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.

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.

The digital revolution is opening the doors for greater citizen participation in political events and government should create incentives to engage and expand the role of small donors.

Will we recover, unbridle ourselves of debt, innovate, pay for our national security? Or, is China fated to become number one, leaving us to live in a Chinese world?

The idea that corporations are the equivalent of people leads directly to the next step: direct contributions to candidates from corporate coffers, not just unlimited expenditures to influence campaigns.

President Obama and his spokesmen on the campaign trail are charging that the Chamber of Commerce is smuggling foreign money into the campaign, just as they attacked the Supreme Court for ruling that corporations and unions have First Amendment speech rights in January.

Campaign finance reform legislation has served to protect incumbents.

How should we reform campaign financing, and can the Democrats gain enough seats for a "filibuster-proof" Senate?