I hope my experience serves as an example for moms to see that it is possible to have your voice heard and balance your toughest job with one that might also make a difference for so many.
Four FEC Commissioners last week provided yet another example of the urgent need to replace the FEC with a real campaign enforcement and oversight agency.
The Boston Globe about Wall Street's secretly purchased influence in Washington, D.C. was somewhat mistitled as being about the "struggle for the Democratic Party's Soul." It's also about how Wall Street's virtually unlimited cash secretly influences the key debates as well as the policy outcomes in the nation's capital.
Something about the game Monopoly seemed like the right metaphor for our priced-out political process -- perhaps because the player with the most money wins, just like in almost all elections.
Is the media's excessive interest in personal scandal really at the root of the superficiality and viciousness of today's politics? I'm not convinced. Yes, tabloid-style coverage is a problem, but I see much bigger factors at play
While the media has skirted this pressing matter, organizers everywhere are trying to put a kibosh on obscene sums of money winning elections.
Even with the inflated television and radio budgets that exist today, a complete public funding system is fiscally feasible. In New York's municipal budget of $61 billion, the matching system expended $38.2 million for all races. Democracy deserves a lot more than that.
While it would be nice to be able to wave a magic wand or pass a sweeping bill to fix the system, it's just not going to happen. Now is the time for determined and steadfast battles on several fronts.
Any reader unfamiliar with the ACLU's history and its leadership would be led by Geoffrey Stone's assertions to believe that the new leadership of the ACLU has come in and turned the ACLU's policy on campaign finance and free speech upside down. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
If Republicans want to defend the rights of corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited, secret money in campaigns, then they should say so. But they do not get a free pass to defend unlimited, secret political spending by sidestepping the question and pretending that Democrats are attacking our nation's First Amendment.
This is a tough issue, but the desire to do something should not lead us to abandon core free speech values that have served us so well for more than two centuries.
Think of this as the year that democracy of, by, and for the billionaires shall not perish from the Earth -- not when we're on a new electoral playing field in a political world in which distinctions are no longer made between unlimited money and unlimited speech.
What is Pay to Play? Commonly held, pay to play is a form of getting a special deal because you paid someone off.
The real purpose of an individual-candidate Super PAC is to circumvent candidate contribution limits. Wealthy donors, corporations and other contributors use these Super PACs as vehicles to make unlimited contributions to directly support the candidate backed by the Super PAC.
When voters go to the polls, they deserve as much information as possible in making decisions about our government. Unfortunately, self-determination, one of the rights we hold most dear is under assault by cloaked spending.
Obviously, those of us who want to reverse the trend and achieve a more egalitarian America face a formidable challenge: how to reduce the political dominance of the super-rich at a time when they continue to use their wealth to enhance their political clout.