There has been much handwringing recently about super PACs and their potential to doom the American political system. As the argument goes, super PACs mean that corporations or wealthy individuals can make unlimited contributions to groups that are thinly-veiled surrogates for candidates, so candidates can stay positive while the PACs function as attack dogs. Trouble is, this argument isn't true.

On Feb. 15, Leslie Moonves, the brilliant CEO of CBS, gave a piece of good news to investors — there would be an addition to the bottom line in 2012 of about $190 million, thanks to huge spending on political commercials coming into the network and its owned and operated...

We needreal reform of the regulatory process, including replacement of the hapless FEC with a meaningful agency that can actually faithfully execute the laws as enacted.

The tension between Congress and the president is palpable, and nowhere is that more true than in the controversy over recess appointments.

What I find most fascinating about the debate over corporate personhood is the fact that the people who defend corporate personhood don't anthropomorphize big business nearly as much as those who oppose it.

When a divided Supreme Court issued its highly controversial Citizens United decision allowing corporations free rein to use their dollars to intervene in elections, there was one seemingly shining light, an area where broad consensus existed and that was endorsed by eight of the nine justices: the value of disclosure.

If it weren't for the FEC's limitations on fundraising, Obama would be delighted to stay on the sidelines because his whole reelection strategy requires going on semi-hiatus from the presidency.

Jan. 21 is an auspicious day, for two reasons. It is the date of the South Carolina primary, and it is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.