Skip to main content

The Citizens United ruling was awful for the Democratic Party

Most importantly, as I've written about previously, the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 was awful for this country. Think people were fed up by big money in politics before the ruling? Of receiving seemingly countless fliers in the mail? Of seeing nothing put campaign commercials during dinner? Of thinking their voices meant little to nothing? Well, after the ruling, things just got worse on all of those fronts. Campaign spending increased, and with that, so too did the release of fliers and television ads, not to mention people's voices began feeling even smaller than before. But, while the ruling was awful for the country as a whole, it's also been awful for the Democratic Party. The Republican Party wasn't phased a great deal by the ruling. They've increasingly become the party of the top 1%, so to them, what would better give them a chance come election day than providing that very top 1% unlimited contribution capability? For the Democratic Party, however, it's had an entirely different impact. Before the ruling, while Democrats had many big-money donors as well, they tried to at least get the bottom 99% involved through grassroots campaigning, making them feel like they were part of the election process and that their voices (and dollars) counted for something. After the Citizens United ruling, however, Democrats were forced to either appear hypocritical by constantly going after the big money donors like Republicans to keep the playing field level and have a better chance come election day, or stay true to their roots by continuing to focus more on small-time donors, grassroots campaigning, and see their electability odds decrease quite substantially as a result. Now more than ever it seems like, long-time progressives and/or Democrats are receiving emails asking for donations. It's gotten to the point where many of these very progressives and Democrats have set such emails to spam via their settings because they've understandably grown sick and tired of them. Unfortunately, though, until the Citizens United ruling is overturned, these awful trends aren't going to stop. Democrats, like Republicans, will continue sending countless emails every day asking for money. They'll continue obsessively going after big-name donors. They'll continue having to play the game the Supreme Court dictated through their atrocious ruling, making them appear to be hypocrites in the process. Sadly, unless the ruling is turned, we may not be far removed from seeing our democracy (republic) turn into an oligarchy, if it's not there already. On that day, January 21st of 2010, the Supreme Court may have officially altered the name of this country from the United States of America to the Koch States of America.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"