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.
- Jay Evensen: Utahns support Common Core, even...
- 20 of the most influential and innovative...
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse tends to...
- School fees: Is Utah really family friendly?
- In our opinion: Park City's slippery slopes
- Carmen Rasmusen Herbert: Lessons learned from...
- Letter: Criminalizing marijuana
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb:... 82
- Letter: Police brutality 62
- School fees: Is Utah really family... 47
- Mary Barker: Our economic discourse... 43
- Richard Davis: The State Board can do... 41
- Constitutional commitments trump tribal... 34
- Robert J. Samuelson: Do Democrats do it... 28
- Letter: Teachers' perspective 28