Did Barbara Boxer do any homework before her senatorial debate with Carly Fiorina on Wednesday? Boxer did hold her own and responded fairly well to most of Fiorina’s truth stretching assertions. But when her opponent is running on her record as a business leader, and that record earned her a place as one of the “20 Worst CEOs of all time,” the door was wide open for Boxer to clearly show what an abysmal leader Fiorina was.

Senator Boxer did take every opportunity to point out Fiorina’s woeful record on jobs, the one where she actually shipped 30,000 overseas. She even mentioned Fiorina’s very personal contribution to the American vernacular, coining the term “right-shoring,” a euphemism for firing Americans in order to send their jobs to a foreign land. Of course, Fiorina was laser focused on the “shoring” part but never really got it “right,” since as also pointed out by Boxer — Hewlett Packard lost more than 50% of its stock price under Fiorina’s control.

But Boxer missed the opportunity to elucidate how well aligned Ms. Fiorina is with the conservative extreme. She has spoken at Tea Party rallies and stated that she agrees with their views. She’s even a member of the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves voodoo contingent of the Republican Party. Fiorina stated in a CBS interview that, “you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves, if they are targeted, because they create jobs.” Never mind that even conservative economists no longer support such nonsense.

For whatever reason, Boxer also failed to support her own record for voting in favor of the Stimulus, and allowed Fiorina’s statement that it had, “manifestly failed,” to stand. Without doubt one of the easiest assertions to refute, being that the Stimulus has been a huge success by every objective measure, nevertheless Fiorina’s fact-free spin went unchallenged.

Part of the problem was the format for the debate. It allowed for response and rebuttal but provided no means for redress of erroneous claims made during a rebuttal. Fiorina used this to her advantage by using rebuttal time to introduce new points when she had no real argument for the topic at hand.

Fiorina was allowed to characterize her support of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as good for the middle class. Boxer would have been well served to illuminate the fact that it’s Democrats who have drawn the line in the sand and support the extension for all but the top 2%. Fiorina used a similar tactic when speaking about the estate tax. Of course, she referenced it as the “death tax,” and drew alarm to the 55% rate. But where she really left the truth behind was in associating the tax with the 88,000 family farms in California. Boxer should have made sure that the facts of the matter were voiced, that the experts all agree that there’s not been a single “family farm” hit by the estate tax. She should also have added that the Democratic plan to deal with the expiring cut would lower the top rate to 45% and only apply to estates over $7 million, which would apply to .25 percent of estates.

Boxer also allowed Fiorina to demonize federal employees by associating the increase in their number with the loss of jobs in California. It would have been nice if Boxer had mentioned that the increase is almost entirely related to temporary census positions, which hit its 564,000 job high in May. Although Boxer did take advantage of the opening to hammer on Fiorina’s offshoring record one more time: she introduced Fiorina’s characterization of the recent aid bill to save teacher’s jobs as a “disgrace,” and added that Fiorina was likely opposed because, “we paid for it by stopping some tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas.”

Another well delivered blow by Boxer occurred in her rebuttal to Fiorina’s response to a question regarding the apparent conflict between her accepting a $21 million severance package and yet taking a strong position that teacher jobs should be tied to performance. Fiorina attempted to dodge the question by offering several statistics regarding HP’s growth under her tenure, failing to mention that the growth was the result of a failed merger. But Boxer responded with a body blow, stating that, “I think we are entitled to our opinion but we’re not entitled to our own facts. The facts are there was a $21 million severance check, and my understanding is that it was taken after my opponent was fired.”

But Fiorina scored points on Boxer’s legislative record. Citing the fact that only 4 bills bearing Boxer’s name have been signed into law, she asserted that Boxer was an ineffective legislator. Boxer did rebut by stating that the objective is not to get your name on legislation, and offered Senator Russ Feingold as an example, stating that the campaign finance legislation commonly known as McCain-Feingold does not bear his name. She didn’t mention that Feingold too only passed 4 bills during his tenure, or that the reason his name was missing was that it was the House version that was signed into law. The fact is that Boxer has a well-deserved reputation for carrying liberal causes as well as for working across the aisle. She needs to build a case that she can recite in a succinct manner.

As Boxer stated, Fiorina is the candidate of Big-Oil and Big-Coal. She danced around the topic of global warming, offering possibly the evening’s most twisted stretch of double-talk. According to Fiorina, the solution to global warming, “lies not with a single state taking action on its own, but rather with global action.” So, evidently there’s really no reason for any entity to take a first step until we get everyone in line to make a change. Sounds like a good capitalist position — after all we can’t address the environment and be competitive with polluters like China at the same time.

In the end, it was likely more Fiorina’s exposing herself as a died-in-the-wool capitalist Republican that will sway more votes toward Boxer than anything else. It’s difficult to understand how a politician could think it advantageous to use China as an example of how to create jobs. But of course, it’s all a part of her one-trick-pony approach to all thing economic: cut taxes and regulations and all will be well — it’s the same prescription offered by all of her Republican cronies — a race to the bottom for American workers and the environment be damned.

President Obama spoke to the people of America on Saturday. With the campaign season for the fall election heating up, his message was focused on the insidious effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Citizens United case. The President cited the recent “flood of attack ads, run by shadowy groups with harmless sounding names.” He contended that the people deserve to know who’s behind these campaign ads, and argued that the Disclose Act, which is being blocked by Senate Republicans, is an effective device to accomplish that end.

Legislation that’s directed at greater disclosure by donors, the Disclose Act would require, “special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging their campaign contributions.” It would also prevent foreign run entities from interfering in our election process, undoing another detrimental side effect of Citizens United. The bill was already passed by the House, with 2 Republicans voting in favor, along with all but 30 Democrats. But the legislation has been stalled since it reached the Senate.

Falling into the prevalent pattern of Senate dysfunction, the Disclose Act is just another bill to find itself the victim of Republican obstruction. Needing one more vote to gain cloture and avoid filibuster, Americans will not gain knowledge of the people behind the campaign ads unless Democrats can get at least one Republican to break ranks and put The People above the Party.

Asked for comment on the legislation, Mitch “Tax cuts pay for themselves” McConnell offered more nonsensical blather. According to McConnell, “The president says this bill is about transparency. It’s transparent all right. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections.” So, in the Senate Minority Leader’s own words, informing voters of who’s paying for campaign attack ads somehow amounts to rigging the election.

I’m sure that Senator McConnell had no intent of supporting the President’s position, but based on his own comments, it’s hard to refute what President Obama had to say regarding Republican opposition to the bill, “This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark.” The President added that, “They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

The November election will be laced with illegitimate attack ads of all sorts, and those ads will come from both sides. This has long been the case, and now the problem has been magnified by the Citizens United decision. The Disclose Act is essential legislation that can’t prevent the ads, but can at least inform the voters who’s behind them. It’s like truth in advertising 101, and the Republicans want no part of it. That fact alone should call their position into question.

Concerned voters need to speak out and make sure their representatives understand that We the People want to know. Voters want transparency. Big-Money has already hijacked the American government, and the Supreme Court, through Citizens United, has given them yet another avenue to exert their will. Corporations are not people, and in the long term, our nation needs reform to undo the damage of this decision. Such reform is already underway in the form of a constitutional amendment carrying 74 cosponsors in the House. People can also voice their support at Free Speech for People.

Like campaign finance reform, the Disclose Act should have nothing to do with partisan differences. The fact that it is being debated along party lines should be sufficient cause to make people stand up and take notice. Citizens United was anti-democracy at its very worst. To fight against its reform is un-American.

There are 537 elected officials representing all Americans in our federal government. So, disregarding the inequalities that result from congressional district sizing and the 2-per-state allocation of Senate seats, this means that each elected official represents, on average, around 575,000 Americans. This number alone should raise an eyebrow or two, in that it begs the question of adequate representation, but while the ratio does further dilute the voice of the average person, its impact pales when compared to the effects of a government sold to the highest bidder.

Washington, long ago, lost any semblance of legitimate representation of The People. Being one voice in a half-million may seem weak, but the reality is that the average person’s voice is far smaller than that. Both the Presidency and the Congress of 21^st Century America have been purchased, and unless you have tens of thousands of dollars to contribute to election campaigns, you really have no voice at all.

Elections are costly. Contributions for the 2008 federal campaign totaled $5.3 billion. The average winner of a House seat spent $1.4 million while the average Senate seat went for $8.5 million. Sure, there are many small donors; in fact, about half of the 2008 money came from donations of under $200. Unfortunately, that means the other half came from larger donations, with $1.9 billion coming from donations over $2,300, and $974 million in large donations — over $10,000.

It’s these large donations that do more than merely help support a candidate; they are the currency of government. The average Joe, who donates $10 or $25 to their favorite candidate, expects nothing specific in return, but such is not the case for the Goldman Sachs of the world. As expected, in the shadow of the housing/banking crash, the 2008 election was largely financed by big banks, insurance companies and real estate. The largest contributor to the 2008 election, this sector donated $477 million. And companies like Goldman, who topped bank spenders at more then $7 million, and JPMorgan and Citigroup, who each coughed up over $5 million, don’t spend money unless it improves profits.

The fact that no financial reform legislation was passed, for more than two years after Bear Stearns crashed and started the collapse of the economy, is prima facie evidence of the power of campaign capital. It’s no coincidence that the top donor for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), the chair of the Senate’s committee for banking and housing, is the securities and banking sector — the very people he’s charged to oversee. The nearly $5 million investment the sector made in contributions, over the 2008 and 2010 cycles, to Dodd and the ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), not only helped stall legislation for years, but it paid for the diluted excuse for “reform” that was finally passed.

This is but one example of business-as-usual in Washington.  Healthcare legislation wrangled its way through Congress for most of 2009, while the Health industry was busy greasing the skids with $84 million in campaign donations. Their investment was not in vain. It actually produced excellent returns, netting 32 million new government sponsored patients and nothing in the way of real reform. Energy, Communication/Electronics, Trial Lawyers, they’re all present, and they’re all spending millions to make sure that any legislation that’s passed is favorable to their business profits. With government so clearly under the control of big-business, is it any wonder why the 61.7% voter turnout for the 2008 election was the high-water mark since 1968?

American voters feel increasingly frustrated with Washington politics, and there’s good reason for it. Regardless of which party people support, it’s becoming more evident with every passing year that the will of The People is being ignored, their voices unheard beneath the din of the corporate campaign hijacking.

Angry conservatives are already gathering under banners proclaiming, “Take our country back!” But the loss of voice in Washington politics isn’t a partisan issue. Campaign funding for the 2010 election, and the control that goes with it, is nearly split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. There may be legitimate political differences being liberal and conservative voters, but neither is served when special interests have bought and paid for the federal government.

If indeed the country is ever to be taken back, Americans from left and right must join forces on this critical issue. Together, they can put an end to big-money control of Congress. It’s time voters stop falling for the blatant misdirection of party talking points and start demanding results. The American people can take back control of the nation, and the surest path to that end is through real campaign finance reform.

The sad truth is that while votes are the mechanism by which politicians are elected, it’s money that makes campaigns — and campaigns are the means through which votes are secured. Today’s system ensures that elected officials are beholding to the big-money donors who finance their election. The People are but pawns in this game of quid pro quo, and they will remain so until and unless they unite and change the system that allows this corruption to exist.

Like students left with the huge loan balances, the present system ensures that our elected officials are left with huge favor balances on their books. To think that politicians will bite the hand that feeds them and vote against the interests of their big-money benefactors is delusional at best. To take back the country, The People must take back the Congress, and to take back the Congress, the politicians must once again be beholding, not to influence peddling special interests, but to the people who elect them. One person, one vote must again reflect the control of the nation.

There’s only one way to make this happen, and that’s through public financing of elections. It’s already working in several states in the form of Clean Elections. And there’s a bipartisan bill in the House and also the Senate to bring similar reform to Washington. Public financing will require that candidates secure significant funding in small donations from their constituents before qualifying for public money. But once established as a viable candidate, public funding would be allocated in amounts sufficient to finance a competitive campaign.

The power of such a system is obvious. For a relatively small investment, American voters could actually ensure that elected officials would owe their loyalty to no one but the people who elected them. It would in essence break the favor bank.

But the benefits of public campaign financing don’t end with properly placed loyalties. The investment would also pay dividends in productivity, as it would mitigate the demand for fund raising by incumbents. In the present system, officials start focusing on the next election cycle as soon as they’re elected. Estimates place fund raising efforts for members of Congress at 20% to 40% of their time. With so much misuse of time, is it any wonder they get so little done? It’s like a business that pays its employees to look for another job two days out of every week.

Public campaign finance is not a silver bullet; it won’t by itself bring the federal government back under the control of The People, but without it — there is no hope of that happening. The removal of special interest influence on election campaigns is a critical first step for Americans to take back the country. Couple public financing with preferential voting, which would allow a significant increase in votes for third party candidates, add congressional term limits and weld shut the revolving lobbyist door, and America may once again return to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.