A New York Times editorial today endorses legislation that would "force this blowzy lucre-genie," 527 groups and their campaign ads, "back into the bottle." The Times of course, is spared the FEC's tender mercies by a media exemption in the campaign finance laws. Because, as we all know, if you've got enough cash to promote your political views in a string of ads on cable news channels, you're tainting the democratic process. If, on the other hand, you've got enough cash to own the news channel—or a widely read newspaper and its Web extensions—then using them to promulgate the political views of David Brooks or Maureen Dowd serves the public interest.
Reason's Annual Webathon is underway! Donate today to see your name here.
Reason is supported by:
Which leaves the U.S. without a major party even slightly inclined to leave people alone to manage their own affairs.
Is this the Supreme Court’s next big gun rights case?
Trump: If the President Doesn't Have Standing to Pursue Wild, Unsubstantiated Claims of Election Fraud, Who Does?
Fox News interviewer Maria Bartiromo uncritically accepts Trump's outlandish conspiracy theory.
A Trump Judicial Appointee's Blistering Opinion Is a Reality Check for Republicans Who Still Think Biden Stole the Election
"The Campaign cannot win this lawsuit," the 3rd Circuit says. "The Campaign's claims have no merit."