Since SuperPACs were permitted to exist by the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which basically says that money equals speech, I believe that each and every political SuperPAC ad should have to begin the same way: with the portrait of Benjamin Franklin from the $100 bill saying (with either moving lips through computer graphics and a voiceover, or else with text written in a speech balloon): "Listen up, mother&%$#ers!" And then the screen graphic of the $100 bill would rise like a theater curtain, indicating the start of the play, and they can start the body of the actual commercial. (In all seriousness, he could say: "Money talks, and right now this is what it's saying..." Or else he could say: "Listen up, y'all!") And if the Democrats are truly opposed to this Supreme Court decision and its resultant SuperPAC ad blitz, then the next time they get majority control over both houses of Congress, they must impose this as a regulation on these SuperPAC ads (or else, they're just spinning their wheels with so much hot air, to mix and torture my metaphors*: Unless... You know, if it was a steam-powered car, the metaphor would be perfectly apt. And this is why we need alternate energy sources: to power our metaphors!).
Or, scratch that: Actually, if President Obama opposes this SuperPAC business like he says, then how about imposing my political ad intro idea (which would indicate the influence of money in politics angle of these SuperPAC ads, and do so memorably) through an executive order? (I heard he likes more regulations and stuff, so here's another one for him to enjoy imposing! {You're welcome, Mr. President.}) Oh, but then this intro would have to play at the beginning of all of his SuperPAC ads too, and that's not fair. So I doubt he'll do it after all. But if he really means what he says about the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that permitted the SuperPACs and all their 'money = a free speech megaphone that drowns-out the people' business, then this would be a good manner in which to illustrate the ability of money to corrupt our system of "free speech" into a system of "expensive speech", where only those with big money can afford to be heard clearly. (Unless he didn't really mean it, and he's just using it as a hypocritical argument against the Republicans...)
In any case, I really wish someone would impose this kind of blatant "full-disclosure" thing on these absurd political smear-machine ads with their bottomless pits of money. I mean, I'm happy that there are more jobs in advertising, and political ads can be hilarious, but still: when it comes right down to it, there's enough money-related pandering and corruption in politics as it is; we don't need anymore. And the least they could do, if they're going to subject us to a whole new media blitz of political propaganda ads, is show us up front that this is big money's influence on our political system. Because after all, not everyone can read all of that fine print disclosure stuff at the end in such a short span of time.
* Yes, America does torture: it tortures its metaphors, and that counts! (Oh, and America also permits the torture of women through their footwear fashions. You know it's true!)
