There will be no end to corporate control of Congress until contributions to candidates and elected officials have effective legislation that limits those dollars and strong regulation to implement those rules.

So far, it hasn't really happened because the elected denizens on Capitol Hill refuse to cooperate, preferring to continue accepting the big bucks from their wealthy corporate controllers rather than whatever small change regular American constituents can offer.

Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation writes in the Washington Post about an attempt to keep members of Congress answerable to the majority of their constituents---regular Americans---not just the filthy rich few including corporations and Wall Street that get filthier and more corrupt and unfairly richer and cause the rest of the people living in this country to struggle.

".....the biggest political scandal is the one that aids and abets these others -- the pay-to-play system that buys up Congress, pollutes our political system with special-interest cash and deep-sixes the kind of bold reform agenda that we voted for and need.

"....Is it any wonder that there was no public option in the final bill, or that Medicare isn't able to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors the same way the Veterans Administration does for veterans?

"Big banks and Wall Street financial firms spent more than $500 million since the beginning of 2009 on lobbying and campaign contributions, the center reports. In just the first quarter of 2010, the finance, insurance and real estate sectors spent more than $123 million on 2,057 lobbyists. Any bets on whether the final financial reform bill will create the kind of robust, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would serve as a watchdog with teeth?

"Big oil and gas spent nearly $170 million lobbying in 2009 -- nearly $1 billion in the past 12 years -- and has given more than $140 million to members of Congress in the past 20 years. Is it any surprise that we've seen so many exemptions from environmental studies for oil-exploration plans? Or that the climate bill is stalled and insufficient to confront the global warming crisis?

"....In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision -- which awarded corporations the rights of citizens when it comes to electioneering, allowing them to use their coffers to manipulate political discourse -- the prospect of a Congress "brought to you by (insert corporate sponsor here)" has only grown.

"Americans must fight back with legislation that will help organized people defeat organized money. I'm not speaking of the Disclose Act -- a good response to Citizens United that would make corporate campaign funding more transparent. Democratic leaders must recognize that such efforts are mere triage and fail to get to the heart of the money problem in Washington. Congress should also pass the Fair Elections Now Act.

"This legislation would sever ties between big-money campaign contributors and members of Congress, who, in the Senate, must raise an average of $27,000 every week they are in office in order to run competitive races. The bill would bar participating congressional candidates from accepting contributions larger than $100 and allow them to run honest campaigns with a blend of small donations and public matching funds." (Bold added.)

"Sponsored by Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the bill has 18 Senate co-sponsors (12 of whom signed on since the Citizens United decision) and 149 bipartisan cosponsors in the House. Activists are hopeful there will be a House vote as soon as this summer, and Durbin reportedly will push for the Senate to take it up after the House does." (Bold added.)

Please note the word participating in the vanden Heuvel piece.  That means the proposed legislation is already unfair.  It would be a two-tiered system: those still taking the big bucks and those participants struggling to get enough $100 contributions to stay visible and viable.   No contest; a no brainer.  Big money wins.  (Ever wonder why mostly millionaires sit in the Senate and House or mostly millionaires can afford to run for those offices?)

Real Democratic challengers (who aren't millionaires) wouldn't stand a chance unseating the GOP or those phony Dems currently warming the seats.  It does not level the playing field.

Then we come to one of the sponsors, Dick Durbin.  He hasn't met a loophole he can't embrace, like the one above...participating, indeed.   Durbin has also shown that he's not a very effective Senate Majority Whip.

Durbin doesn't even act like the Democrat he claims to be.  He's the same guy who said "bleeding heart liberals" should be open to cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and supports proposed legislation that would require workers to carry national biometric ID's.

This legislation, already containing a gaping loophole and sponsored by a bumbling whip, would be just like all the prior diluted, compromised bills passed by this so-called Democratic majority Senate and House, scamming the people, again, by offering them busy getting dizzy motion to confuse them into thinking it's real action.