Over the past six months, I have had the opportunity to talk to people of all ages and backgrounds as I run to serve in Congress. While jobs and the e...
If Massachusetts legislators want to double the contribution limits in state politics, they should, in the light of day, create a stand-alone bill to do that and try to pass it. But, they should not bury it in a disclosure bill and call it reform.
The case for DISCLOSE, which would bring into the open hundreds of millions of dollars in now-hidden political giving, is so compelling, so self-evident, that a credible, logical argument against it is nowhere to be found.
Our government is no longer by the people, for the people. Their vast spending in politics gives them a large degree of control over those in office, drowning out the voices of everyday Americans. This amounts to institutionalized bribery.
The basic lifeblood of a democracy is information. And in a system of privately funded elections, it is essential to have real-time information on where candidates are getting their money. Knowing this tells us something about what they stand for, and whom they are spending their time with.
It occurs to me that the continuing Gaza war can be viewed (in addition to viewing it as part of Israel's continuing battle to maintain the occupation) as a testament to the failure of American democracy. Hear me out.
For those who truly want to revitalize democracy in America, our focus should not be on the money race but instead on how we can increase public participation in our system of government.
With the recent rulings of this right-wing dominated Supreme Court, it was hard to celebrate our nation's 238th birthday this past July 4th. Indeed, the Hobby Lobby decision delivered a hard blow not just to women in the workplace, but to the basic rights of all Americans.
Her remark is an apt credo for a party leadership that has spent the last quarter-century serving corporate power as persistently as it spews out empty rhetoric about "the needs of working families."
Udall and Bennet's amendment will overturn the damaging effects of Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC that have thrown open the floodgates to a tidal wave of corrupting campaign cash. Ever since these decisions, the amount of toxic money from big polluters in our political system has skyrocketed.
In a federal system--a system that prioritizes letting people govern their own communities--it should concern us whenever bigger money from other places distorts elections in places with smaller money.
The case against Scott Walker's and his aides turns on the idea of unlawful cooperation. In Wisconsin as in a number of other states, it is illegal for campaigns to coordinate political activities with outside funding groups. That takes a little explaining.
Eric Cantor's upset shows that big money doesn't always win, and that K St-bashing populism wins elections. Let's hope that Democrats across the country take that to heart and fight back against the big money flooding their races.
To see a candidate taking on an incumbent with an astronomical cash advantage, running on a platform in part opposed to money's influence in the political system, and win is an amazing thing in this day and age. Maybe this is the beginning of a trend in both parties.
The fact is that Cruz has now publicly proclaimed multiple times what he thinks is best for the Sierra Club. And, as you would expect from the man who single-handedly forced the government shutdown, his judgment leaves something to be desired.
How is it that two states with such important primary campaigns in which large amounts of money were spent failed to attract more voters? How much are campaigns spending to get voters to the polls these days?