The whole election has left a bad taste in my mouth. Big American elections bring out the worst in people's natures. The euphoria from the results may erase the ugliness temporarily, but the enmity and spite is still present, just under the surface.
The regime of campaign finance limits has been a failure. The only part of the effort that remains -- contribution limits -- is now responsible for increasing, rather than limiting, the power of money in elections.
When will the public wake up to the pointlessness and waste in campaign finance? If the president can now strong-arm the Congress to pass a version of the original Simpson-Bowles plan, the election will have been a success
This election has shown that there is a class of big-money political donors who greatly value secrecy. Their behavior under the current rules provides evidence that big spenders prefer anonymity even when other options are available.
Some of the same media that should referee political discourse and oversee the process by which a sovereign electorate selects its leaders are in thrall to the backroom players whose mission it is to manipulate and game that discourse.
While their logos are nowhere to be seen, the influence that corporations have in election cycle spending continues to receive increased attention. It has also engendered increased scrutiny on the part of both faith-consistent and socially responsible investors.
The Citizens United case doesn't say what everyone says it does. We are behaving as if the case opened floodgates to unlimited spending on elections not previously allowed, and it does nothing of the sort.
The real small donor revolution in New York City can spread to federal elections as well if Congress enacts a small donor matching fund program. But its impact will not be felt in the form of more television advertisements funded by money from small donors.