There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong.
The conventional wisdom on the establishment left is that Sen. Bernie Sanders is offering his enthusiastic supporters pipedreams in lieu of achievable policy proposals. Placed in proper perspective, Bernie Sanders may be just one justice away from setting in motion what he calls a political "revolution."
Here's a bold declaration: Despite the rancor accompanying this year's races and last year's congressional session, there is only one issue worth voting on. It's a deceptively simple issue too; massively important, but, oddly, still one a vast majority of Americans agree on.
In the absence of name-calling, smear campaigns, misogyny and conspiracy theorizing by Bernie, his supporters have compensated by doing it all themselves. The Sanders campaign has no need for attack ads, their supporters write infinitely more toxic slurs and accusations in countless blogs.
Less than a week before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton attended a gala fundraiser in Philadelphia at the headquarters of Franklin Square Capital Partners, a major investor in the fossil-fuel industry, particularly domestic fracking.
For your amusement and mine, this being an all-fun-all-the-time election campaign, let's examine the relationships between our twenty-first-century plutocrats and the contenders who have raised $5 million or more in individual contributions or through super PACs and are at 5 percent or more in composite national polls.
The past three first ladies; Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, and Hillary Clinton all share a common insincere, yet polished, demeanor inherent with ...
For too long, campaign-finance-reform advocates have been patient dupes. If Secretary Clinton thinks she can coast to the White House with Obama-style winking and nodding, let's hope she continues to "feel the Bern."
Six years ago this week, the U.S. Supreme Court created a Wild West of campaign finance regulations. With their decision in Citizens United, five justices set the stage for a flood of secret special interest money trying to buy elections nationwide.
Overturning Citizens United is an important and worthy cause, but it is not the panacea so many presidential candidates, pundits, and activists claim.
A recent poll showed that 78 percent of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike -- want to overturn Citizens United. This year, let's make sure that the 78 percent support candidates who will work for us. Let's support a candidate like Ted Strickland.
This kind of unregulated campaign finance system has resulted in massive corruption scandals in the past. It will do so again in the future. Citizens United has brought an onslaught of big money from the Super Rich who are treating federal campaigns as their political playground.
Citizens United was bad history, bad logic, bad law. Nobody with any common sense thinks that huge corporate expenditures don't corrupt politics, but the Court left common sense behind that day.
As we get stronger as a movement, we have to be prepared to contend with a heightened push-back from super-rich. In the coming political combat, we will need all the help we can garner.
By the time the 2016 election is over, America's Super Rich will have given the largest amount of the biggest contributions and the most secret money ever provided in our history to support candidates for President and Congress.