Whether you're a Democrat, Republican,Tea-partier, liberal, conservative, or in-between, you're experiencing an election season unlike any in U.S. history. That's because the rules on political spending have changed in a billion dollar way.
As long as conservatives believe they can win elections by changing the ground rules, the battle over voting rights will continue. And as long as conservatives are weaponizing the Constitution for political purposes, progressives must aggressively tell our own story about the Constitution.
When he was elected in 2004, the liberal Democrat with libertarian leanings was hailed as a harbinger of blue hopes in this overwhelmingly red part of the country. There was speculation that Schweitzer might someday be a potential presidential contender.
There are those who say that money doesn't really matter. What matters, they say, is the quality of the candidates and the strength of their ideas. Unfortunately, in a world of high-stakes and high-cost media, this is nonsense.
For those who think that our election system is fundamentally on the wrong track, the only option is to amend the Constitution to allow Congress and the States to do what is necessary to restore some level of sanity to campaign finance rules.
The Citizens United decision was more than just a blow to democracy. It was a blow to states' rights. Now states are scrambling to overturn the ruling and put their own campaign finance laws back in place.
Citizens United destroys the American notion of citizenship by creating separate and unequal classes of Americans. It creates a de facto American House of Lords, in which all other Americans are relegated to second-class citizenship.
By accepting Super PAC money, Obama is all but guaranteeing that the special interests of the richest 0.01% will dominate the interests of the 99% and his second term will accomplish little to right the balance.
If the critics of Citizens United want to be taken seriously, they must move beyond superficial slogans and focus on the real issue at stake: When should the government be allowed to regulate political contributions and expenditures -- even if they are speech?