Two Billionaires Demonstrate the Limits of Money in Elections
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
The former New York City mayor has never been good at concealing his conviction that he is smarter and better than the rest of us.
Michael Bloomberg spent at least $500 million in his bid for a Super Tuesday blitz. He came away with...American Samoa.
"I hope our country will never see the time, when either riches or the want of them will be the leading considerations in the choice of public officers," Adams wrote in 1776.
The two Democratic billionaires have spent a combined $200 million on campaign ads already. That doesn't mean much to them, but the opportunity costs are staggering.
In the midst of a housing crisis, L.A. politicians have decided to limit their own incentives to allow more housing construction.
Twitter has made a bad decision when it comes to banning political ads from its site. They should trust users to decide what is right or wrong.
The Ukrainian president's benign interpretation of Trump's conduct is relevant to the impeachment inquiry but not dispositive.
Should participation in an election hinge on a voter's identity being made public? Of course not.
The president's critics have several legal theories, ranging from frivolous to debatable.
The constitutional amendment they support, like the president’s plan to regulate social media, trusts the government to moderate our political debate.
The Democracy for All Amendment aims to mute some voices so that others can be heard.
Plus: Marijuana banking, suing Facebook, and more...
Political donations are made public so that citizens can hold politicians accountable, not the other way around.
Episode 5 of Free Speech Rules, from UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
Nancy Pelosi's overwrought take on Donald Trump's receptiveness to "oppo research" is hard to take seriously.
Plus: humanitarians face felonies for helping migrants, Huawei scientists banned from reviewing prestigious journal, and more...
Although it's not all clear that the Trump Tower meeting was criminal, the president knew it would look bad.
Sobering reminder for all current and future Libertarians: A previously unknown mayor from a midsized Indiana college town will soon shatter the high-water fundraising numbers for America's third party.
Reformers always have a new scheme to take "the money out of politics," but it usually just makes the government larger and campaign spending increase.
Campaign finance legislation is always about inhibiting someone's speech.
Legal experts debate whether payments to kill stories about then-candidate Trump's affairs were undisclosed campaign expenditures.
Even if hush payments to his alleged mistresses amounted to illegal campaign contributions, the president says, he did not know that at the time.
Cohen blames Trump for sending him down a "path of darkness"
Republicans all too often adopt themselves many of the most misguided beliefs of the left. Among these misconceptions: money is inherently corrupt.
Republicans all too often adopt themselves many of the most misguided beliefs of the left. Among these misconceptions: money is inherently corrupt.
Also: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez owns the cons while spouting policy B.S.
If Trump did not recognize hush payments to his (alleged) former mistresses as illegal campaign contributions, he is not criminally culpable.
Montana L.P. candidate Rick Breckenridge says he was misinterpreted by a reporter.
Your unfettered expression is only one click away, and the late senator himself engaged in ritual self-criticism, Matt Welch argues on Bloggingheads.
Given the president's confusion about campaign finance law, how could he have "knowingly and willfully" violated it?
Is hush money to a politician's mistress "for the purpose of influencing an election" or "personal use"?
A question that now hangs like a miasma over D.C. is "Which of my staffers would hang me out to dry in order to avoid going to federal prison?"
It's no surprise that the president's has shady associates. It's still damning.
"Of course they are all campaign. Why else would I charge them to the campaign [credit] card."
An FEC report highlights lavish spending on basketball games, wineries, and trips to Las Vegas.
Complaints about corporate influence in elections are almost never actually about the corporate influence.
A failed ballot initiative in Nashville had much more to do with hum-drum local factors than shadowy billionaire-backed conspiracies.
Federal Judge Raymond Moore applies strict scrutiny to a system with the power to restrict political speech and finds it unreasonable to outsource that power to anyone and everyone.
It's a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Judge Edith Jones, in a case that upheld a $350 cap for contributions to Austin City Council races.
Neither Laura Ebke nor her cinema-loving constituents seem very scared.
When Democrats spend more and win, the campaign finance advantage doesn't come up as often.
Or is partisanship such a strong indicator of voter choice that the specifics of a candidate's stances might not matter?
Being forced to fund the campaigns of candidates you disagree with is just wrong.
Unmasking anonymous Twitter users who discuss politics is like demanding "dark money" donors disclose their identities for supporting political speech.
A laid-off grocery bagger learned to code and is now shining a light on spending by politicians, their campaigns, and outside groups.