Campaign finance reform. I have never given money to a political campaign as a single contributor. I have always contributed in response to specific issue or as a member of a specific institution. In the first case, I would agree that money constitutes a form of speech. I was paying to support an issue. It was my commentary on how much that meant to me, my contribution. It was an enhancement, if you will, to my stated opinion. In the seventies I worked for the AFLCIO as a union welder. During the 1974 political campaign (Nixon had resigned you’ll remember) I contributed through my union. Everything was voluntary according to my Union buddies and I had no problem contributing but I knew that THEY knew whether and possibly how much I had contributed. I was just an 18 year old and it wasn’t much money but it was an interesting relationship. My political contribution was thrown in with that of every other union member and through our pooled cash kitty the Union projected its national clout. This was not political speech. My money was kind of like the text for a bigger speech being delivered by a Union which had its own agenda which certainly intersected with my political aspirations in some places but was also at odds in other places. For instance, take a look at the seniority rule in hiring and firing. This clearly did not favor me at all. Later that year I was laid off as one of the first in the first wave of layoffs from my company. I never returned and my union membership was hardly a measure of job security for me. If money was speech, it was an insult I was delivering to myself. (READ MORE)

It has been illegal for corporations to donate directly to a political campaign since 1907, when Teddy Roosevelt pushed for that era’s big campaign finance overhaul. And even in the last forty years we’ve seen one new version of this reform attempted after another, as politicians have found ways to circumvent the old laws.

We’re nearing the end of the campaign trail for candidates seeking to win over voters in this November’s upcoming mid-term elections.  Takeaway Washington correspondent Todd Zwillich and Mike Shear, chief political reporter for the Caucus Blog at our partner The New York Times, are joining us every Tuesday to give us updates on what the candidates are up to on the trail.

The Senate will vote today on the DISCLOSE Act, a bill already approved by the House, that would require corporations to disclose their spending on federal political campaigns and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. The bill is being seen as the Democrats' answer to the Supreme Courts's ruling on the Citizens United case, which allowed big corporations, domestic and foreign, to spend unlimited amounts of money on American elections.

The Supreme Court's landmark opinion last week may have lasting effects on how politics are conducted in the future, especially when foreign money comes into the picture. The decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission says that corporations have the same rights as individuals under the First Amendment, and can spend unlimited amounts of money on political commercials.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court effectively overturned The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the campaign finance reform passed in 2002.  Senators John Mcain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) designed the law to limit the influence of big business and labor unions on elections.