In a recent Slate piece, Reason Contributing Editor David Weigel argues that super PACs, contrary to conventional wisdom, are good for democracy and transparency, making races more competitive while attracting press attention that discourages corruption. "Take away the super PACs," the Sunlight Foundation's Bill Allison concedes to Weigel, "and Santorum would have probably had to drop out after Iowa. Gingrich might have had to drop out after South Carolina." Weigel adds that rich guys writing big checks to super PACs, such as Gingrich supporter Sheldon Adelson and Santorum backer Foster Friess, receive much more scrutiny than the "bundlers" who put together small contributions to candidates' campaigns, who would not exist but for the legal limits on donations. Allison, whose view of super PACs is far less sanguine, again helps Weigel make his case. "Take Solyndra," he says. "There's not a single story that mentioned how an Obama bundler invested in this solar company that got a huge government loan guarantee. That only happened when the thing went bankrupt." Bundlers, like super PACs, are an outgrowth of the futile attempt to purge politics of money's taint.