McCain-Feingold Gave Us Trump. It’s Giving Us Bernie, Too.

[EasyAce]

How the 2002 campaign-finance law left the political parties susceptible to hostile takeover.
By Kevin Binversie
https://thebulwark.com/mccain-feingold-gave-us-trump-its-giving-us-bernie-too/

When the history of this political era is written, major themes will include the unexpected rise of populism and Trumpian nationalism on the right and the rejuvenated fondness for socialism on the left.

The story of how we got to this point will be a rich and complicated one, involving widespread institutional decline, the unhealthy influence of social media, and so many other trends that made it possible for some of the worst of the worst to manipulate American politics—often while lining their own pockets. All of which was made possible by the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold. While much has been written and debated about the late Arizona and former Wisconsin senators’ legacy legislation in the decade since the Citizens United Supreme Court case struck down parts of the law, far less has been said about how the parts not overturned by the Court—particularly its ban on soft money contributions to political parties—have done immense damage to American politics.

This shift of power away from the political parties resulting from this ban has led to the rise of outside groups and activists with narrow agendas, little incentive to compromise their views, and an eagerness to make themselves players in primaries. While some observers might cheer on this weakening of the elites, it has had the effect of turning the national political parties into glorified public relations shops for the White House when their party has the presidency. At the same time, the party out of power looks not just directionless but held hostage by fear of its own voters to appease small but vocal segments of their base—as seen in the rise of the alt-right in 2016 and the socialist hardcore Bernie supporters of 2020 . . .

. . . With the parties hollowed out, proper candidate vetting fell apart. Republicans were first to be affected by this after George W. Bush left office . . . Instead of helping Republicans in winnable Senate seats, [outsider groups] often ensured Democratic successes by securing primary victories for heavily flawed candidates. Or they’d challenge an incumbent, who would still defeat their preferred candidate but be left beaten, blooded, and bankrupt . . . Like Republicans under Bush, the [Democratic] coalition’s cohesion was maintained when their party held the White House. But underneath the “Hope and Change” was a simmering discontent, a worry about “losing everything” to Republicans in the 2010 midterms. This fear birthed the left’s own purity groups—like “Justice Democrats” and the “Working Families Party,” whose muscle wasn’t truly flexed until the 2018 primary victory of New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). The far left, too, showed that it was capable of knocking off its own congressional leadership . . .

[aligncare]

The internet is the go to place to read authentic frontier gibberish.

Whatever ones bias is you can always find a story to confirm it somewhere on the wild, wild fringes of the inter web.

[truth_seeker]

The internet is the go to place to read authentic frontier gibberish.

Whatever ones bias is you can always find a story to confirm it somewhere on the wild, wild fringes of the inter web.

"as seen in the rise of the alt-right in 2016"

To see for MYSELF, I attended a Trump rally in 2016.

The media and his opponents had lied about his supporters.

The ONLY violence that day, was by the left.

Case closed.

[Cyber Liberty]

I learnt a long time ago I can apply a simple test:  If the name "McCain" is on a bill, it's bad news.