Rigging the Electoral System for the Rich
Either through electoral channels or a constitutional amendment, the American people must fight back against Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United and McCutcheon.
A poll conducted late last year found that more than seven in ten voters think our election system is "biased in favor of the candidate with the most money."
While nothing about this number is surprising -- except, perhaps, that it's not even higher -- it does reveal the depth of cynicism characterizing Americans' perceptions of our political system. We believe, correctly, that the system is rigged for the rich.
Especially in the wake of this month's McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court decision that allowed our country's wealthiest to dump even more money directly into our elections, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the enormity of America's money in politics problem.
But as always, the biggest dangers create the biggest opportunities for change. With the McCutcheon ruling, the Supreme Court added fuel to an already awakened giant -- a nationwide movement to reclaim our democracy that's gaining steam like never before.
More than 150 events took place in 41 states and the District of Columbia the day the ruling came out, with activists pushing for a full range of long and short-term solutions.
A stream of rally photos showed thousands of committed citizens who are rejecting cynicism and pushing for change.
Of course, one avenue toward reducing the extent to which money is distorting politics is the courts themselves. When we cast our ballots in the last presidential elections, some of us were thinking about the connection between who we elect as president and the outcomes of campaign finance cases decided by the Supreme Court.
But not everyone recognizes that there's a direct link. When you vote for a president, or for a senator, you're not only electing those people for their term of office; in many ways, their most lasting legacy is who they will nominate and who gets confirmed to sit on our nation's judiciary.
A change in the composition of the Supreme Court could have massive implications for our democracy. Both Citizens United v. FEC, the infamous case that opened the door to unlimited corporate political spending, and this month's McCutcheon v. FEC were decided 5-4 with strong dissents. Some sitting justices have spoken out against Citizens United since it was decided.
It's important for voters to know that our democracy was upended by a single vote. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg went out of their way to issue a separate statement in a 2012 Montana corporate spending case calling into question whether "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
As we elect new presidents who appoint new justices - and elect new senators who confirm or reject them - we can help turn the tide back toward restoring the constitutional power of the American people to impose reasonable limits on money in politics, a power demolished by the arch-conservatives on the Roberts Court.
Another equally important and parallel change effort we should be supporting is the push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon. Constitutional amendments are, and should be rare -- reserved for the direst circumstances.
But with the power of regulating our elections and protecting our democracy stripped away from "We the People," this is one of those moments. Everyday Americans and elected officials across the country agree: More than 16 states and 500 towns and cities have already gone on record in support of an amendment that would overturn these cases.
And 149 Members of the House and Senate are now on record in support of constitutional remedies. Such an amendment would establish an important bulwark against future right-wing Supreme Courts.
Whether by changing the court or changing the Constitution, the decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws have got to go. Our democracy is too valuable to be undermined by a court interested in protecting wealthy special interests at the expense of the rest of us.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
A poll conducted late last year found that more than seven in ten voters think our election system is "biased in favor of the candidate with the most money."
While nothing about this number is surprising -- except, perhaps, that it's not even higher -- it does reveal the depth of cynicism characterizing Americans' perceptions of our political system. We believe, correctly, that the system is rigged for the rich.
Especially in the wake of this month's McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court decision that allowed our country's wealthiest to dump even more money directly into our elections, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the enormity of America's money in politics problem.
But as always, the biggest dangers create the biggest opportunities for change. With the McCutcheon ruling, the Supreme Court added fuel to an already awakened giant -- a nationwide movement to reclaim our democracy that's gaining steam like never before.
More than 150 events took place in 41 states and the District of Columbia the day the ruling came out, with activists pushing for a full range of long and short-term solutions.
A stream of rally photos showed thousands of committed citizens who are rejecting cynicism and pushing for change.
Of course, one avenue toward reducing the extent to which money is distorting politics is the courts themselves. When we cast our ballots in the last presidential elections, some of us were thinking about the connection between who we elect as president and the outcomes of campaign finance cases decided by the Supreme Court.
But not everyone recognizes that there's a direct link. When you vote for a president, or for a senator, you're not only electing those people for their term of office; in many ways, their most lasting legacy is who they will nominate and who gets confirmed to sit on our nation's judiciary.
A change in the composition of the Supreme Court could have massive implications for our democracy. Both Citizens United v. FEC, the infamous case that opened the door to unlimited corporate political spending, and this month's McCutcheon v. FEC were decided 5-4 with strong dissents. Some sitting justices have spoken out against Citizens United since it was decided.
It's important for voters to know that our democracy was upended by a single vote. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg went out of their way to issue a separate statement in a 2012 Montana corporate spending case calling into question whether "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
As we elect new presidents who appoint new justices - and elect new senators who confirm or reject them - we can help turn the tide back toward restoring the constitutional power of the American people to impose reasonable limits on money in politics, a power demolished by the arch-conservatives on the Roberts Court.
Another equally important and parallel change effort we should be supporting is the push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon. Constitutional amendments are, and should be rare -- reserved for the direst circumstances.
But with the power of regulating our elections and protecting our democracy stripped away from "We the People," this is one of those moments. Everyday Americans and elected officials across the country agree: More than 16 states and 500 towns and cities have already gone on record in support of an amendment that would overturn these cases.
And 149 Members of the House and Senate are now on record in support of constitutional remedies. Such an amendment would establish an important bulwark against future right-wing Supreme Courts.
Whether by changing the court or changing the Constitution, the decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws have got to go. Our democracy is too valuable to be undermined by a court interested in protecting wealthy special interests at the expense of the rest of us.
A poll conducted late last year found that more than seven in ten voters think our election system is "biased in favor of the candidate with the most money."
While nothing about this number is surprising -- except, perhaps, that it's not even higher -- it does reveal the depth of cynicism characterizing Americans' perceptions of our political system. We believe, correctly, that the system is rigged for the rich.
Especially in the wake of this month's McCutcheon v. FEC Supreme Court decision that allowed our country's wealthiest to dump even more money directly into our elections, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the enormity of America's money in politics problem.
But as always, the biggest dangers create the biggest opportunities for change. With the McCutcheon ruling, the Supreme Court added fuel to an already awakened giant -- a nationwide movement to reclaim our democracy that's gaining steam like never before.
More than 150 events took place in 41 states and the District of Columbia the day the ruling came out, with activists pushing for a full range of long and short-term solutions.
A stream of rally photos showed thousands of committed citizens who are rejecting cynicism and pushing for change.
Of course, one avenue toward reducing the extent to which money is distorting politics is the courts themselves. When we cast our ballots in the last presidential elections, some of us were thinking about the connection between who we elect as president and the outcomes of campaign finance cases decided by the Supreme Court.
But not everyone recognizes that there's a direct link. When you vote for a president, or for a senator, you're not only electing those people for their term of office; in many ways, their most lasting legacy is who they will nominate and who gets confirmed to sit on our nation's judiciary.
A change in the composition of the Supreme Court could have massive implications for our democracy. Both Citizens United v. FEC, the infamous case that opened the door to unlimited corporate political spending, and this month's McCutcheon v. FEC were decided 5-4 with strong dissents. Some sitting justices have spoken out against Citizens United since it was decided.
It's important for voters to know that our democracy was upended by a single vote. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg went out of their way to issue a separate statement in a 2012 Montana corporate spending case calling into question whether "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway."
As we elect new presidents who appoint new justices - and elect new senators who confirm or reject them - we can help turn the tide back toward restoring the constitutional power of the American people to impose reasonable limits on money in politics, a power demolished by the arch-conservatives on the Roberts Court.
Another equally important and parallel change effort we should be supporting is the push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon. Constitutional amendments are, and should be rare -- reserved for the direst circumstances.
But with the power of regulating our elections and protecting our democracy stripped away from "We the People," this is one of those moments. Everyday Americans and elected officials across the country agree: More than 16 states and 500 towns and cities have already gone on record in support of an amendment that would overturn these cases.
And 149 Members of the House and Senate are now on record in support of constitutional remedies. Such an amendment would establish an important bulwark against future right-wing Supreme Courts.
Whether by changing the court or changing the Constitution, the decisions that have gutted our campaign finance laws have got to go. Our democracy is too valuable to be undermined by a court interested in protecting wealthy special interests at the expense of the rest of us.