With the election year approaching, casual chat frequently veers into the lane of political discussion, and there is a common Rolodex of topics to which most of us adhere. Granted are the usual topics of healthcare, taxes and social issues; but elections seem to open up more process-oriented discourse. And, importantly, how the election process is funded.

Though it seems that even in a system increasingly subject to the monetary tide that moves it, fewer and fewer Americans are engaged with, or even aware of, exactly who (or what) is behind that funding.

Enter Stephen Colbert and Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Voted into existence 5-to-1 by the FEC, Colbert is now the founder of a Super PAC. He is legally able to raise as much cash as he can and spend it however he chooses, without disclosing a thing.

PACs, or Political Action Committees, are created and funded (predominantly) by corporations in order to provide a means through which they can legally make contributions to individuals seeking political office. Exploratory campaigns are almost always funded by PACs, and there is no limit to how much a PAC can spend.

Congressman Barney Frank said of PACs: “Elected officials are the only human beings in the world who are supposed to take large sums of money on a regular basis from absolute strangers without it having any effect on their behavior.” Clearly, there’s a problem with that, and it’s getting worse.

The problem is not that PACs exist, or that corporations fund them. In a country where corporations have the same rights as individuals, it’s not surprising that PACs form an important part of our political system. The problem is that it’s all a big secret.

Major lobbying groups (Big Tobacco, American Heart Association, etc.) are pretty straightforward with their agendas, but it’s not always so clear. And legally, PACs don’t have to tell us what their plans are or who’s behind them.

As recently as last year, congressional Democrats proposed the DISCLOSURE Act, which contained additional disclosure requirements for election donations as well as limited foreign involvement, but were unable to obtain the single Republican vote necessary for passage.

And of course the most current landmark Supreme Court failure, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, essentially repealed the McCain-Feingold Act, which regulates the financing of political campaigns and broadcast ads by limiting the use of funds not subject to federal limits.

The influence of powerful, well-financed Super PACs is clear, and that’s why Colbert’s cheeky experiment is so brilliant.

By making a joke of the joke that our campaign system has become, he’s sending a powerful message about this huge problem for the direction of our political process.

According to Mother Jones, 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of the country’s net worth, and if you’re a Congressman, your chances of being a millionaire are one in two.

All politicians run campaigns and all campaigns cost money. PACs have money and PACs have interests. It doesn’t take a Comedy Central host to come to the conclusion that serious campaign finance reform is necessary to restore any semblance of a democratic process.

It seems amazing to me that people are still so terrified of becoming a socialist state; in reality it seems much closer to an oligarchy.

We’re an occupied nation of corporations that are taking over our political system, and if we expect to be taken care of (the other 90 percent of us, that is) I’m afraid we can expect to be wrong.

Mia Tapella is a senior English and

political science major. She can be reached

at 581-7942 or [email protected].