MICROBYTE: Putting a Lid on Big Money 💰️ 

Buying votes in America, now politely called campaign financing, began at the beginning. George Washington bought drinks for the house in what now seems a quaint attempt to influence colonial voters. And even though Washington was using his own money, it caused minor outrage and inspired our very first attempts to control and limit campaign spending. 

Well-meaning yet hapless attempts that go all the way back to the Navy Appropriations Bill of 1867, which prohibited federal officials from soliciting contributions from Navy Yard workers.

But as always, Big Money will find a way. And clever capitalists will always find the loopholes. 

In modern times, it was the Watergate scandal that exposed flagrant, widespread financial abuses and led to comprehensive reform, including the bipartisan McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. And, for a time, it looked like we’d finally found the real deal.

Until 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Act was a violation of the Constitution, on the grounds that limiting campaign spending, no matter how egregious, was a violation of free speech. (See Citizens United v. FEC). It ruled that corporations and unions may spend unlimited amounts on independent political expenditures, equating such spending with free speech. This decision paved the way for Super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited sums as long as they do not coordinate directly with candidates.

In the last Presidential election, unlimited spending added up to $5.5 billion. 

And, once again, cries of outrage are heard in the land. And once again, all sorts of campaign finance reforms are being proposed.

(Editor’s note: Of course, we remain always hopeful, but in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, it does feel like deja vu all over again.)

MICROBYTE: Pardon Me

🤷‍♂️ America did not invent the Pardon. The pardon seems to be the brainchild of a seventh-century English King, King Ine of Wessex, to be precise. 

Although it seems at odds with the idea of checks and balances, our founders decided that the power to pardon should be given to the President alone to ensure its judicious and effective use. Their thinking was that a single individual would be more accountable than a committee.

Here’s how the process is meant to work. The process for granting presidential pardons in the United States is shaped by tradition, Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines, and the president’s constitutional authority. While the president holds broad and nearly unlimited power to issue pardons for federal offenses, a structured process exists for most applicants, though the president can bypass these procedures at any time.

The presidential pardon applies only to people who have committed some sort of Federal crime. The president cannot use the pardon power to overturn or prevent impeachment proceedings. Pardons may be granted at any time after the commission of a federal crime, even before charges are filed or a conviction is obtained. While the president may issue a pardon at any time, the Department of Justice has established a five-year waiting period after completion of a sentence before an individual is eligible to apply for a pardon. 

Because recently the pardon has been used as a political gift, multiple members of Congress have introduced constitutional amendments and federal legislation to rein in presidential pardon power. 

THE MAN WHO RAN WASHINGTON, The life and times of James Baker III. (Peter Baker and Susan Glasser)

Andrea Mitchell: “An epic history of a man and an era that also tells the story of an establishment Republican coming to grips with the Trump Revolution. Anyone interested in the breakdown of America’s political parties, the role of negative campaigning, the exploding deficits, and the diplomatic failures that led to America’s endless wars will be fascinated by this superb landmark book.”

As an Amazon Associate, we earn commission from qualifying purchases.

😆 “Congressional approval ratings are so low, even their mothers are saying, ‘don’t tell anyone you work for me.” Jon Stewart

🤯 Republican Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska: During a tense town hall event in Seward, Nebraska, on May 28, 2025, Flood faced pointed questions from constituents about his vote on President Donald Trump’s extensive budget proposal, known as the “Big Beautiful Bill.” When asked about a controversial provision that would make it harder for federal judges to enforce contempt orders, Flood conceded that he had not read or was unaware of that section when he voted for the bill. His admission that, “This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill,” triggered loud protests and boos from the audience.