As in 2004, incumbency and a sneak early attack could trump the money bags
Our take: The Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court has drastically changed the way that elections can be run never again will they be done on the cheap. Advertising by Super PACs for this year's presidential campaigns is projected to cost almost $1 billion. This article in the Economist discusses the way both campaigns are likely to spend their money and how Super PACs and other 527 groups are going to contribute to the presidential campaigns.
Attend a Democratic campaign event, trawl left-leaning websites, speak to a candidate or activist, and conversation quickly turns to the rights billion-dollar plot to buy Novembers elections. Thanks to the Supreme Courts ruling in 2010 in Citizens United, companies (and unions) can now donate without limit to super PACs, which are free to spend as much as they want advocating the election or defeat of particular candidates. As a result, the complaint runs, conservative groups will have enough money to flood the airwaves with attack ads, drowning out more representative voices and creating an artificial Republican tide.
Read more about Incumbency and a sneak early attack could trump the money bags on Economist.
- Lois M. Collins: Some think women are...
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- Classical liberalism offers sole durable...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive...
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local police...
- Who was the most narcissistic president?
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we must...
- In our opinion: Are we too pessimistic about...
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive... 48
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 42
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local... 31
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test? 28
- Lois M. Collins: Some think women are... 28
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- In our opinion: How committed are... 27
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we... 24