Election rules protect right-wing money men

For decades, one could just assume that in any American election, the Democratic candidate received more votes for each dollar spent than their Republican opponent. It's still true - but these days, campaign finance guidelines inspired by superPAC's and the far-right Citizens United ruling have glossed over this truism.

These rules protect right-wing money men who fund campaigns and run for office. And make no mistake, a vast majority are men. It's clear that the war on women is very real, much like the suburbs' ongoing war against the cities. The problem with the campaign finance regulations is that they do not count some campaign expenditures as partisan when clearly they are.

For example, they count Tea Party superPAC's as nonpartisan instead of Republican, even though the Tea Party is little more than a rebranding of the right-wing GOP establishment. The Democrats (let alone minor parties) don't have a strong counterpart to the Tea Party (big surprise).

As a result, the right-wing media can now gloat that the Republicans won more votes per dollar spent - when it isn't really true, since "nonpartisan" right-wing superPAC's spend their revenues from heroin sales on behalf of Republican candidates.

Lawmakers can fix this, but the President can act without Congress. All the President needs to do is issue an executive order that reclassifies "nonpartisan" expenses as partisan. Professional fearmongers will whimper and cry, but that's too damn bad.