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.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.