There are people spending tens of millions of dollars to attack the Democrats seeking to unseat the incumbent Republican Senators in Georgia in the January 5 runoff election.
Reforming campaign finance law is not that easy anymore. For one, you'd have to overturn two SCOTUS decisions (2010 and 2014).
The issue is NOT political spending by candidates and their campaigns, but political spending by everyone else, aka "nonprofit groups that are not required to disclose their donors."
Roberts as much as said that he expected Congress to respond to Citizens United by eliminating the dark money loophole. But guess who's not interested in campaign finance reform? That's right. Mitch McConnell. He doesn't seem to be very interested in anything that might reduce his power or (and?) benefit the general population.
Add it to the list Cathy. Trump will have left behind such a mess of crises that prioritizing what crisis to lay hands on first will be a monumental challenge for everyone.
Citizens United made campaign finance reform difficult. The Senate filibuster rule makes it impossible.
At some point in the future, right around the time the Electoral College is removed (an amendment that will make voting a constitutional right), another constitutional amendment will need to override Citizens United.
Whenever I think of all that money spent on personal attack ads and what that amount could do to something positive instead -- like helping those who are suffering -- it makes me very sad. Not just this year, either. The idea that to win you need hundreds of millions of dollars for your political campaign is obscene.
There is something vile, wrong – evil, even – in a completely nonpartisan way – about spending what is likely to be more than a billion dollars this year, on elections, during a GLOBAL pandemic, when almost 4 million Americans are “long-term unemployed” (jobless for 27 weeks or more).
We have lost our collective minds.
Apparently it will come down to another SCOTUS decision and whether or not “free speech” (isn’t that an interesting conflict in terms?) is limited to human beings v corporations and organizations. And the monetary issue these days is not so much the candidates and their campaign spending, as it is the outside groups seeking to benefit from them.
Perhaps the real issue is what constitutes “free speech”? (Hint: If there’s money involved, it’s not free.)
Have been saying this for years. Reforming campaign finance laws should be in the first 100 days.
You can bet you will recognize names when you get the list in Feb.
Send a contribution to Warnock and Ossoff today
@Actblue
Our Democracy depends on it.
Reforming campaign finance law is not that easy anymore. For one, you'd have to overturn two SCOTUS decisions (2010 and 2014).
The issue is NOT political spending by candidates and their campaigns, but political spending by everyone else, aka "nonprofit groups that are not required to disclose their donors."
see Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_campaign_finance_laws_and_regulations
But by all means, continue donations to Warnock and Ossoff, and flip the Senate back to sanity.
Roberts as much as said that he expected Congress to respond to Citizens United by eliminating the dark money loophole. But guess who's not interested in campaign finance reform? That's right. Mitch McConnell. He doesn't seem to be very interested in anything that might reduce his power or (and?) benefit the general population.
Agree 100%. I think my weekly contributions go out on Mondays though ;)
Add it to the list Cathy. Trump will have left behind such a mess of crises that prioritizing what crisis to lay hands on first will be a monumental challenge for everyone.
Citizens United made campaign finance reform difficult. The Senate filibuster rule makes it impossible.
At some point in the future, right around the time the Electoral College is removed (an amendment that will make voting a constitutional right), another constitutional amendment will need to override Citizens United.
Whenever I think of all that money spent on personal attack ads and what that amount could do to something positive instead -- like helping those who are suffering -- it makes me very sad. Not just this year, either. The idea that to win you need hundreds of millions of dollars for your political campaign is obscene.
There is something vile, wrong – evil, even – in a completely nonpartisan way – about spending what is likely to be more than a billion dollars this year, on elections, during a GLOBAL pandemic, when almost 4 million Americans are “long-term unemployed” (jobless for 27 weeks or more).
We have lost our collective minds.
Apparently it will come down to another SCOTUS decision and whether or not “free speech” (isn’t that an interesting conflict in terms?) is limited to human beings v corporations and organizations. And the monetary issue these days is not so much the candidates and their campaign spending, as it is the outside groups seeking to benefit from them.
Perhaps the real issue is what constitutes “free speech”? (Hint: If there’s money involved, it’s not free.)