Under Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act passed in 1964, certain jurisdictions with a long and well documented history of discrimination in election practices were required to have any and all changes in their voting procedures reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice. This was in direct response to rampant efforts, for the most part by the Republican party, at barring certain populations from voting  in several jurisdictions, mostly in the Gulf states and particularly in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas. Altogether there were nine states and numerous additional counties affected by this legislation.

In the post Watergate years, in order to minimize the influence peddling on the part of huge donors to political candidates and in direct response to the “dirty tricks” orchestrated by CREEP – the Committee to Reelect the President ( curious acronym, don’t you think ) the FEC promulgated strict rules regarding campaign contribution limits and disclosures. While influence peddling and the rigging of elections were still ongoing, especially in local and state elections, the manipulation of federal elections, while not eliminated , was at least more open to scrutiny.
And then, starting in the early period before the 2008 general election, things began to drastically turn toward leveraging elections.This was orchestrated by a small group of billionaires. The key was to make contributions to individual candidates within the prescribed FEC limits BUT funnel huge amounts of money through the national committees, specifically the RNC, and through the emerging political action committees or PACS. Dirty tricks were back in full force and along with gerrymandering districts in such a way that population numbers ceased to matter while the configuration almost guaranteed seats for the GOP candidates Elections seemed to be bought and sold on the table of the extremely wealthy. Never was it more evident that in the 2012 Presidential election when the GOP candidate, Mitt Romney, himself a multi millionaire and his fellow GOP candidates were the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars generated by key individuals with a serious stake in the success of tea party politicians. Oil barons the Koch brothers – seeking to eliminate all regulations – and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who makes millions upon millions in his Asian casino ventures were pushing candidates who essentially were striving to have the federal government eliminated and any effort at maintaining a safety net for those in need be done away with.

This manipulation of elections was questionable at best and outright illegal under certain FEC regulations at least until they were challenged in court. The challenges went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Then, in the stroke of three key decisions, the Roberts Court virtually eliminated any and all safeguards around the election process, leaving an open path for a small cadre of those same billionaires to control state and federal elections and thus insure their financial advancement at the expense of the ever shrinking middle class, not to mention, at the expense of democracy.
In 2010, in the decision in the case of Citizens United vs the FEC, the court ruled that there would be no limits on contributions made to candidates in elections by corporations. Alleging contributions were covered under the First Amendment and the right of free speech, this decision, along with the subsequent decision, McCutcheon vs the FEC which extended unlimited contributions to individuals, the Court simply opened the door to PACS like Americans for Prosperity – a totally plutocratic organization bought and paid for by Charles and David Koch – to buy elections using massive amounts of cash from a small group of billionaires, bringing  influence peddling to the highest level in history. In 2013, in the case of Shelby County ( Alabama ) vs Holder, the court ruled that the formula for deciding which jurisdictions should require pre clearance  for election rule  changes was out dated and therefore unconstitutional. It revoked the stipulations under Section 4(b ) of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Within hours, the State of Texas reinstated its blatantly discriminatory voter regulations passed earlier by a tea party legislature. It also let stand the way in which the state of Texas actually eliminated entire voting districts based on its demographics which did not support the GOP agenda in 2012. Numerous states which had passed similar restrictive voting procedures were to follow suit. In South Carolina, under their new provisions, over 180,000 voters were summarily taken off the voter registration rolls. The result of this decision was having what is tantamount to the highest court of the land approving the tea party agenda of restricting access to voting among populations which tend to vote democratic. While, according to legal scholars, these cases presented difficult questions under the doctrine of free speech, it all does not appear that complicated to this writer. What is clear, as shown in the 2012 election cycle in a most compelling way, is that now, while a rule of law may have been satisfied, the rule of context was shattered and the Court has taken us down the road to complete and utter dismissal of democracy. Plutocracy will reign supreme unless and until Congress moves toward a legislative remedy for this disastrous ruling on the part of the Roberts Court. It should frighten anyone who deems democracy – or rather a representative republic which is what we really have – as valued. The evidence is mounting by the week and particularly in those very states where the original Part 4(b) had compelling cause to take charge. Rigging of legislative districts along with impossibly restrictive voter registration rules will guarantee elections being the product of the demands of the few rather than the wishes of the many.

In a recent article in the Arizona Republic by Don Campbell ( a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors ), he outlines what he believes is a possibly remedy, that of public funding for elections. His key reason here is that this would give lawmakers the freedom to ignore the narrow agenda of special interest groups and allow more time to address the pressing issues of concern for the majority of their constituents. He goes on to say that, regrettably, nothing is going to change until there is another Watergate type scandal which rocks the political election world. Sadly, this is probably true and perhaps maybe not even then as there can be no doubt that huge money is virtually immune from being taken to task.
If you go to Washington and speak your mind in front of the Washington Monument or write streams of letters to elected officials criticizing government policies, that is indeed free speech. It will get you an audience in the park. It will not get you in to see your Congressman. A huge campaign contribution, however, will guarantee it.
This is what we have become and it will get far far worse because the body politic – I hold one of the most uninformed in the free world – will not see how it is wreaking havoc on every day life until it is too late. And it all started with the failure of the Supreme Court while  adhering to a horribly myopic interpretation of free speech totally ignoring the context and temper of the times. Honestly, does Chief Justice Roberts really believe that discrimination has ceased to exist, especially in places like Texas or Alabama or North Carolina, all infamous for Jim Crow ???? Does the Court really understand how elections are being bought today just as they were decades ago ?
Yes, my friends, the country is on the auction block ! It is indeed up for sale and the whores are lining up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!