Let us first make a quick detour to provide some more background. To learn more about the corporatocracy, readers can start with my own brief DKos article (here: http://www.dailykos.com/...), or check out some of these references:

**Confessions of an Economic Hitman – John Perkins, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2004

**Capitalism: A Love Story – directed by Micheal Moore (2009)

**Corporatocracy – John Sloan (a generally well-written Dkos diary in six parts) http://www.dailykos.com/...

**Corporatocracy as Democracy - http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/...

**Special Comment by Keith Olbermann, Jan. 21, 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/...

**American Corporatocracy – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/...

Many other resources are available on the web for interested readers who want to dig deeper.

Since so much of the power of the corporate and wealthy interests lies in their ability to manipulate elections and purchase the legislators friendly to their goals, the obvious place to start in reducing the strength of the corporatocracy is with laws governing the giving of money to law-makers. I have heard of two realistic, workable mechanisms that could help restore the power or democracy over the corporatocracy: 1) allow only registered voters to donate money to seekers of public office, and 2) outlaw any private donations to seekers of public office and make all elections publicly funded.

Changing campaign finance laws to allow only registered voters to donate to seekers of public office would nullify some of the power of the corporatocracy because corporations can not register to vote, and would therefore be prohibited from giving money to law-makers and office-seekers. A draft of a proposed “Citizens Election Amendment” has been put forth, so you can see what such a law might look like (here: http://www.prwatch.org/...)

The other solution is more more radical and far-reaching. That solution is to outlaw ALL private donations to politicians and law-makers, and make ALL elections publicly funded (paid for by the tax-payers). When I say ALL private donations, I mean all donations to politicians: from individuals, organizations, non-profits, corporations, unions, interest groups, political parties, the whole lot. And when I say ALL politicians, I mean everyone running for a public office, at the national level, the state level, and perhaps even at the county level. And I mean ALL seekers of public office, including judges (over 2/3 of states appoint judges by popular ballot, thereby requiring those who would be judge to engage in the same inherently corrupting activity of soliciting brides – sorry, I mean donations – from interested parties). The prohibition against all private donations should be coupled with a public financing of political races: the money for political races would come from the tax-payers through the government itself.

The big plus for the public financing of political races is that the politicians would no longer depend on the corporations and wealthy donors for their jobs as law-makers. Law-makers would then be free of the need to cater to the corporate and wealthy interests and would be free to vote on legislation according to the dictates of their conscience and the merits of the legislation.

The idea of public funding for elections is not a new idea. Theodore Roosevelt was a champion of this idea back in the 1890s. Many countries in South America and Europe pay the cost of their political campaigns through public funds. This financing can take the form of direct payments made to politicians, or giving matching funds to certain types of private donations, or by reduced fees for certain political services, like postage rates or fees for TV or radio ads. Supporters say that giving money to politician is inherently corrupting, and the public financing of political campaigns reduces corruption and promotes civic participation and increases public faith in governance.

Though you rarely hear about it in the news or on TV, there is a fairly widespread network here in the US of civic groups working to promote the public financing of political campaigns. Many US states have passed public financing of campaign laws, including Maine, Vermont, Arizona, N. Carolina, New Mexico, and New Jersey. Other states are currently considering legislation. Interested readers can read more here:

Public Campaign: http://www.publicampaign.org/

Common Cause; http://www.commoncause.org/...

Judicial Elections: http://www.lwvohio.org/...

Washington Public Campaigns: http://www.washclean.org/

Interestingly, the GOP-controlled House recently voted to eliminate public financing of presidential campaigns, saying the program was a needless, wasteful expense (link: http://www.reuters.com/...)

In examining these suggested changes to the financing of political campaigns, a couple of important points need to be considered:

1)The SCOTUS has ruled (repeatedly, I believe) that the giving of money to politicians is protected as free speech under the constitution. So this is a high hurdle before either of the above suggestions can be put in place. While I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, I will say that a) a variety of laws currently exist that restrict the giving of money to politicians, and these are not considered unconstitutional; b) I myself can find no reference to protecting the act of giving money to politicians in the first amendment to the constitution; and c) the SCOTUS has been wrong before, notably with the Dred Scott and the Plesay v. Ferguson cases

2) Repressive authoritarian governments control opposition to their rule in part by prohibiting the giving of money to opposing politicians. So any such changes in campaign finance laws must be made with consideration of this kind of abuse and need to be carefully implemented to maximize political participation of the citizenry, not restrict it

3) In order for the public financing of political campaigns to work well, there must be a mechanism in place to prevent individuals or groups from launching a political campaign solely for the purpose of receiving “free” money from the government. Most public funding of campaign laws have a mechanism requiring candidates to prove their viability as candidates before funds are given to them.

4) Conservatives routinely criticize the public financing of political campaigns because they fear that such a plan would raise taxes. Libertarians will tell you that government should not subsidize or regulate political campaigns and campaign financing. Of course, the cost on continuing the status quo is also high and perhaps higher, with tax-payer money going to corporations in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. While it is possible that public financing of elections will mean greater taxes, it is equally possible the public financing of elections will result in reduced costs of government, and lower taxes.

Many people will tell you such reforms can not be made. They say such campaign reform laws will be opposed by the corporatocracy and the legislators themselves. They say the Supreme Court will strike down any such reforms. And they are probably right that the corporatocracy will oppose such reforms, and will use both the legislators and the Supreme Court to prevent a fair reform of campaign finance laws. Does this mean we should do nothing? Of course not. We need to make the effort, and after each defeat we need to get up and try again. The effort to create public financing of political campaigns will not be quick or easy. It will take a concerted public effort to force this kind of reform. It will require the efforts of as many citizens as we can muster. After all, if there was an easy fix to this problem, it would have been resolved long ago.

We the people have a couple of weapons the corporatocracy does not have. We have the power of the ballot, and we control to a large degree corporate profits. We have more votes than does the corporatocracy, so by working together, we can beat the corporatocracy at the voting booth. We also can control how and what we spend our money on, and can exert a great deal of control over the corporatocracy by attacking their profits. I suggest we start doing so. Every purchase decision we make can either help or hinder the corporatocracy. Ask yourself: do I need to buy this today? Is there a local merchant I can use instead? Can I put my money in a credit union instead of a too-big-to-fail bank? Can I use my credit union-issued credit card instead of the credit card from the bank that got bailed out for collapsing the economy? Can I consolidate my trips to buy less gas? Simple things that we do everyday can create a big impact on the corporatocracy, both for better and for worse.

In part, I am writing this post to hear your ideas. I invite you to let me know what you think about any of these ideas to restore our democracy. Perhaps you have other better ideas, and if so, I would like to hear them. This post is a way to get a conversation going, so let's start talking.

President Lincoln reminded us that many Americans gave “the last full measure” for our liberties. And that those Americans who died did so so that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Lincoln reminded us that we the living should dedicate ourselves to the unfinished work of those who died to promote those liberties.

Who are you voting for in 2012, Exxon/Halliburton or General Electric/Bank of America?

