It's typical how the Left claims the words "CONGRESS shall make NO law.. Abridging the freedom of SPEECH or the PRESS" makes unconstitutional local ordinances outlawing CORPORATE owned strip clubs which has nothing to do with CONGRESS, SPEECH or PRESS. However, the Left wants congress to make laws to abridge freedom of political speech and the press by limiting individual contributions to $100.

When the left mostly controls elementary and high school textbooks, universities, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times, major motion picture studios, etc, it’s understandable why they want to protect the speech of those corporations, but want to abridge the speech of individuals and other corporations.

As long as we have laws that require the i.d. of donors, candidates can use this to their advantage. "My opponent’s commercials are paid for by Chevron" In CA, commercials for propositions are required to identify the donors in detail.

I'm not sure how Change Congress is going to acheive its goals considering the Supreme Court rulling today: "By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666).

As Jerry said, it came down to first amendment rights. I doubt this Change Congress group's proposal is constitutional.

I do, however, have a problem with applying the rights of the American people to corporations as individuals. Each individual person within a corporation has a vote and the ability to give.

The conclusion of the video is that congress should enact a law limiting campaign contributions to $100. I don't support violating the first amendment that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW... ABRIDGING THE THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH OR THE PRESS. Recent elections have demonstrated that using the internet large amounts can be raised with small contributions.

The Democrats failed on Obama's campaign promise to change the way Washinton works with the leadership cutting back room deals and demanding scheduling a vote on the "stimulus" package without time for it to be read. They broke Obama's campaign vow to televise healthcare proceedings and cut a $1 billion backroom deal with Senator Nelson in Harry Reid's madness to have federally funded abortions.

The Democrats need to open the doors to C-Span and work on incremental change people can agree on rather than use the economic crisis to jam though a leftist agenda or creating a global warming crisis to jam though environmental extremism.

Winds of change? What, a return to the kinds of policies that Bush left as his "legacy"?

The only way this country will ever truly change for the better is when we dump BOTH of these corrupt political parties. As long as we keep swapping them back and forth every so often, we will never see the kind of change we need.

(I voted for Cynthia McKinney for president in the last election because, of all the presidential candidates on the ballot in my state, she came the closest representing the interests of all people in this country.)