As parties fade and candidates shrug, 'super PACs' drive campaigns

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • dumprake Washington, UT
    Jan. 29, 2012 10:43 p.m.

    Either some of you did not read Eric's article, or you dispute his conclusions. The key conclusion I read was that less government would eliminate this issue entirely. If the federal government were not the source of all favors, people would not spend so much money to elect a president; there would be no payoff. Can anyone imagine George Washington being approached for all kinds of favors and benefits only to a certain group? Washington would have had them escorted out of his office, and maybe out of the country.

  • demorra Kearns, UT
    Jan. 29, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    One of the ways that we can reduce the impact of money while retaining the First Amendment to the Constitution is to restrict the amount of broadcast advertising that each candidate can buy either by dollar amount or by the amount of time. This would equalize the prime source of information providing that the television time would only be available for sale to candidates in the last sixty days before either a primary or general election. Independent expenditure committees would be free to buy as much social media advertising as they saw fit, but could not broadcast television commercials. They could also buy as much print or direct mail advertising as their resources would allow.

    While this would not solve the problem, it would give less well financed candidates a fighting chance to win an election.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Jan. 29, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    He who haveth the most gold and silver winith.

  • Brian Wasilla, AK
    Jan. 29, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    The Adelson's can only hope that if elected Newt will be as careful as President Obama has been to make sure that major contributors are well rewarded for their contributions.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 29, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    The Supreme Court of the United States gave outside organizations so much power to be able to influence elections. We now have foreign countries and companies and people from those countries that can influence directly our political process. This is wrong. We live in a country that believes in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is our Country and even though a lot of our products come other countries which then in turn loan us money to pay for the goods twice, directly and indirectly. Our country durable goods used to make us strong. Intellectual property is that, intellectual but it is pirated from our people in the USA. We have allowed companies to go around the world and establish themselves as the laws in the USA were too stringent to make money. Companies tried to influence the laws to make it more beneficial to make money but the government, our elected leaders and their bureaucrats made it so we moved and outsourced our jobs. We have cleaner public and workplace air and have fewer deaths and injuries in the workplace, but we have a lot, a lot fewer jobs and the benefit of work and family money

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Jan. 29, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    Everyone gets free speech or no one does.

    That court was appopinted by Bush, we need to keep Obama from any more appointments.

  • shaun_ SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 29, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    The right wing extreme supreme court ruined this country with the ruling that donating millions of dollars to a PAC is free speech.

    Corporations and businesses own the government.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Jan. 28, 2012 1:41 p.m.

    If my speech represents the light of one little candle, then the speech of MR. Exxon Mobile must be that of a thousand white-hot suns. All that remains for a complete corporate takeover of everything in society is to set the price.