The ability of Newt to stay in the race in SC confounded me, and appeared to be directly due to the Adelson contribution. In what way was this not a game-changer compared to past elections?

This is what I could not comprehend when Eliot Spitzer was discussing it last week. Only the interjection of the SC in the appointment of the shrub topped it, in my book. Unless I misunderstood, E was saying that it is not new, only newly "visible".

Saving Our Democracy from Plutocracy

Much of the initial angst over the Supreme Court's Citizens United Ruling was dismissed as hyperbole, most notably by Justice Alito during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. But the resulting threat posed by corporate and foreign interference in our political system is proving real with hundreds of millions spent by a toxic combination of undisclosed uber-rich, greedy international corporations, and perhaps even foreign governments. The court's majority was clearly wrong for erasing the limited checks on special interest political speech. The conservative Justices acted as if these monoliths of political power were somehow underrepresented victims, any limit upon them equivalent to full censure of an individual's right to free speech. That was the idealistic rationale behind their decision and it is perfectly sound if applied in a vacuum. But this reasoning has not survived first contact with reality.

With this ruling, the court wiped away the country's common wisdom held since President Theodore Roosevelt whilst completely ignoring the equity-swallowing whale in the room. Addressed nowhere in the majority opinion was the unique ability of these entities to drown out individuals' free speech or bury plain truth with unlimited and indomitable advertisement purchasing power. Yes, voters must, as Justice Kennedy put it, "...be free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes." Indeed, a constituent can fairly make up his or her own mind through critical thinking, but not under a media-barrage consisting of only a single point of view, the one most disproportionately well-funded side of the argument. Because of this ruling, corporations and PACs are now oddly to be treated as citizens with free speech rights equal to any. It follows then that our kids should not be protected, but deliberately exposed to Joe Camel's triumphant return as corporate sponsor of Sponge Bob Theater - with special guest, the Marlboro Man. There's nothing to fear; after all, it's just a harmless pro-tobacco point of view.

Political views presented via attack ads are simultaneously the most abhorrent and most effective tactic of modern political warfare, and their numbers are growing exponentially as a direct result of this ruling. With dramatic style and sheen of authority or folksy authenticity, attack ads often impart the most blatant lies without engendering even a modicum of accountability. Sure, political wonks keep score with thoroughly-researched "pants on fire" truthiness ratings. But the greater voting public has neither the time nor the inclination to check the facts or attribute lies. Through sheer repetition and absence of counterargument, the subconscious adopts the mass-marketer's focus-group-tested version of reality. With no way to pay for the equivalent airtime to counter such attacks, the citizen politician will succumb to the special interests' hand-picked, pro-business ideologue. Any incumbent will know they too will suffer a similar fate if the corporate bidding isn't done, and so they will do it. Given the political power soon to be unashamedly purchased in this election, legislative opportunities to hold back our Nation's growing plutocracy will soon evaporate. Power may soon be concentrated and wielded by a relative handful of self-allegiant board chairmen and oil-pushing dictators. With the scales being so grossly tipped towards the rich, what, if anything, can be done?

While no solution is yet in the offing, this soon-to-be lame duck Congress could and should act to return our political discourse to a competition over who has the better ideas, not the most money. The best and simplest solution is to level the playing field by eliminating unanswerable attacks via a mandate of equal-time. Congress should enact a Federal law that injects and directs what is so unmistakably absent: debate. If the money corporations and other special interests spend on political airtime can't be limited, perhaps they can at least be made to share. If a conglomerate wants to support their store-bought candidate by buying ads to attack his opponent, is there not sweet, poetic justice in forcing the wealthy attacker to fund equal time for an immediate response? Corporations or political machines and their well-groomed candidates would still be free to buy unlimited airtime to slime their target with the most slanderous of accusations. But in so doing, they would be forced to cede the second half of the same ad for a rebuttal and last word by their opponent. Presto - debate! The wicked beast checked by its own teeth and claws. Under such rules, attack messages would only prove effective if the far-slung accusations could withstand an immediate and uninterrupted refutation or counterattack. There is no Unconstitutional FEC censorship in this; it’s the First Amendment on steroids. It would also be upheld, ironically, by the Citizens United ruling, fully realizing Justice Kennedy's all-sides-be-known vision. To make the Supreme Court's lemon into lemonade while our besieged democracy still has a fighting chance, this equal time solution is precisely what we need to push the US Congress and the President to pursue. In the meantime, please fulfill your civic duty by independently educating yourselves on the issues and candidates; then vote.

Chris, in Sunday's program you set up "white" as the opposite of Latino in the USA. It ain't so. Many Latinos are white (look at your guest!). I suggest you adopt the word "Anglo" for non-Latino Americans.

If Newt Gingrich is elected president maybe we can do like football stadiums and call it the "Sheldon Adelson" white house currently starring Newt Gingrich

Rep. Maloney said that when she was in Afghanistan she was told that the reason that the Taliban did not give up bin laden was because the Taliban did not believe the US would invade.

I cannot dispute that Rep Maloney was told that, or at least heard that. But anyone that knows anything about the Pashtun knows that is absolutely not true.

The Pashtun tribes/clans have an iron bound tradition that if you are their guest, they will protect you with their lives, if necessary, before they woulf hand a guest over to anyone.

It is unbelievable that over ten years into a war of choice in Afghanistan, we are still ignorant of who the Afghans are.