Roberts Court: help for the powerful

More reflections on SCOTUS's McCutcheon decision striking down campaign finance limits:

This decision, along with Citizens United and the gutting of the Equal Rights Law, shows this court's tilt toward helping the powerful, the rich, and the advantaged.

Anthony Kennedy's swing vote works in our favor when it comes to gay rights, and thanks be to him for that.   But on things like this, he's conservative to the core.

How can we have fair elections if one party is allowed to dominate the message by flooding the airwaves with their point of view and -- all too often -- lies and distortions?

Until we can get one more moderate or liberal on the court, our only recourse is to prove that this doesn't work.   And it didn't on the national level in 2012.  Local politics was another story then.   But all of the Koch money and the Adelson money went to losers in the presidential race -- and we have no presidential race in 2014.

This time, they're going for control of the Senate, however.   If they get that, we can forget about another liberal justice on the court.

We have to make up for their billionaire base by grass-roots organization and get-out-the-vote campaigns.   It's easier to do with a president to vote for, but we have to do it anyway.

Of course, this is what the Republicans fear -- so they pass laws to make it difficult for Democratic-tending groups to vote -- all the while piously claiming that it's to "protect" the vote. 

If the Afghans can turn out 58% of their voting population, despite far more difficult journeys to voting places and despite threats of violence from the Taliban -- then we should be able to get Democratic voters to do it.    Perhaps, if we realized that our democracy depends on it, as the Afghans do, we Americans would be more motivated.

Ralph