“Stop whining about the power of money in politics and concentrate on the power of ideas.”

That strikes me as pretty naive.

It’s one thing for a Rockefeller or Forbes to spend their own money to get elected. Obviously we’ve got recent and distant examples of how that didn’t work in California. Here’s the difference. Their spending was, by law, completely transparent. Some would argue that trying to “buy” your own election can be counter-productive in that many voters rebel against that. So, there is a check and balance of sorts. Not so if XYZ corp., or a group or corps with a common interest in electing or defeating a particular candidate for office decides to anonymously spend vast sums to drown out all other political advertising in a TV market. Another difference is that candidates spending their own money on their own behalf is just them trying to get elected. There’s no quid pro quo involved. In contrast, a corporation anonymously spending big bucks to elect somebody who will do their bidding or defeat somebody who won’t is corruption.

“if you don’t like it, get the law changed.”

Agreed. That’s the point! In the meantime, I think it’s a very wholesome thing for CAPS to shine a spotlight on the good and bad actors in the corporate world. I don’t see why anybody would think it a bad thing.

Under existing law, all any entity has to do is form a 501(c)(3)corporation and none of its contributions must be reported.

If you don’t like it, get the law changed.

“The only stakeholders here are the shareholders.”

Seriously? My measly $200 contribution to some Congressional candidate goes up on the SEC website, but XYZ Corp. should be able to anonymously spend a gazillion bucks to support or defeat a candidate under some benign name like “Committee for a Better America?” The general electorate doesn’t have a stake in knowing that XYZ Corp. is paying for all those TV spots that are dominating the airwaves in a particular campaign?

Yes, we need transparency whether it’s unions or corporations. I mentioned unions in the third line of my first paragraph in #2 comments. However, unions rarely seek to conceal who they are backing. In fact, they are normally pretty open about it, as they try to get concessions in return for their public endorsement and then try to mobilize their members to get behind the chosen candidate.

“The only stakeholders here are the shareholders.”

Seriously? If XYZ Corp. anonymously spends a kazillion to support or defeat a candidate for mayor of some city under some benign name like “Citizens for Jobs,” the general public and electorate is not a stakeholder in knowing this?

The only stakeholders here are the shareholders. It’s my money they’re playing with and I’d like to know how it’s being spent.