and most important, is to work at both the federal and state levels to pass voluntary public financing of campaigns, similar to what is available in Presidential campaigns. There is a bill to do that for Congressional races which Sen. Durbin has been introducing for years but which has gotten little interest until now. We must resurrect it. It is called the Fair Elections Now Act or FENA, for short and has a parallel bill in the House. The website of the coalition of over 38 NGOs supporting it is here. They also accept membership by individuals, and provide suggestions for useful activities to support the effort.

Most states have PIRGs which have been trying for years to get programs at the state level. I know that NYS also has a group called Citizen Action of NY that has recently gotten Gov. Patterson's support for the measure there.

Here's the group from Iowa: www.iowacan.org/campaigns/campaign-finance-reform/

It would be great to see replies on this thread w/ info about groups in the other states, and the experience Maine has had w/ its system.

[AlinPA]

1. "Once the members of Congress and the..... are seated it will be all over."

Exactly right.

Although after 4 years republicans would kill all legislation related to campaigns.

[clear eye]

2. Maybe, maybe not. We've got to get cracking. n/t

[hansont]

3. Someone unrec'd this????? Not once but multiple times?

[clear eye]

4. I noticed that on the first thread this morning that reported on the ruling.

I think we've got Freepers who think that the ruling somehow protects "freedom". My feeling is that an unrec on these threads should be cause for immediate tombstoning as it is a clear opposition to a Democratic and/or progressive agenda, which is a qualification of membership in DU. Or at least a sign that the mods need to watch the unreccer real closely. JMO.

[rusty_rebar]

6. So you are saying...

...that if someone disagrees with you, they should be banned from the forums?

Who is being undemocratic now?

[Wilms]

7. No. She said she abhors specious arguments given the seriousness of the subject.

I don't like specious arguments either.

[glinda]

5. I recommended. K&R