Reason.com
Lead Paragraph of the Day
On the front page of The New York Times:
Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year's midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.
Gee, whatever could they mean by "all of the attention"?
Fear not, at least the subhed keeps the eye on the prize:
For Democrats, Financial Edge in Campaigns
But Outside Spending Buoys Republicans
Stay tuned for a great Jacob Sullum cover story on campaign-finance scaremongering in the December issue of Reason.
Most Popular Stories
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Is the Ron Paul the Best Hope for Progressives? (5.25)
- Rand Paul Amendment to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Raiding Farms Fails, 78-15 (5.24)
- Friday Funnies (5.25)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Tim|10.27.10 @ 10:06AM|#
Be afraid! Be very afraid! Be very, very afraid! Be very, very, very afraid!
|10.27.10 @ 10:08AM|#
So inside spending buoys Democrats? What is inside spending? Sounds a lot like The United States Treasury.
Juan Williams|10.27.10 @ 10:19AM|#
Does the NYT count negative coverage of Tea Party candidates by NPR?
|10.27.10 @ 10:46AM|#
Meg Whitman: outspends her opponent, loses big.
Democratic Party: outspends its opponent, loses big.
Can we be done with this whole buying-an-election thing?
The only way to buy an election is with graft (which, of course, includes the direction of public funds to identifiable groups in order to secure their votes). And, as the Democrats are learning, even that doesn't always work.
|10.27.10 @ 2:37PM|#
And there's always the John Houseman way: smear, smear, smear, ummm.....I mean they have to earn it.
sevo|10.27.10 @ 10:50AM|#
"For Democrats, Financial Edge in Campaigns
But Outside Spending Buoys Republicans"
"Women and minorities suffer most"
|10.27.10 @ 11:02AM|#
HURR. HURR DURR.
Chupacabra|10.27.10 @ 11:03AM|#
So the dems are dramatically outspending the rethuglicans, but the "outside groups" giving money to team red are "undisclosed".
The country is truly doomed.
|10.27.10 @ 2:44PM|#
Actually, they tend to be quite well disclosed...but the names of such groups funding those opponents tends to make the democrats look bad...so they are always listed as undisclosed whether they are or not.
|10.27.10 @ 2:41PM|#
Can unions be an 'outside' group? Or will there have to be a medical operation similar to the splitting of cojoined twins in order to separate unions and the Democratic party?