There are 538 people with the fate of the election in their hands, and they can now seek counsel from high-powered lawyers.
Lawrence Lessig's plea to members of Congress wasn't exactly diplomatic. The Harvard law professor was referring to the outside role fundraising plays in lawmakers' schedules, and surveys showing that the most people believe the current system keeps them from being heard.
Even if we believe that self-funded campaigns are less prone to quid pro quo transactions between candidate and donor, surely a system where billionaire politicians hold extraordinary advantages over regular politicians is just as corrupt.
"I may be known in the tiny corners of the tubes of the Internets, but I am not well-known to the American public."
Black Lives Matter is roiling the progressive coalition.
The Harvard legal scholar promised to quit if he passes his reform agenda.
96 percent of Americans agree that it is important to reduce the influence of money in elections. Just about the only people who disagree are five Supreme Court justices and the corrupt Congress who got elected through that money. Otherwise, real Republican, Democratic and independent voters all agree: If you take a lot of money from someone, you are likely to do what they ask you to do. This used to be called bribery.
So far there haven't been very many progressives willing to stick their head out there and say they're willing to take on Team Hillary. I understand that the Washington media is saying that she can't be beat. That's hilarious. Isn't that exactly what they said in 2008?
What kind of campaign finance reform would Upton support? Enter your email address: Sign up below to get an email from Ryan
That is not the case with campaign contributions, which are "much harder to manipulate," according to Hilton. It provides