Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, co-author of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, was felled last night by corporate television ad dollars allowed to flood in by a Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC giving corporations the status of individuals
Russ Feingold: last of the sane
Many of you might already be familiar with my position regarding the act of voting, or rather the act of not voting. Some enthusiastically agreed while others were downright offended by my position. There are, however, a few representatives and senators who I admire on some level. Senator Russ Feingold was one of them.
Maybe it’s the strain of false nostalgia for my days as a Political Science major, in which I had delusions that I might be able to change things as an elected official. Whatever the case, I was slightly saddened to see Wisconsin’s Democratic Senator Russ Feingold lose his seat last night to plastics manufacturer and social climber Ron Johnson (yes, Ron Johnson is a gold digger).
Even in a year in which we knew Republicans would make significant congressional gains, the idea that Feingold — a man who marched to his own tune the majority of the time — could be so suddenly eliminated by a man with no experience seems downright absurd. (It’s also proof that something is terribly wrong in America’s political system. More on that later.) However, this gives too much credit to Johnson as a candidate and to the perceived sentiment of Wisconsin voters as a subset of national voter sentiment.
Feingold helped Senator McCain craft the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, popularly known as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. The bill was contentious from the get-go. In fact, I remember writing an essay on the subject when I was in college at the time at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Before the essay, the students (hundreds of them) listened to our professor explain how the issue of campaign finance was not so black and white. While popular opinion indicated voters wanted an end to corporate dollars spent on state and national elections, there was the idea that donations from corporations and individuals were synonymous with free speech.
This angered me at the time, but I understood the reasoning. Ultimately I argued that those with a greater amount of cash (corporations, the rich and other elites) would have a louder voice because they could spend many thousands of dollars on expensive television, print and digital ads, effectively silencing those with little to donate. The loudest voice would create a rabble so loud and full of static, that the opposition would be drowned out, fading into irrelevance.
Isn’t that an appropriate metaphor for American politics in the larger sense? I will not call our government a democracy, for it doesn’t deserve the designation. It is what it has always been: a republic. A republic that might be best described as a corporation with representatives and bureaucrats being the stocks, the lobbyists the stock brokers, and the corporations (domestic and foreign) and the rich gleeful investors. And it’s common knowledge in investment that the more stocks that are owned, rising shares will yield greater stockholder return. Conversely, the more stocks owned, the greater the risk to investors if they were to lose.
The game is to keep things just the way they are — fixed. Stop the losses at all costs and ensure greater returns.
Think of Feingold’s defeat as a microcosm of American electoral politics: as the lens through which we look at the virus as a whole.
Here was an elected offical who was generally regarded as a man of the people, and by corporations as a man who just wouldn’t take the god-damned money. Too principled. A man who was not beholden to lobbyists, corporations or even his own party. He was the lone dissenting vote on the Patriot Act of 2001 –an act of defiance for which I will always have the greatest respect. He stood in the face of President Bush‘s fear-mongering politics, braved the poison of false patriotism and nationalism (so strong it could make the Nazis blush with envy), and he did not give his vote.
It was such a sublime political moment, so perfect yet so fleeting and unheralded, that it makes me remember a poem given to me by my father when I went off to college. The poem was “If” by Rudyard Kipling (a favorite for the college-bound), and the first line always stuck with me. And it seems apt when considering the human perfection that Feingold attained in his vote against the Patriot Act: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs…” Feingold kept his head while everyone in this country were losing theirs in a miasma of patriotism so disgusting I thought we might never escape it.
Feingold was one of 28 US Senators who voted against Bush’s War in Iraq — not a popular move at the time. Many liberal stalwarts gave their vote so as to not look like obstructionists or un-patriotic. Feingold voted his conscience. He voted against the proposed constitutional ban against gay marriage. He voted to repeal tax subsidies for corporations moving U.S. jobs overseas. In 1998 re-election campaign, Feingold asked the Democratic party and special interest groups not to contribute soft money to his campaign (money for issue ads), angering some of his supporters and his own party. The corporations salivated and began licking their chops — it was only a matter of time.
In 2005, Senator Feingold was the first Senator to call for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and to set a timetable. And he was one of three Senators (the others being Robert Byrd and Tom Harkin) to vote against Goldman Sachs alumnus Timothy Geithner being installed as Secretary of the Treasury. He was against wasteful spending, pork barrel politics and corporate welfare, and was supported by centrist federal watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Not the mark of a tax-and-spend Liberal by any stretch of the imagination.
Feingold’s 2004 campaign headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin had a t-shirt for sale that was black with a human’s white spine emblazoned on the back. It symbolized the backbone he brought to his political philosophy and how he would not prostrate himself before the thrown of would-be King George the Crusader.
How does a man of such principle fall? Make no mistake about it: money — corporate money — brought down Senator Russ Feingold. Not Ron Johnson, not the sentiment of Americans pissed off at minimal economic progress or Obama’s spending. He was a well-respected man not only in Wisconsin but across the nation amongst anyone who understood the dark nature of politics.
But, he put himself right in the crosshairs of corporate donors who did not take kindly to Feingold’s efforts in removing the most visible sign of their privileged government access. According to The Wisconsin State Journal, about $5 million in corporate TV ad spots were deployed in this election, with “most of that on ads opposing Feingold.” According to the Wall Street Journal, Ron Johnson (a corporate machine in the guise of a human being) spent $8 million of his personal fortune on the Senate race.
Truth: It took 18 years but the corporations killed Russ Feingold — beaten by the very same virus he attempted to eradicate in his campaign finance legislation.
He’s been replaced by a walking, talking corporation. A like-minded individual. A fucking drone. What further proof is needed that this country and this government have spun completely off their axes? Reason and logic have been lost in a cloud of static, a rabble. The reality field has been distorted again by forces who would have us believe Feingold’s defeat was an expression of the public will. Fuck the distortion.
This isn’t a post-mortem of Russ Feingold’s political life — it’s just another piece in the long-running post-mortem of democracy.
November 03, 2010 at 6:12 pm, Kiwiberi4 said:
I very much appreciate this article. I am from Wisconsin and have nothing but the utmost respect for him and am very saddened that people chose a “citizen- politician,” who is also a political unknown, millionaire, white, Christian, old man, over a reknown, polished, consistent, open-minded, fearless, and respected politician. I almost shed a tear last night over the loss of Feingold in the senate.
However, you have no right to even voice your sadness, disgust, or reasons for why Feingold lost, because you did not vote. I do not care if you are not from Wisconsin and could not even vote for him, you symbolize the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites who did not show up to the polls. The numbers are showing that the # of votes which separated johnson and feingold is less than 100,000. Just think if all the people who could vote did vote, I guarantee Feingold would be celebrating today instead of hanging up his gloves.
November 03, 2010 at 6:23 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
With all due respect, I am a resident of California, so I couldn't have voted for Russ Feingold. I voted for him in 2004. So pardon me when I say that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I have every right in the world to express myself regarding the election results. If you had actually read the article in its entirety (or, rather, if you had interpreted correctly–though this demands some attention), I note that his loss is a symptom of a larger virus: corporate influence in electoral politics and a willingness of certain voters to be fooled by what really amounts to stupidity. It's not my fault that 100,000 Wisconsin citizens were played for fools by million of dollars in corporate ads and by a corporate candidate.
Don't be angry at me. Be angry at your fellow Wisconsinites who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
If they had any sense about them, they would have seen through the smokescreen and voted for Feingold.
November 03, 2010 at 6:36 pm, Leenie said:
Us Wisconsinites SHOULD be angry with our fellow Wisconsinites for allowing Russ Feingold to be voted out of office. I'm still so angry and sick to my stomach that people can be so STUPID. Russ Feingold was one of the best things that Wisconsin has to offer. A very, very sad day, indeed!
November 03, 2010 at 6:38 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Thank you.
November 03, 2010 at 7:00 pm, Chrisbruehl1 said:
But were you in Wisconsin, you still wouldn't have voted for Russ Feingold. So kiwi's point is valid, and even said ” I do not care if you are not from Wisconsin and could not even vote for him, you symbolize the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites who did not show up to the polls.” I like how you say they dont know their asses from a hole in a ground, but you still wouldn't have participated in the election, fuck. You have strong political opinions but refuse to express them where it actually matters. Pointless. Also, probably not a good idea to personally insult your readers.
November 03, 2010 at 7:25 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Maybe Kiwi's point is valid, but I symbolize only myself and not the voters of Wisconsin. It would take me days to explain the various political opinions I hold and the reasoning I use, and this is not the appropriate venue for that sort of discussion.
To quote you: “I like how you say they dont know their asses from a hole in a ground, but you still wouldn't have participated in the election, fuck.”
Again, my decision to not vote is my decision alone. I didn't vote in California, where I am registered to vote. My decision to not vote is irrelevant. I am editorializing the election results and commenting on the state of American democracy in a larger sense.
Wisconsin voters screwed up. They screwed up. I carry no blame in the outcome.
While Feingold's loss is bad, it symbolizes something far more insidious: the disintegration, the putrefaction of the corpse that is American democracy… a relentless progression that I could not possibly stop.
In a sense, I'm not surprised that Feingold lost.
This is what happens when in free market democracies.
November 03, 2010 at 7:52 pm, Kiwiberi4 said:
thank you everyone, yes I did note that you may not even been from Wisconsin and not even able to vote for Feingold. so, be it. if you don't vote, don't complain. simple as that. Voting is how we are empowered in this country (yes and money). Instead of expressing your opinions about reasons not to vote, maybe you should put your thoughts and ideas into real political action…one does not need to classify themselves as a republican, democrat, independent, etc., to be able to vote. If you are sick of America so much that you do not want to vote, get out or start a revolution!!! Remember, once upon a time the US treated women as second class citizens, public facilities were separated by race, and all the presidents were white males. You cannot argue with the fact that these ALL did not stem from voting.
November 03, 2010 at 8:13 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
I'm not complaining about the fact that 100,000 Wisconsin voters were played for fools. I was writing a post-mortem on American democracy. I was putting Feingold's loss in perspective. Placing the results in their proper context, as just another example of how strong the will is to dilute politics to a mere engine of money.
And it doesn't take heavy intellectual lifting to realize that last night's election results are a sample of the voting public at large. If every Wisconsin voter who was eligible were to have voted last night, the results would have been the same. It was not as if untold numbers of Feingold supporters sat at home, hiding under the stairs like disgruntled trolls mumbling, “I'll teach him a lesson. I'll teach him a lesson.”
No. Vast numbers of voters were driven into counter-intuitive action by TV ads paid for by corporate donors who wanted to unseat him for a very long time, and were able to because of the Democratic party's fuck ups and over-zealousness. They were driven into counter-intuitive action by machines of propaganda like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
Impressionistic people were convinced by the emotions of their friends and family and very subtle and effective television propaganda to vote the way they did.
You want to be angry at someone, be angry at your fellow citizens for being so gullible.
November 03, 2010 at 8:38 pm, Kiwiberi4 said:
yup we are all zombies here is wisconsin, who go along with whatever ads are on tv. I love Feingold, but there were just as many tv ads for him as there were Ron Johnson. I know there were not Russ Feingold supporters sitting at home and refusing to vote. These non-voters I refer to are those who have no opinions on politics, don't have time for it, sad excuse after sad excuse… even though the majority of Wisconsin voted for Ron Johnson, if everyone in our state who was able to vote, did research on the candidates and voted according to their research, I am positive the majority would be for Russ.
November 03, 2010 at 8:47 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
I don't necessarily disagree with your utopian voter dream, but that's an obstacle we will never surmount. Ever.
I'm not saying everyone in Wisconsin is a zombie, blindly following television ads. I'm saying that a slim margin of voters bought what the ads, Fox News and their friends (in many cases) were selling.
They believed in the idea that Ron Johnson was a sensible choice.
They believed in the lie that the healthcare bill was the source of every economic problem this country is facing and that repealing it will somehow give them back their American Dream.
They were given a great pile of shit spray-painted with gold dust, took a big whiff of it, and said, “I like what you're selling. Give me some more of that.”
It's the oldest salesmen trick in the book. And that is why Feingold lost.
November 03, 2010 at 9:05 pm, Pauld said:
Thats right, you are so much better than the rest of us poor zombies…..we have no clue what we are doing. We took out the garbage, thats all.
November 03, 2010 at 8:25 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
And for someone who doesn't like the fact that I'm giving voice to a legitimate sentiment (whatever you may think), you're very willing to engage with someone who you believe should be stripped of their right to speak about the state of American democracy.
November 03, 2010 at 8:27 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
I'm sure the ACLU and their lawyers would have my back.
November 03, 2010 at 8:08 pm, Dan Walsh said:
Voting operates as it always has, that those who vote are a statistically valid, sample sentiment of the entire population. The number of votes that separated Feingold's loss from Johnson's victory would have only grown if more people turned out to vote. The percentage would have stayed relatively the same.
It's not like 100,000 Feingold supporters were the only ones who decided not to vote. That would just be silly.
November 03, 2010 at 8:16 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Yes, indeed, Mr. Walsh. Yes, indeed.
November 03, 2010 at 7:15 pm, Jen Holmstadt said:
I, too, have been sick all day. I can't believe we voted out Russ. My husband and I are seriously thinking of moving.
November 03, 2010 at 6:16 pm, chuckWagon said:
Sad to see Feingold go. Especially, as you note, to someone unproven, inexperienced, and (likely) less bipartisan. However, we can look optimistically at this year's race for California governor; Meg Whitman outspent Jerry Brown by an estimated 14 to 1, and she lost. Proof positive that corporate dollars and deep pockets don't always win.
November 03, 2010 at 7:52 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
California voters are fundamentally different from Wisconsin voters, however. You stick Meg Whitman in Wisconsin with all those corporate dollars and she wins.
November 03, 2010 at 6:19 pm, Topoftheline said:
It just shows how idiotic voters have become. They acted like the brainless, spineless, gutless, asses who buy anything thrown at them by mindless juvenile television ads. It's true… Good guys always finish last!
November 03, 2010 at 6:22 pm, David Vaughan Eppelsheimer Jr. said:
Literally (for meteorologists) and figuratively (for progressivism), November 3rd is a gloomy day in Wisconsin. There is no other member of the senate that returns a significant part of their salary (since '93, Feingold refused to increase his pay while the rest of the country's average earnings remained stagnant since the mid-eighties) or refused to submit to the deluge of special interest cash that has flooded the legislature
November 03, 2010 at 6:37 pm, Uncle Big said:
Corporate dollars? People don't understand all the brilliance that comes out of the Democratic party? The people of Wisconsin finally woke up and smelled the hops. People are sick and tired of those like (soon to be former) Senator Feingold who continue to look down their noses at us ordinary Americans. McCain-Feingold was hideous legislation that, despite what may have had good intentions, trampled on the First Amendment. Corporations are persons. Just ask the IRS who collects billions in taxes from them (although we consumers ultimately pick up the tab, another fact that liberals can't comprehend). Remember, the road to perdition is paved with good intentions.
November 03, 2010 at 6:59 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
McCain-Feingold was flawed, yes, but at last he tried. If political contributions are equivalent to free speech, you are admitting that the man with the most money has the biggest megaphone. In effect, the biggest megaphone has the greatest influence on an election. Corporations are made of people but they are not people. They represent nobody but their themselves and their narrow interests.
November 25, 2010 at 3:49 am, Educated Voter said:
McCain-Feingold was flawed, but??? All McCain-Feingold did was replace the PAC funds with 501 c 3 funds. Look at Fiengolds own spending the election cycle after it was passed. He doubled his spending to 10M to defeat a candidate that could barely raise 2 million. We were not fooled in Wisconsin by Russ. Though you may have been fooled by your wonderful UW professors.
November 03, 2010 at 7:11 pm, David said:
Corporations are persons? That is a truly idiotic thing to say.
November 03, 2010 at 9:29 pm, Jf1835 said:
legally speaking, they are “people” or individual legal entities. They have credit files and individual tax liabilities that are separate from their stock holders and board members.
It is not an idiotic thing to say, it is the truth. It only sounds idiotic to those not educated on the law.
November 03, 2010 at 7:13 pm, Extraordinary American said:
As if Ron Johnson is one of us “ordinary Americans.”
November 03, 2010 at 6:37 pm, Leenie said:
PS: Thank you for the great article on Russ Feingold.
November 03, 2010 at 6:42 pm, Guest said:
Most disappointing loss of this election, don't know how they could get rid of him
November 03, 2010 at 6:47 pm, Shirleyksmith said:
I am from Wisconsin and have been sad all day with the loss of Russ. Damn sure one of the best guys to have in government. It will bite Wisconsinites in the butts eventually. NOw I have a Republican Govenor and Senator maybe I will have to move to California.
November 03, 2010 at 7:41 pm, Pauld said:
Move…now……the sooner the better. Don't let the cheese hit you on the backside on your way out. Foolsgold had more “corp” money and outspent his opponent. So you can't claim that. He made his choice on spending and he's gone. Good Bye russruss
December 09, 2010 at 5:44 pm, Cyberdigr said:
Maybe YOU should be hitting yourself on your backside. Ron Johnson isn't in office yet and guess what he does? He hires as his Chief of Staff a well-known out-of-state corporate LOBBYIST. Next, Mr. “I'm wealthy and don't need the evil Government Campaign finance money–I'll pay for it myself” is holding a fund-raising dinner to PAY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN DEBTS and for running in 2o12. Talk about naked avarice–that and he is clearly a liar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
November 03, 2010 at 7:08 pm, Cassandratroy2001 said:
Wisconsin does not deserve a stand up guy like Russ Feingold; apparently, never did.
November 03, 2010 at 7:15 pm, Rmc437 said:
Sniff…now this Fascist can't help kill babies anymore…
November 03, 2010 at 7:33 pm, Larry Waukesha said:
DJ Pangburn doesn't understand that it was THE VOTING PUBLIC (not corporate dollars) that got Feingold unseated! Feingold never found an immoral or anti-American piece of legislation that Feingold would not support. Feingold was a puppet of the Abortion Industry. About time Wisconsin took the trash out !
November 03, 2010 at 8:02 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
A Waukesha Republican. Surprise, Surprise.
November 04, 2010 at 12:54 am, Tyler said:
There are a lot of ignorant and borderline bigoted comments on this board, but yours, Larry Waukesha, leads the pack. “Took the trash out” Really? How inconsiderate and straight up stupid- Feingold is/was one of the finest politicians this country has seen. Feingold was never afraid to cross party lines and he seemed to care about humans more than anything else- I know multiple people who have received personal letters and resulting action from the man who was never too busy to listen to his constituents. You won't see anything remotely near that from Mr. Johnson. I spent some time in the presence of Mr. Johnson a few years back and found him to be a smug asshole. Good luck with him as your Senator. I'm sure he'll really look out for your personal interests (which are??).
Please list a few of the supposed anti-American pieces of legislation that Feingold supported. Seriously, find even one. And there is no such thing as an abortion industry.
You miss the point of DJ's article completely and I'm surprised you were even able to read it. Enjoy Waukesha and the wonderful little bubble you live in.
DJ- great article, as always.
November 09, 2010 at 12:41 am, Nospam said:
You are a goddamn idiot. Shut the fuck up and get out of my state.
November 09, 2010 at 10:06 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
That temper reminds me of Ted Bundy, also a Republican.
November 03, 2010 at 7:41 pm, Carree Meyers said:
He was the lone dissenting vote on the Patriot Act of 2001 –an act for which I will always have the greatest respect.
sigh.
November 03, 2010 at 7:43 pm, kb said:
Democracy has some downsides – the ignorance and selfishness of the voting public are two of them
November 03, 2010 at 9:08 pm, TJ said:
There are honest Americans living in Wisconsin who turned out to vote for Ron Johnson not because of any tv ads, but because of their moral obligation to vote for someone who would best reflect their values. Some made educated decisions, based on principle, and chose Ron Johnson anyway. This is democracy, and the United States is far from dead in the water.
November 03, 2010 at 11:22 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Most voted for Ron Johnson because they were life-long Republicans. The rest who swong the election in his favor were convinced, somehow, that voting Russ Feingold out of office would improve their chances of regaining the American Dream. They either bought into illusion spoon-fed to them by others or convinced themselves. They will realize that it was an illusion when they're still struggling years from now because of a recession that was not of Russ Feingold's doing and that Johnson will be powerless to correct.
November 03, 2010 at 9:28 pm, ActualContributorToSociety said:
I was about to comment about all the lies and half-truths in your opinion piece, but then I stopped to look at your bio. Never mind. Let's talk after you grow up and start writing about things you know.
November 03, 2010 at 10:48 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Thanks for the background check, Sir. I'm blushing quite frankly.
Ah, yes…. the well worn belief that not only are the old across the board wise and know anything about the world, but that they alone have a right to have an opinion about matters political. And what is more, force their wisdom on the younger generation. There are plenty of old and experienced fools on this planet. Sounds like they just added one to their ranks.
Fools are born, Sir. Some escape it with great effort, but most don't because they're not very self-aware. And as the years grow and wisdom eludes them, they remain what they were born…
November 03, 2010 at 9:39 pm, Jf1835 said:
I am a libertarian and even I admired Russ Feingold. However I strongly disagreed with the McCain Feingold act, and the argument that money makes for a louder voice is a valid point, but I feel only partially correct.
If you're going to limit money you are unfairly handicapping the whole election.
What about those that get celebrity endorsements? Surely that is an advantage, because celebrities inherently have a louder voice. Are we going to limit the number of prominent endorsements a candidate can get?
What if the candidate has an amazing charismatic gift and is able to charm people with words? Surely that is an advantage over a rival. What if he's not even speaking the truth but so good at manipulating it, people believe him? (the very essence of politics). Are we going to find a way to regulate charisma and good looks as well?
You really think if Mitt Romney looked like Dennis Kucinich he would be in any kind of prominent political standing?
You can't regulate every unfair advantage in every race. What if one candidate's strength is not in speaking but in raising money? What right do we have to discriminate against that strength but none of the aforementioned and the countless others not mentioned?
It is not all dollars and cents here, as easy as it is to use that as our common villain. Feingold dug his own ditch with his healthcare vote, which was wildly unpopular, along with the failed stimulus which did nothing to lower unemployment and raised the debt ceiling by extraordinary measures.
To characterize the entire state of Wisconsin as sheep that voted strictly based on money spent on commercials is a pretty bold claim with a slight twinge of arrogance to be quite honest. It implies that the entire state is so stupid that though this man had served them for 18 years and they had voted him in countless times before, suddenly they were so entranced by the television that their logic went out the window.
This is not what happened.
November 03, 2010 at 11:04 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Jf1835,
You strike me as sensible. More sensible than most.
But as sensible person, I would expect you to believe that corporate money flooding into Wisconsin from out of state corporations and invididuals to drown out the free speech of others is not a good thing. I agree that it sucks that maybe qualified candidates aren't as handsome, charismatic or dynamic in oratory as their competition.
But that is quite a different thing than invisible 527 organizations throwing millions of dollars against or for candidates to influence public opinion. The public should be able to decide for themselves. Put all the information on the table without ads spinning information. I don't like it coming from any political angle.
The money spent by these organizations, corporations, individuals, whatever, can and does influence the minds of people, in the very same way ads influence children to become enamored with the look of a cereal, though its ingredients are unhealthy.
I don't agree that Feingold dug his own ditch on the healthcare vote even though it was unpopular. I believe people were successful at framing the issue such that a vote to unseat him would give them back the American Dream. That repealing the bill would somehow reset America. Rewind us to before the economy's crash. That money would suddenly begin flowing back into bank accounts. Businesses would begin thriving again. American would regain its economic prominence.
It's a fucking illusion and a pack of lies.
And they bought the illusion.
And you know it.
November 03, 2010 at 9:40 pm, Jf1835 said:
I am a libertarian and even I admired Russ Feingold. However I strongly disagreed with the McCain Feingold act, and the argument that money makes for a louder voice is a valid point, but I feel only partially correct.
If you're going to limit money you are unfairly handicapping the whole election.
What about those that get celebrity endorsements? Surely that is an advantage, because celebrities inherently have a louder voice. Are we going to limit the number of prominent endorsements a candidate can get?
What if the candidate has an amazing charismatic gift and is able to charm people with words? Surely that is an advantage over a rival. What if he's not even speaking the truth but so good at manipulating it, people believe him? (the very essence of politics). Are we going to find a way to regulate charisma and good looks as well?
You really think if Mitt Romney looked like Dennis Kucinich he would be in any kind of prominent political standing?
You can't regulate every unfair advantage in every race. What if one candidate's strength is not in speaking but in raising money? What right do we have to discriminate against that strength but none of the aforementioned and the countless others not mentioned?
It is not all dollars and cents here, as easy as it is to use that as our common villain. Feingold dug his own ditch with his healthcare vote, which was wildly unpopular, along with the failed stimulus which did nothing to lower unemployment and raised the debt ceiling by extraordinary measures.
To characterize the entire state of Wisconsin as sheep that voted strictly based on money spent on commercials is a pretty bold claim with a slight twinge of arrogance to be quite honest. It implies that the entire state is so stupid that though this man had served them for 18 years and they had voted him in countless times before, suddenly they were so entranced by the television that their logic went out the window.
This is not what happened.
November 03, 2010 at 10:33 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:
Jf1835,
There are a lot points in your comment, but I'm going to concentrate on the last paragraph because it's so wildly off base that it demands a straight answer.
Please re-read the article. I don't characterize the entire state of Wisconsin as sheep. Most people are either Republilcan or Democrat and will vote as such election to election with very little variance. In between are the voters who move from Republican to Democrat or Independent and back again based on the prevailing political winds. Anyway, I applaud you for the generous dose of pathos you infused in your rhetoric–it's exactly the type most effective on impressionable minds.
The healthcare bill was highly unpopular, I will agree. But you must admit that the people with the loudest voice (conservative pundits like Fox News, 527 organizations, conservative blogs, etc) were able to convince the swing voters that the healthcare bill was the source of our economic problem. They centered the bad economy squarely and conveniently at Obama's feet, making many voters forget that he was not the cause of the recession. Many things, dating back to at least the time of Reagan were to blame for current economic crisis, namely a series of economic bubbles (leveraged buyote, junk bond, savings & loand, dot com, real estate and commodities bubbles). I include Bill Clinton in this progression. Every President shares some blame in our current economic crisis.
Where was all of the deficit spending and bloated government angst during Bush's presidency from the Tea Party and other conservative voices? Hm? Where was it? It was non-existent because a conservative was in the White House. A conservative who presided over the biggest expansion in the government's budget since FDR.
So, either they have selective memory, cognitively dissonant minds or they were whipped into a frenzy by forces like Glen Beck, Fox News, conservative blogs, corporate 527 organization ads, and the like. I would say all of the above.
November 03, 2010 at 10:00 pm, realdebate said:
Russ Feingold lost because he didn't listen to the people. He went around the state and did the opposite of what the reisdents of Wisconsin said.
In all your whining about corporate money you miss the point that Feingold took huge amounts of money from unions of every sector. Are they not a special interest?
Feingold ranked as high as high as 2nd and no lower than 8th in every sector of union money.
And for the record Feingold himself ran horribly negative ads against Johnson, he is not innocent in campaign ad blame game.
Face it, he lost because he lost the people of Wisconsin. Quit whining.
November 03, 2010 at 11:14 pm, LongerRoad said:
Let's understand what's wrong with the fundamentals:
we have “an electoral system that vastly over-represents owners, managers and professionals, and under-represents the working class by a wide margin…
The 2010 mid-term elections have thus taken place not only without the participation of the majority of voters, but with the pronounced exclusion of millions of working class Americans and particularly African Americans.”
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/11/class-basis-of-us-elections.html
November 04, 2010 at 4:51 am, John said:
I voted Feingold but am willing to see what Johnson does (or at least attempts to do). Feingold ain't a saint, and Johnson ain't satan. In fact, I think his goals are simple and respectable… his inexperience may render him completely ineffective though, and I'm not even sure where he stands on non-fiscal issues.
November 04, 2010 at 11:22 pm, PeaceNikki said:
thundering applause
November 09, 2010 at 7:05 pm, oteast said:
I liked Feingold, not your typical shill D or R. He's the rarefied company of true public service with the likes of Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, and Bernie Sanders. His vote on the war was dead on correct and I noted that too when the Jingoism was getting a little too. Shrill
November 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm, Ted Rall & the Question of a New Armerican Revolution | Death and Taxes said:
[...] of our country’s champions, Senator Russ Feingold, was brought down by their [...]
November 25, 2010 at 4:36 am, Educated Voter said:
I remember another time like this election. Congressman Kastenmier was defeated by Scott Klug. The same moaning and crying took place then. I am a bit tired of the enlightened few calling those that voted for change in 2010 as “stupid” (not your term), or “It’s also proof that something is terribly wrong in America’s political system.” Sorry but we voted for a person that has been in industry. Someone that has created jobs. You can say what you want about how he got the business. All I ask is to think a bit more than your professors asked you to think. You may see that there are a good many people that are very intelligent that voted different than you would have if you voted. That, my friend, is disagreement not something wrong with the American system.
PS. If you are really upset about big money in campaigns, go after the George Soros organizations. Most of the campaign material from Feingold could be traced back to Soros orgs.
December 06, 2010 at 5:47 am, L Keel said:
One final monkey to be heard from: I live in WI, Madison, in fact, and enthusiastically supported Russ Feingold for 18 years.
He consistently reinforced my support by voting my convictions 98% of the time. For 1 1/2% of the time, he offered clear, coherent reasoning for his decisions, which I appreciated. The last 1/2% (Ashcroft, Roberts confirmations) we were just plain at odds.
Reality is that politically WI is similar to many other states- rural areas tend to vote Republican, urban areas Democratic. Feingold, despite his value as an honest, thoughtful maverick, was a LIBERAL maverick, ergo the enemy to those from generations of conservatives (including Green Bay Packerland).
For 18 years, liberal/liberal leaning/moderate voters came out strongly enough to keep him in office. We tend to vote.
In 2010, I think the anger and frustration of financial issues, fueled by negative TV & radio ads, a lack of coherent ads/information confronting the distortions of U.S Chamber of Commerce financed ads, and deep-seated backgrounds of resistance to consideration of beliefs beyond the familiar (possibly including a black President), drove more conservatives to the polls to defeat a perceived liberal PARTY menacing to their livelihoods and country.
The reality of the value of Russ Feingold's beliefs & actions were overshadowed or beyond consideration.
Ron Johnson exposed little of who he is, or his actual beliefs or goals (other than that he was a “businessman”, which I would have thought would send anybody with any exposure to current conditions screaming in the other direction), but that in itself says something.
Many of these same rural communities have been left with high unemployment when corporations closed paper mills and other industries that sustained the economy of the entire town, but I guess it all comes down to the filters you see
things through.
I'm seriously considering a move to Vermont… not much into suffering for other people's choices, especially when it includes a Republican Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Gov., ….
As my mother would say in frustration “What have I done to deserve this?” Indeed.
December 09, 2010 at 4:04 pm, China Taunts Admiral Mike Mullen and the U.S. | Death and Taxes said:
[...] A few make selfless efforts on behalf of people such as Representative Dennis Kucinich and formerly Senator Russ Feingold, but representative governments (whether Chinese or American) make of men thousands of would-be [...]
April 12, 2011 at 1:20 am, PeaceNikki said:
I read and bookmarked this when you wrote it and, given what’s happening in my home Wisconsin these days, I had to revisit it. Powerful piece. Feingold’s loss crush my soul and broke my spirit.