At stake is whether the twenty-first-century First Amendment will be a protector of the powerful or a resource for the weak and disfranchised.
In this gilded-age election, big money is speaking louder than ever. And
voters and large contributors to both parties agree that when money
talks, politicians listen.
It's no secret that the national conventions are no longer dramatic arenas in which the parties decide their presidential nominees or, for that matter, anything else of much importance.
This presidential election--so far--is the tale of two establishments, one that held firm, one that started to crack and moved fast to hang tight.
Every presidential contest in the past two decades has produced something of a quasi populist--a mad-as-hell candidate of the left, right or center who runs against the establishment in Washingto
If politics got real, the debate on campaign finance reform would focus on how ordinary citizens can acquire a measure of power in America's money-drenched democracy.
As the first voting of the 2000 presidential election approaches, in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, public disinterest is palpable.