Do you really think Obama isn't getting the exact same thing? The problem with McCain-Feingold is it just forces the PACs to be more sneaky while impinging on the free speech rights of other people. What is more, it's only money. The election is not decided by money, though how it is spent CAN have an effect. What the money does is buy advertising. And that is the REAL reason Obama and his ilk are so adamant about "campaign finance reform" and shutting out corporations. With the corporate media overwhelmingly in his and his party's favor (for example, the NY Times has not endorsed a Republican since Eisenhower, who was a Democrat up until 1952), outlawing corporate donors leaves him and the Democrats as the sole recipients of corporate campaign donations. The difference is, where other corporations can only donate money, the media conglomerates can donate the very thing that money is primarily used for - airtime & newsprint. Editorials almost entirely favoring the left and slanted coverage are as good as, or better than all the ads the GOP can buy with a Super PAC's money, especially because in election years people start tuning out the ads, but actually give the editorials and supposedly objective coverage at least a cursory read. And McCain's co-sponsorship of the bill hardly indicates any sort of bipartisanship: the NY Times' favorite Republican thought he had little to fear when it came to being cut off from a platform or publicity source. Of course, when his editorials were suddenly no longer welcome in the paper of record when he was running against The First Black Candidate, and his victory would deprive them of a good story, he may have had a rude awakening...