It's Friday, and you know what that means (well, sometimes)...

A Colbert clip!

Over the last 20 years, as I have worked to reduce the influence of money in politics, I have often confronted opponents (from both major parties) who argued that the answer is more disclosure. “We should just make all the candidates and independent expenditure groups disclose their contributors so that the voters can see where the money is coming from,” they would say. They then argued against any restrictions on the amount of contributions or expenditures.

Below is a list of word clouds illustrating the contributions CO federal lawmakers have received from special interest groups/Political Action Committees (PACs) this election cycle. The lawmakers are as follows: Mike Coffman (Republican, CD 6), Dianna DeGette (Democrat, CD 1), Cory Gardner (Republican, CD 4), Doug Lamborn (Republican, CD 5), Ed Perlmutter (Democrat, CD 7), Scott Tipton (Republican, CD 3), Michael Bennet (Democrat, Senator), Mark Udall (Democrat, Senator). This information was retrieved from OpenSecrets.org. To see the list of contributions, including the amounts, please click on the image.

In the same way that you vote for American Idol or give to The Red Cross or other nonprofits, you can now contribute to the Obama campaign via text. The new program had to go through a few hoops with the Federal Election Commission to be sure it followed campaign finance laws. Now that it has been approved though, it allows for an easy way for every American to contribute to campaigns. It’s a great way to increase grassroots support.

 Via data compiled by the Center For Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets website, what follows here is part two of a list of some of the country's longtime big political spenders who are pouring on the PAC contributions in 2012 to political candidates and parties. (A list of the groups and companies making the biggest independent expenditures over the last twenty years can be found here.)

These corporations and groups have historically hedged their bets for special treatment by spreading their money around.  All have spent nearly $1 million or more in PAC contributions already to candidates in both parties this year.

The outcomes of local and state elections can often have a surprising impact on national politics. In a crucial swing state like Colorado, the effects local elections have on the national discourse can be powerful indeed.

So with that in mind, and the general election nearly upon us, it may be a good time to start looking at what groups are not only in competition for favors from Colorado state government, but could conceivably end up making an imprint on a regional or even national stage. Here’s a breakdown of the hot House races where these PACs and political issue committees are putting their money, the most active PACs and political groups, and the most “bi-partisan” PAC that’s sending to checks to politicians on both sides of the aisle.  We’ll start with information from the latest reports with the Secretary of State.

Corporate shareholders do not have equal rights under the law. Yes, when it comes to having an equal voice in how their money is spent, corporate shareholders do not have the same freedoms as union members.

There's a powerful argument that what American political parties really represent are different wings of American industry. The focus of the parties-in-power isn't to legislate for voters, but to continue to make things easier for their "investors."

“The fundamental market for political parties usually is not voters,” writes Thomas Ferguson in his essential study, Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competitions and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. Rather,

The real market…is defined by major investors, who generally have good and clear reasons for investing to control the state…Blocs of major investors define the core of political parties and are responsible for most of the signals the party send to the electorate.

Some businesses, however, are intent on making sure that regardless of who is running, the pols stay "invested."

What if a foreign corporation or business person wanted to hand-pick the U.S. president? There’s probably a lot in it for them: more money, more business, maybe less trade regulation. Thanks to our new campaign finance system, that scenario may no longer be the imaginings of some conspiracy theorist.

The tidal wave of money that's crashed into our elections has officially broken into the mainstream - Time's cover story for the week of Monday August 13 is titled, "How to Buy the White House." According to a follow up blog by Time writer Michael Scherer, "the little guy is no longer king."

But it's a lot worse than that.