The control of American politics, like so much in this country, has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. This trend can be seen by comparing patterns of political expenditures and voter participation in the non-presidential elections of 2006 and 2014.
Money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. Most people get that. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, however, political contributions by corporations and the richest Americans actually are free speech and entitled to special protection. Even when they're made in secret.
On April 9, the US Senate held its first hearing on the proposed Comcast-Time Warner deal -- a $45 billion transaction that will affect millions of consumers and further pad some already well-lined pockets.
The fundraising for Virginia Governor-Elect Terry McAuliffe's inaugural party is seeing a serious lift due to donations from fossil-fuel dependent corporations. That these fossil-foolish interests can (seemingly) buy a seat at the table for such relatively paltry amounts is disconcerting.
As polling stations are gradually closing, before the results start coming in, we need to take a last look at this campaign and reflect on what I perceive to be a vibrant election and a deplorable electoral process.
we wanted to investigate these political divides in the context of crowdfunding. Specifically, what similarities and differences are there in campaign and contribution behavior across red, blue, and swing states?
With their canny mix of tech savvy and traditional investigative journalism, ProPublica has created a way to harness thousands of citizens journalists to reveal who is paying for which attack ads on TV and how much they are spending.
Denying candidates or elected officials knowledge of the identity of their contributors or supporters may dry up the well of contributions, but it may also purify our political system -- and our water too!