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.
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Our thoughts...
- 18 of the most heart warming and feel-good...
- Why LDS Church's anti-discrimination stance...
- What one word best describes Barack Obama?
- What The New York Times gets wrong about...
- In our opinion: Fairness for all: Religion...
- Letter: Slap to our history
- Drew Clark: The beams and motes of getting...
- What The New York Times gets wrong... 90
- In our opinion: Fix, don't repeal,... 74
- Michael and Jenet Erickson: Utah... 50
- In our opinion: Fairness for all:... 44
- Mike Lee: Tax reform shouldn't penalize... 38
- Why LDS Church's anti-discrimination... 38
- Jay Evensen: Will Obama visit Utah? Do... 37
- In our opinion: It's time for Utah to... 27