[pacemkr]

Nicely summarized and a valid question.

From what I gather, direct campaign contributions and the way corporations are funneling money into elections are not connected. Corporations are NOT making direct contributions to campaigns. They are making indirect and anonymous contributions to superpacs.

We don't need to "make contributions illegal." Nor do we _need_ publicly financed campaigns. That would be very hard to get.

We can start by having superpacs disclose their donors. Or by setting a limit on individual, and by extension corporate, contribution to said superpacs.

The loophole is that you can't make a large contribution directly to a campaign, yet you can make a contribution of any size, anonymously, indirectly to the corresponding superpac. This is why money = voice.

In answer to your question: "Should the MPAA be disallowed to make a political commercial and pay for its broadcast?" They should be allowed to make a political statement by contributing to a superpac that runs the commercial, but the contribution should not be unlimited nor anonymous. In effect, they'll need other companies in the pool to get enough money for that commercial. Now we can say corporations are people, problem solved.

[yummyfajitas]

I think you are making the implicit assumption that some people should not have a greater voice than others. Is that correct?

If so, do you favor removing Paul Krugman or Glenn Beck's bully pulpit? If not, why not?

[pacemkr]

The implicit assumption is that you shouldn't have the legislator's ear because you have a fat check in hand. Chance are that the check will win over a petition.

If we are to have freedom of speech, then Beck should be able to have his show. That's the easy part.

Beck converts money into public opinion. Arguably, SuperPACs do the same. Hence the Citizens United decision. In practice, SuperPAC donors just tell the legislator why the check was written, or in which case it will be. Nothing wrong with the premise (free speech), plenty wrong with the outcome (money = voice, or rather money = ear?)

Now that I ran this circle, I can see how publicly financed campaigns might be the only answer. Thank you for asking a difficult question to answer. I'll definitely think about this more.

[yummyfajitas]

In practice, SuperPAC donors just tell the legislator why the check was written, or in which case it will be.

If it were not a check, but merely using influence, would things be better? I.e., if Krugman were to offer to endorse Romney only on the condition that Romney expands Obama/Romneycare, would that be acceptable?

Or how about if some rich person stated he would buy a newspaper and use the newspaper to push Romney?

[nextparadigms]

How about capping the donations? I really don't like how a few entities/persons can have such a dramatic impact on elections because of how much they donate to that politician.

The vote is equal in a democracy, but donations aren't, and in a way donations are like a parallel vote, which huge discrepancies between each donation. Obviously the politician will listen to his biggest donors first, even if 10,000 of his normal supporters want the opposite thing.

[pacemkr]

Direct contributions are capped at $5,000. SuperPAC contributions are not capped at all and are anonymous until well after the election. [wikipedia]