Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, no stump speech would feel complete without either a jab at a contender’s big money political donors or a reminder of how much his or her campaign is funded by small online donations. Every candidate postures her- or himself as a product of the people, hoisted from the grass roots to lead the nation into an era of unprecedented glory.

Campaign speeches, of course, tend to distort reality in attempts to present the rosiest, brightest, as-electable-as-possible picture of the candidate. But, for most candidates, a campaign ran without corporate money is akin to running a campaign bus without gasoline. Neither would be possible without a major revolution in campaign finance or transportation technology.

This unfortunate reality has brought forth the issue of corporate influence in Congress and the White House, pushing some to lay claim that some American corporations have downright purchased politicians. This has dominated campaign rhetoric, predominantly in Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bid for office, with his calling for total campaign finance overhaul and war with Wall Street and other big-money entities with their hands in Congress. It has also been a major talking point for Donald Trump, who says he “self-funds” his campaign, doesn’t solicit big-money donors, and has poured millions of his own money into the campaign.

This week, the Federal Election Commission has indicated that individuals who create “pop-up” Limited Liability Corporations weeks before making up to seven figure donations to Super PACs can be subject to sanctions. The FEC was previously polarized and at a stalemate as to even investigate the sketchy donations.

RELATED: Chalking the line on hate 

So, as the Daily Iowan Editorial Board sees it, this is a small step in the right direction. The creation of ghost corporations in Delaware (a state notorious for corporate-regulation leniency) to obscure the identity  and source of the millions of dollars that is being funneled into Super PACs, which in turn finds itself in politicians’ hands in one way or another, is unsettling to say the least.

The very nature of these donations, specifically that the individuals making them feel it necessary to obscure their identities and to take such seemingly exhaustive measures to get money into the political system, is telling of something corrupt as is made possible by the controversial 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case, which ultimately legalized corporate donations to political campaigns via proxy Super-PAC.

Of course, a successful campaign requires media exposure, and unfortunately airtime is not cheap. Does that mean candidates are entitled to or justified in accepting the plethora of corporate cash thrusted their way? No.

What is needed is the swift iron-fisted hammer of sanctions upon those behind the ghostly LLCs attempting to orchestrate the 2016 election and an exposure of exactly who is behind each of these “pop-ups” and, subsequently, which politicians have been exchanging policy for cash behind their constituents’ backs.

One thing remains undeniable, and that is the implicit voting power of the democratic citizens and their ability to vote those taking shady money out of office.