The murky business of electioneering

Beth Wellington: The tragic irony of Russ Feingold losing in Wisconsin was that the very corporate funding he'd helped outlaw brought him down Full Story »

Posted by Barry Grossheim - via The Guardian (US)
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics, Business
Member Tags: party funding, US Supreme Court, US Politics, United States, us midterm elections 2010, karl rove, US congress, guardian.co.uk, comment
Stats Help
# Diggs: 1 (as of 2010-11-11)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Barry Grossheim - Nov 10, 2010 - 12:07 PM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Beth Wellington - Nov 27, 2010 - 1:25 PM PST

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Chris Finnie
4.1
by Chris Finnie - Nov. 10, 2010

Wellington applies some specific rulings and observations to a specific election and looks to see if the predictions come true. Unfortunately, they did. The senator who tried to stop monied interests from buying elections got hammered by big money and lost his seat. Is this really the way to run a democracy?

I like the Oz reference. Works.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Patricia L'Herrou
3.9
by Patricia L'Herrou - Nov. 10, 2010

with good sourcing and facts and figures and quotes from same, the writer summarizes the financial campaign downfall of sen. russ feingold, who has been a long time senator without corporate money, and an independent thinker/senator. it is both ironic and sad, and a loss to our representation in our government.

i also noted the naivite of david brooks column mentioned here. however, i also wonder at the voters of feingold's state who have been electing him for so long and even the money pouring in couldn't have been the only significant factor for their turn against him.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Barry Grossheim
4.0
by Barry Grossheim - Nov. 10, 2010

Explores the Citizen's United Supreme Court ruling in the real world setting of the midterm elections.

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.0

Good
from 4 reviews (65% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Information
4.0
Insight
4.0
Style
4.0
Context
3.7
Expertise
4.0
Originality
3.7
Relevance
4.7
Responsibility
4.0
Popularity
3.9
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!