“In 2010, one of the most consequential Court decisions in American political history gave wealthy corporations the right to spend unlimited money to influence elections. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion treated corruption as nothing more than explicit bribery, a narrow conception later echoed by Chief Justice Roberts in deciding McCutcheon v. FEC in 2014. With unlimited spending transforming American politics for the worse, warns Zephyr Teachout, Citizens United and McCutcheon were not just bad law but bad history. If the American experiment in self-government is to have a future, then we must revive the traditional meaning of corruption and embrace an old ideal.”
|By: Matt Stoller Sunday November 16, 2014 1:59 pm|
|By: Elliott Sunday November 16, 2014 10:00 am|
For two centuries the framers’ ideas about corruption flourished in the courts, even in the absence of clear rules governing voters, civil officers, and elected officials. Should a law that was passed by a state legislature be overturned because half of its members were bribed? What kinds of lobbying activity were corrupt, and what kinds were legal? When does an implicit promise count as bribery? In the 1970s the U.S. Supreme Court began to narrow the definition of corruption, and the meaning has since changed dramatically. No case makes that clearer than Citizens United.
|By: letsgetitdone Tuesday April 29, 2014 5:40 pm|
The US doesn’t have either mob rule or constitutional democracy. Nor does the study show that the political system is paralyzed, in spite of all the complaints about excessive partisanship and stalemate in Washington. So someone is ruling. Who is it?
|By: cassiodorus Wednesday October 31, 2012 10:00 am|
Peter Coyote, who first attracted my attention when he signed a “vote Democratic and keep Nader out of it” letter back in 2004, has come up with a sally in Salon against Matt Stoller’s piece, itself titled “The Progressive Case Against Obama.” Coyote’s piece is titled “The Progressive Case For Obama.”
|By: David Dayen Thursday June 28, 2012 6:36 pm|
I saw a live preview of this show back in February in Los Angeles, and I can say that it represents a major shift in the range of opinions allowed on broadcast television. What passes for “liberal” on TV and in most of our media is extremely narrowed and constrained, with views very much in line with the political establishment. Heck, Richard Cohen is still seen as a liberal voice on the Washington Post editorial page. But this show, if the previews are any indication, will deconstruct the media and describe its narratives, in ways we haven’t really seen before.
|By: masaccio Sunday January 22, 2012 10:40 am|
Even the 99.9th% figured out that they are garbage to their oligarch owners. No wonder the rest of us are worried about electing an oligarch president.
|By: Eli Saturday August 6, 2011 12:30 pm|
Hey, remember all those Obama supporters who used to tell us that what looked like weakness and cluelessness to us was really cunning eleventy-dimensional chess moves designed to outfox the Republicans in the long run? Well, they were sort of right…