Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn a 5-to-4 decision as we went to press, the Supreme Court upheld nearly all the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's provisions. It would have been a major setback if the Court hadn't agreed with the law's banning of national party soft money and restrictions on electioneering ads. However, with 95 percent of Americans not giving any money and the bulk coming in $2,000 checks from a tiny, wealthy elite, big money still dominates the electoral process. Candidates and communities without access to wealth are still essentially excluded from meaningful participation. Exhibit A: Bush's Rangers and Pioneers. More reform is needed.
Share this article
-
Rethinking the Veepstakes
John Nichols: The process of picking a Vice President needn't be the craven political exercise it is today. Do we even need one?
-
Boxed In
Peter C. Baker: Electoral reform in the United States will require federal intervention to empower voters and overcome the challenges posed by state and local autonomy.
-
Protecting the Rights of Millionaires
Laura MacCleery: By equating money with free speech, is the Supreme Court defending the right of the rich to steal elections?
-
Noted.
The race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat is on; Geithner is under the gun; The Nation's revered puzzle setter retires.
-
Filibustering the Public
Filibustering healthcare reform? This is not what democracy looks like.
-
Noted.
You don't have to go to Copenhagen to join the activists racing against the ticking environmental bomb.
- Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
- If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
- Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.
RSS