At a time when it’s become a cliché to say that Occupy Wall Street has changed the nation’s political conversation -- drawing long overdue attention to the struggles of the 99% -- electoral politics and the 2012 presidential election have become almost exclusively defined by the 1%. Or, to be more precise, the .0000063%. Those are the 196 individual donors who have provided nearly 80% of the money raised by super PACs in 2011 by giving $100,000 or more each.

These political action committees, spawned by the Supreme Court’s 5-4Citizens United decision in January 2010, can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, or unions for the purpose of supporting or opposing a political candidate. In theory, super PACs are legally prohibited from coordinating directly with a candidate, though in practice they’re just a murkier extension of political campaigns, performing all the functions of a traditional campaign without any of the corresponding accountability.

If 2008 was ...

Two years after a controversial Supreme Court ruling lifted many restrictions on political spending, America’s campaign finance laws have officially become a joke.

Stephen Colbert, a comedian who says he wants to be the “president of the United States of South Carolina,” has used the "Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC" to highlight the weak separation between candidates and the outside spending groups that support them.

But the new power corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals have to sway elections in the wake of the Citizens United decision is not a laughing matter to many Americans. People are organizing protests Friday and over the weekend to draw attention to the lack of disclosure and accountability in the U.S. campaign finance system.

Citizens United and a lower-court ruling in 2010 allowed corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to