With any luck, the ad will be heavy-handed and seen, as it should be, as a wholly inappropriate conversation to raise during a national family entertainment event.  I wouldn't want my three-year old to be asking me what an abortion is during the Super Bowl - if I had one.  I wouldn't want my three-year old to learn about that stuff at that age or in that context.

That's why neither curbing what corporate interests can contribute to political activities or increasing taxpayer support for political activities will ever, in terms of media access, create real benefit for progressive candidates and issues.

The only thing that would help is most likely politically and legally impossible -- banning media outlets from charging money for political speech on the public airwaves and requiring they clearly identify themselves as sponsors of any political advertising they do air.

That would pretty much put an end to political advertising.

Although it wouldn't end the advantage commercial, that is corporate, advertisers enjoy, and will always enjoy, it would make politics less expensive and free private and public money for more direct and grassroots political activity.

Commercials are for potty breaks, refreshing drinks, bringing in more beer, letting the dogs out, putting out more food.

NEW YORK - CBS responded to complaints over a conservative group's planned Super Bowl ad featuring football star Tim Tebow by saying that it had eased restrictions on advocacy ads and would consider "responsibly produced" ones for open spots in its Feb. 7 broadcast.

CBS Corp. said Tuesday it had received numerous e-mails -- both critical and supportive -- since a coalition of women's groups began a protest campaign Monday against the ad, which the critics say will use Tebow and his mother to convey an anti-abortion message.

Here are the trust/don't trust spreads: Fox 49% to 37%, CNN 39% to 41%, NBC 35% to 44%, CBS 32% to 46%, and ABC 31% to 46%.