I'd agree with the article if normal citizens actually had the power suggested in the article. That our voices and votes have equal power to evoke change in gov

I'd agree with the article if normal citizens actually had the power suggested in the article. That our voices and votes have equal power to evoke change in government. That what corporations do won't outweigh our collective voices. However, the author admits that this isn't the case: > ...when what was left of the Tillman Act (a law passed in 1907 to restrict corporate campaign contributions), was essentially destroyed, virtually unrestricting the corporate world from holding politicians in their back pocket through financial contributions. > What corporate America is doing today is robbing Americans’ of their ability to be heard and to count, and replacing those Americans with the echoes of big business and the massive lobbyist machine at work. > Unfortunately, everyone’s playing that game thanks to our impotent Supreme Court today. People are trying to find different ways to make their voices heard, and one way is via their power as consumers. In this instance, Eich ended up as a casualty (rightly or wrongly, I don't care) and he probably won't be the last. If that is the cost of swinging the power back to the people, of weakening the corporate stranglehold on government, and forcing the Supreme Court to actually act on the pitiful state of politics today, then I'm not going to complain.