At least there's some good news as far as messaging goes. As you know, I hated the Citizens United ruling, and it appears that most of America feels the same way.

Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.

I like the idea that the country is understanding that our legislative branch can try to overcome this problem even though it's not an easy task to accomplish. I think outside of the partisan right, most Americans understand that when corporations have the ability to pump in or threaten to pump in gobs of money to influence the political process, it's a distortion of that process -- and it just plain smells.

If you want to see who the real corporatists are then wait until they are put to the test over the Citizen's United ruling. Conservatives have been trying to destroy any type of campaign finance reforms and what this ruling means is that corporations will be allowed to blackmail any candidate just by threatening to spend gobs of money against them if they vote the wrong way.

Alan Grayson's petition says it all.

At any moment, the Supreme Court will announce whether it will allow corporations to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns.

Sign my petition to the Supreme Court now, and tell them to keep unlimited corporate spending out of our federal elections. PETITION TEXT

Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable.

This issue transcends partisan political arguments. We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. You must stop this.

Click here to sign.

I just love Alan Grayson - and I especially love the names for his proposed bills, and I can't wait to hear why the Republicans won't support them:

Anticipating a Supreme Court decision that could free corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced five bills on Wednesday to choke off the expected flood of corporate cash.

"We are facing a potential threat to our democracy," Grayson said in an interview with HuffPost. "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable."

At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether the government can limit corporate spending during presidential and congressional campaigns. The case is pitting Citizens United, a conservative group, against the Federal Election Commission. The FEC banned ads for Citizens United's film bashing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season.

Grayson introduced a handful of bills on Wednesday -- the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (107)

PLAYS: (510)

Eric Burns from the invaluable Media Matters weighs in on Antia Dunn's statement on Reliable Sources that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party. Burns warns that they are even more dangerous and powerful than that and I agree with him.

O'DONNELL: Joining us now is Eric Burns, president of Media Matters for America, a not-for-profit group that monitors conservative misinformation in the media. Welcome.

BURNS: Thank you.

O'DONNELL: Why has the White House finally come out and stated the obvious, that the Fox News Channel is opinion journalism masquerading as news?

BURNS: Look, Anita Dunn has it exactly right with her description of Fox News. I said as much on this program just two weeks ago. But I take it a step further, Lawrence. I think that what we have all thought of as a conservative news organization has really morphed itself this year into a 24/7 political operation with a very specific goal. And that is to destroy this presidency, and destroy any sort of progressive policy agenda that the American people voted for in November.

That's their goal. They have set it. You saw it at the top of the clip. And I think that that's what we are dealing with. And so Anita Dunn is absolutely right to call them out for that.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 234

PLAYS: 7

(Need you ask?)

Every so often I will run across some talk show from the past that points out just how naive we all were as a country, many years ago.

On October 5, 1958 the Open Mind program hosted a discussion on the future of television in politics and how advertising could possibly be used to make or break a candidate or issue. Fifty years ago, remember?

Bear in mind, TV wasn't as all-encompassing as it is today. Stations routinely went off the air at midnight. Color was new. Video tape was new. Most homes had TV's that were, at the most 17" and usually encased in a massive console. There were virtually no live on-the-spot reports and there were lots and lots of talking heads.

So, when Open Mind brought on Professor Eric Goldman (author of the book "Rendezvous With Destiny"), John Elliot Jr. from the BBD&O Ad Agency and Lloyd Whiteburke, an advertising consultant. The conversation about the possibilities that Television could influence a political campaign were very real.

Lloyd Whiteburke: “There’s no FTC, no Federal Trade Commission in political advertising. If a product is falsely advertised, as you all know, the Federal Trade Commission will seek an injunction against the advertiser and have that advertising changed and penalize the advertiser. The only person penalized for buying a candidate who is not what he represents himself for is the voter. And he’s got four years to wait to throw him out, throw out this candidate. So it imposes a tremendous sense of responsibility on the advertising fraternity to make darn sure that something isn’t done, that isn’t correct for which the FTC does not have call. And that’s why some of the practitioners do, in the course of their work, say things and do things that are perhaps not exactly right. And we have to watch that and we have to police our own . . . “

Television was still in its infancy. The 1952 Presidential campaign, being the first to utilize Television in a prominent way, was recent history. The Kennedy-Nixon debates were still two years off and cable was only an idea.

I don't think anyone could have imagined what it would all become.