Ad Rage

Democrats blame the First Amendment for their impending losses.


As Democrats head for what promises to be a midterm election fiasco of historic proportions, a pre-emptive excuse has begun to circulate: It's all because of Citizens United. Team Donkey fans claim the January 21 decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned restrictions on the political speech of corporations, triggered a flood of negative advertising by what President Obama calls "shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names."

If independent groups favoring Team Elephant have a spending advantage so far, it's not because of recent changes in election law. Most of the advertising that irks Democrats was legal before Citizens United, and the plausible prospect of taking over one or both houses of Congress has energized Republicans, while Democrats are dispirited by the unpopularity of their party's policies.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Obama complained about "special interests using front groups with misleading names" who are saying mean things about Democrats on TV, a development he attributed to Citizens United. Yet similar complaints have been heard from both major parties in every recent election cycle.

Last week The New York Times reported that "outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television." The paper worried that "a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going."

The Times said "Democratic officials" believed "corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes, are trying to "buy the election." In short, the spending patterns "seem to be a fulfillment of Democrats' worst fears after the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case."

Except that, as the Times conceded, "it is not clear…whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm." Other factors—"notably, a political environment that favors Republicans"—might be at work. In fact, most of the spending cited in the story was by rich individuals or by groups organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, both of which were legal before Citizens United.

Further undermining the thesis that the decision explains the Republicans' spending edge, the Times noted that "corporations have so far mostly chosen not to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling to directly sponsor campaign ads." And while they might be "funneling more money into campaigns through some of these independent groups," corporations "had the right to make such contributions before the ruling."

This week the Times followed up with a front-page piece about nonprofit corporations organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which were barred from airing campaign ads prior to Citizens United and still are not allowed to focus on partisan political activity. The Times reported that the 501(c)(4) approach is becoming increasingly popular among Republicans, partly because such groups do not have to disclose their donors.

But how shadowy are these groups, really? The leading example cited by the Times was Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, which it linked to "Karl Rove, a political adviser to President George W. Bush," and "a cadre of experienced political hands." Hmm, I wonder what they're up to.

Toward the end of his speech on Saturday, Obama accidentally told the truth. "You can make sure that the tens of millions of dollars spent on misleading ads do not drown out your voice," he said. "Because no matter how many ads they run—no matter how many elections they try to buy—the power to determine the fate of this country doesn't lie in their hands. It lies in yours."

Exactly right, Mr. President. No matter how shadowy or flush with corporate dollars an interest group is, the only thing Citizens United allowed it to do is speak. Advocacy has no impact unless it persuades people. So why not talk about the issues instead of impugning the motives of people who take a different position on them than you do?

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2010 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Good Thing It Wasn't a Purple Nurple

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    Good morning reason.

    1. Rough evening, Suki?

      Don’t let Jacob get to you. Take a deep breath, then rant.

    2. Take yer meds John T!

      1. As if you weren’t five seconds away from your own Fight Club moment.

      2. Psss. Don’t let John T know we know. Got to get the pic of him in a school girl uniform first.

        1. Can you send me a copy? I could have fun with that.

    3. “Israel blah, blah, blah…

      maobamalinpolpotanchorbabies chavez blah, blah, blah…

      where would you rather live my dried up man-hole or gaza blah, blah, blah…

      marxist libertardians!.”/sukirant

  2. They tactfully forget that voting for Health Care Reform and the Stimulus Package, in the face of 60-70% opposition from the People, might have had something to do with their November losses.

    Give the People the finger, they’ll give it right back to you.

    1. Dey come at ya with da knife; ya bring da bat! Dey bring da bat; ya bring da gun! Dey bring da gun, den dey better fuckin kill ya, kuz dey don wanna see whatchu gonna bring next!

    2. and how about a boot up the backside on the way out? Giving back with interest!

    3. +1
      I guess they can’t really say it, but of course it was their ramming this stuff through that is going to upend them. They forget that they were pulling more money than the GOP from corporate interests before they became unpopular.

      1. their ramming this stuff through that is going to upend them.

        This. And if they continue this crap in a mad duck session, the hit will be much worse.

      2. Yes. And it is a good point about where the money was going before now. Corporations and interest groups bet on winners. When it looked like the Dems were going to take over big in 2008, all the money was flowing Democratic.

      3. I have to say something here. I’ve been an in-house counsel for several quite large businesses, and my experience is that the money flows to people in both parties. Businesses tend not to gamble when they can avoid it and are aware that power shifts between the parties all of the time. There are exceptions, particularly when a company is privately held and under the control of people with strong political beliefs and allegiances, but that’s the exception not the rule.

        What’s funny is that everyone knows that the Democrats are usually full of shit on their anti-corporate rhetoric, as they say all sorts of things but take the money and normally avoid rocking the boat too much. Part of their problem right now is that they are behaving a little too anti-capitalist in practice, which puts off businesses of all sizes and large swaths of the population to boot.

        1. I agree – where in the world do we get this nonsense that Democrats are anti business (and by that I mean that they are all for subsidies, tax breaks, and the last thing they believe in is a profit and loss system….which come to think of it, is exactly what Republicans think as well)?

          1. I think the truth is that a lot of their voters are anti-business, which explains the rhetoric. An unusual number of their leadership seem to be at least quasi-socialistic, which explains some of their more brazen moves lately.

            1. Some of them at least tolerate the private sector, if only as a source of income to fuel their Rube Goldberg-esque poverty-perpetuation machines.

              1. More or less. They see a Golden Goose that lays eggs that they can steal, but they don’t understand what makes it lay golden eggs in the first place.

          2. Politicians are seldom more anti-business than shepherds are anti-sheep. Generally, a good shepherd is interested only in fleecing his sheep. If a particular sheep misbehaves, even a good shepherd will dine on mutton. Unfortunately, there are also bad shepherds that like to do other things with sheep.

            Few shepherds are foolish enough to force their flock to graze on hemlock. Unfortunately, foolishness is now endemic among politicians.

        2. What’s funny is that everyone knows that the Democrats are usually full of shit on their anti-corporate rhetoric, as they say all sorts of things but take the money and normally avoid rocking the boat too much. Part of their problem right now is that they are behaving a little too anti-capitalist in practice, which puts off businesses of all sizes and large swaths of the population to boot.

          Hmm, makes one wonder how they felt when George W. Bush was in the White House.

          1. It was okay for us to be critical when THEY did it!

    4. Except that it’s always the Congressperson from another state that is the problem.

      I expect at minimum 90% of incumbents to win.

      1. Yup. This Tea Party “revolution” is occurring mostly in the minds of its detractors, a handful of well-intentioned but woefully ignorant political neophytes and a few hundred-thousand “patriots” who seem to get their history lessons from Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Has there ever been so much time and energy spent on such a tiny political blip? The electorate is pissed off and they’re taking out their frustrations on the party in charge. Nothing new there. What happens if and when the Republicans take back the House? Or both houses? What then? Business as usual? The “revolution” may prove to be merely a rhetorical one.

        1. I hear what you two are saying. I agree, the current “blip” is not “The Revolution.” However, there are sufficiently many true believers in for the long haul that an increasingly large part of the electorate will be motivated to “take back their country.” Stay tuned. Patience.

          1. I hope you’re right. Americans have proved themselves in other times of strife. Maybe we can do it one more time.

          2. Until people run for office based not on what they will do but what they will undo, and they follow up on their promises, we’re collectively fucked.

          3. What? Did all the brainless assholes that voted for Obama die?

            1. I’m going on record predicting that the Republicans make only slight gains this November.

              1. With everyone in the House up for re-election, I think Republicans take the House. With only about 33 Senator spots up for election, I don’t see the major swing in the Senate that many Republicans are hoping for.

            2. If most of the Reason masthead had died, I think we might have heard about it.

        2. Perhaps, but I sense that a lot of people understand that even when the pendelum swings back to the GOP, they understand they are going to be fucked. The Repubs are going to love every fucking thing about the machine set in place by the Dems. I think a lot of people understand that the Repubs won’t repeal a fucking thing when they’re back in power and THAT is what they’re afraid of. I think it’s more of a ‘cornering the dog’ scenario. What options do we have left?

    5. The GOP did the same thing in 2006, blaming their losing Congress on Mark Foley and the Bridge to Nowhere rather than the Iraq War insanity.

      1. Looks to me like the GOP was right: which war have the Democrats decided to stop, pray tell? I think all you assholes bitching against the war were either just hating on Bush (which means you’re nothing but hypocritical hate-mongering traitors and we should hang you) or you were seriously deluded enough to believe bitching against war ever brings anything but more war (which means you’re just plain retarded and belong in a padded cell).

        You pacifascists are the real nutjobs for opposing the overthrow of a terrorism-supporting despot and the liberation of his people from his rapacious rule. Everyone else is happy we prevailed in Iraq over all your treasonous bitching, and is waking up to the fact that the GOP is, in fact the party of patriots (warts and all) while the Democrats are the party of commie traitors and the Libertarians are the party of potheaded losers.

        1. Nah, the USA was just too chickenshit to take on Saudi Arabia.

        2. Wow. Eaten any good books lately, AP?

        3. Libertarians are the party of potheaded losers.


        4. We prevailed in Iraq? When did this happen?

        5. Are you high?

          I knew neo-cons were batshit crazy and they think we should be the world police, but fuck, calling people who don’t agree with you traitors and hate-mongers takes it to a whole nother level.

          1. He’s just a neo-troll. So don’t get too worried.

  3. I haven’t been following the news. Have the Dems passed the Incumbent Protection Act yet?

    1. Apparently you haven’t been paying much attention since Nixon…

    2. It’s called McCain-Feingold.

      1. Otherwise known as “the perpetual fund raiser” bill.

    3. UM?? FCC, ever heard of it?

      1. Oh shit! FEC, not FCC

  4. What a concept. The vote remains in the hands of the voters. Perhaps the Democrat Party should consider changing its name. Any suggestions?

    1. How about to the Deocratic Party, their actual name?

      I don’t think taking the power of advertising seriously makes one not a believer in democratic theory. Every day corporate America affirms its belief that ads move people.

      1. Their actual name is the Deocratic Party?

        1. Yes. We deocided a long time ago.

          1. You deicided?

            I took out Brahma and Shiva, made Kali beg for mercy and handpicked Vishnu to succeed the trimurta in all their nefarious corruption.

            You deicided? Puh-lease

      2. What in the hell is the Deocratic Party?

        1. I think that’s the Romanized version of what Iran has.

        2. He misspelled it. It’s the Diocratic Party, renamed earlier this summer in honor of the late Ronnie James Dio.

          1. Democrazy?

          2. The Rainbow coalition!

          3. Holy Diver!

      3. You should stop using IE.

        1. Stupid sticky m key…

          1. IE has a known issue with dropping characters. Look it up.

            1. It dropped me!

          2. Stupid sticky m key…

            Ew, dude.

          3. Seriously, this would not happen to you in a normal browser.

      4. Sure, but the efficacy of any particular advertising (or political) campaign is dependent upon the intelligence and malleability of its target audience, as well as its susceptibility to suggestion, superstition, fraud, bias, outright lies. The people generally get what they deserve. In this particular place in our nation’s history, the people seem to be having buyers remorse. But what was their alternative in November 2008?

        1. I voted for some useless jerk named “Bob”.

      5. How about to the Deocratic Party, their actual name?

        joe’z law hall of fame…

        1. The Founders were deosts. Everybody knows that.

      6. That’s kinda nitpicky, MNG. Bigger fish to fry than arguing over adding “ic” to the end of a word.

        1. No dis to sarcasmic intended.

      7. Yes we can!


        We are the one’s we’ve been waiting for.

      8. …MNG stands for Ming The Brainless.

  5. But…but…but….but …. I thought it was racism! John Hamm said so! It must be true…

  6. ress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Seems pretty clear to me.

    1. That implies that those rights exist, and that Congress shall make no law abridging those rights.

      Didn’t you know that rights now originate with laws?

      If there is no law saying you have a particular freedom, then you do not have that freedom.

      Government is God.

      1. Is god in show business too?

    2. Seems to me you could apply the “petition the government for a redress of grievances” part against a ban on ads too, especially given the nature of many of these ads (“Tell Congressman Doofus to stop killing jobs…”)

    3. Who the hell is ress?

    4. Freedom costs $1.05.

      1. I thought it cost tree fitty.

        1. Lamar was buying the knockoffs you find from street vendors.

  7. Democrats blame the First Amendment for their impending losses.

    And who could blame us for blaming? Surely the so-called “First Amendment” is not meant to protect “speech” from “special interests using front groups with misleading names.”

  8. “The Times reported that the 501(c)(4) approach is becoming increasingly popular among Republicans, partly because such groups do not have to disclose their donors.”

    This. They should certainly have to disclose. After Citizens United everyone said “oh yes, disclosure, sure, but not censorship.”

    1. Forcing disclosure = Forcing speech

      =/= Free speech.

    2. “They should certainly have to disclose”


  9. Like all rights, such as the right to health care and the right to pay too much for electricity, the right to free speech has to be carefully rationed by the proper authorities.

    What are you guys, anarchists?!?

  10. Like all rights, such as the right to health care and the right to pay too much for electricity, the right to free speech has to be carefully rationed by the proper authorities.

    What are you people, anarchists?!?

    1. Mr. Moron, you have exceeded your daily quota. We’re going to have to remove another of your fingers. You know the drill.

      1. great, so much for being able to capitalize letters.

        1. I got some last night. We can make it a toe this time.

        2. This is America, not Japan, we don’t remove fingers here, just break them.

  11. Is Jake mad because Democrats, including the unhappy Ms. Giffords, want to cut government spending? I’m confused.*

    *OK, I’m not really confused. But it is “interesting” that those small-government Republicans are attacking the Democrats for cutting spending. The thing is, those attacks are working.

    1. I don’t think they are upset about government spending Alan, they would just like to see some of it.

    2. Obamacare doesn’t cut spending on the balance; it cuts spending from some areas and increases it in others.

      Attacking cuts to Medicare is just a push-up bra for small govt advocates.

  12. What I find truly mystifying is that while President Obama castigates the SCOTUS decrying the influence of “special interests,” both he and congress are wallowing in record levels of lobby cash.

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

  13. This is, uh, Eleanor Norton. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Uh, I noticed that you have given to uh, other colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I am a, um, senior member, a 20-year veteran and am chair of the subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. I’m handling the largest economic development project in the United States now, the Homeland Security Compound of three buildings being built on the uh, old St. Elizabeth’s hospital site in the District of Columbia along with uh, 15 other, uh, sites here for, that are part of the stimulus.

    I was, frankly, uh, uh, surprised to see that we don’t have a record, so far as I can tell, of your having given to me despite my uh, long and deep uh, work. In fact, it’s been my major work, uh, on the committee and subcommittee it’s been essentially in your sector. I am, I’m simply candidly calling to ask for a contribution. As the senior member of the um, committee and a subcommittee chair, we have [chuckles] obligations to raise, uh funds. And, I think it must have been me who hasn’t, frankly, uh, done my homework to ask for a contribution earlier. So I’m trying to make up for it by asking for one now, when we particularly, uh, need, uh contributions, particularly those of us who have the seniority and chairmanships and are in a position to raise the funds.

    I’m asking you to give to Citizens for Eleanor Holmes Norton, P.O. Box 70626, DC, 20024. I’ll send you a follow-up note with appreciation for having heard me out. Thanks again.…

    1. She’s not a Congresswoman…

      1. They allow her to play like she is one in congress.

  14. *SLD*

    I’m not sure that the Democratic strategy of dismissing the GOP tactic of arguing against ObamaCare by talking about cuts to Medicare is watertight as they like to think. There is a line that could be walked between thinking government run medical aid for seniors and a fundamental takeover of the health insurance industry for the benefit of people who aren’t poor (otherwise they would just be on Medicaid) and who aren’t elderly (otherwise they would be on Medicare) is a bad idea.

    Yes, there is a large bolus of cognitive dissonance that must be digested to split that hair, but it is a cognitive dissonance that the American public has swallowed before.


    1. Democrats like to forget that they were selling that cognitive dissonance to the American people when they sold them on Social Security and Medicare. Now they bitch when they find out people believed them?

  15. I translate 44 as “Special interest money is bad if its spent against us, but essential in the democratic process if its spent for our cause” I guess thats why he took lots of money from BP the evil big oil people.

  16. Democrats blame the First Amendment for their impending losses.

    What’s unusual about that? They’ve been doing it for decades.

    When they win elections, it’s because the Dems message (i.e., the exercise of their 1st amendment rights) “resonated with the American people”.

    When they lose elections, it’s because the American people were duped by “the fear-mongering of right-wing partisan extremists!”

    Arrrghhh!!! If only there were a way to keep the American people from falling for the arguments of these right-wing wackos – short of actually defeating their arguments, that is.

    Team Donkey fans claim the January 21 decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned restrictions on the political speech of corporations, triggered a flood of negative advertising by what President Obama calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.”

    That’s rich! Especially coming from a party who has an astroturf operation of “advocacy groups” for every single political issue you can think of…organizations who always share the same two traits: 1) they’re funded by the unapologetic Nazi collaborator, George Soros, and 2) their leadership is inevitably comprised of an assortment of socialists and Marxists.

    1. Eventually, both Teams will address that pesky First Amendment… as in “take an aluminum ball bat, dip it in epoxy and broken glass, and wrap it in barbed wire before inserting it into the anus of the First Amendment”.

      Then, the Teams will do something about those other bothersome rights. This shit takes TIME, yo. Gotta convince the public it’s actually a *good* thing to have fewer rights.

      1. Those pesky amendments talk of rights as something that simply exist, and that Congress shall not pass laws that violate those rights.

        Once enough people believe that laws are required for rights to exist, that government is not the protector of rights but the source of rights, then they can do whatever the fuck they want.

        Oh wait, they already did that through the public school system over the last two generations.


        1. Laws are required to enforce those rights, sarcasmic – otherwise, Team Blue or Team Red could just get their respective wishes and clamp down on, in this case, our ability to speak ill of elected officials.

          Look at how the commerce clause has been thoroughly reamed by – again – both parties. Just as one example of governmental excess that theoretically should not have ever happened. But it has happened, and will continue despite the limitations that exist on paper – because Rs and Ds just can’t resist the urge to ignore their own limitations.

          IOW, government already does whatever the fuck it wants, for the most part; what little it hasn’t taken over, is just a temporary formality. If the Big Clampdown doesn’t happen on Obama’s watch, it’ll happen under the boot of his eventual replacement… and it’s a 50/50 chance of either major party being in charge when the shithammer drops on our rights once and for all.

          They WANT this to happen. They’re just looking for an opening, in the meantime just savoring the extra reeducation of the majority of the populace to WANT to be treated to martial law.

          1. Rights such as freedom of speech or freedom to bear arms require no laws.

            They exist only when there is no law forbidding them.

            1. My bad again. I should’ve phrased it differently.

          2. Rather, they exist and all laws can do is violate them.

            No law can grant a person the right to keep and bear arms. All laws can do is punish you for exercising that right.

            No law can give you the right to speak your mind. All laws can do is punish you for voicing thoughts that others do not want you to think.

            Laws do not grant rights to us, they grant powers to them.

        2. Yes, that’s exactly what schools teach. You are nothing but a rotting sack of amino acids evolved from other such rotting sacks of amino acids which somehow assembled themselves from a bunch of lifeless chemicals through a thoroughly amoral and uncaring natural process.

          Question: where do these rights you believe you have come from, if not from your fellow humans (and the governments composed of them)?

          I have never yet been able to get a straight answer out of any atheist about that. “Natural Law” doesn’t cut it since atheists are as incapable of deriving “ought” from “is” as everyone else, and “they’ve just always existed” doesn’t explain anything either, since there’s absolutely no historical proof that they have.

          So where do your rights come from? Who invented them, and how do you know they still have any authority?

          1. Rights are derived from magical metal wands called “boom sticks”. When The Man comes to take your rights, you simply point your wand at him and say the magic words “bugger off mate”, and poof!

          2. Where do you think God’s laws come from?
            From literate sacks of amino acids who got together and decided what God said, then put it in a book to tell the masses. Doesn’t even matter which God, in this case.

            By the way, rape is not only fine, in some cases it’s recommended by the Judeo-Christian God.

            Why are so many “libertarians” these days obviously people that just want to replace the current government with a theocracy?

            1. ‘Cause there gawd is uh awsome gawd he rains from heven above!

          3. Why do they have to come from somewhere or be invented by someone?
            Maybe they always existed and were merely discovered.

            As far as authority goes, see Jorj’s comment.

  17. The democrats brilliantly marketed and advertised a product called “Barack Obama” so they do know a thing or two about advertising.

    1. yep. their problem is that it turns out people don’t actually like jagged metal O’s.

    2. I am the original Barack Obama.

  18. What in the hell is the Deocratic Party?

    It’s the one in which government bureaucrats are elevated to god-like status.

    1. …while vaguely referring to God as the head deity. However, this higher power is only to be trotted out on particular occasions when a little extra support for government programs is needed. (e.g. “God wants us to raise taxes on you so we can give your money to those poor oppressed incompetent bankers and public union fat cats.”)

      The rest of the time, it is presumed that this God is too distant and mysterious to have any real effect on politics. He would never, for instance, braid a whip together from some leather cords and try to drive any politicians out from a church (on the rare occasions that they’re actually attending one) while yelling that this is a house of prayer and not a den of robbers. That kind of God they don’t believe in, and they’ll have you banned from their worship centers (“public schools” and “news channels”) if you do.

    2. Dems bitch about theocratic government, which is not a good idea… but they want Godvernment to happen, which in Dem-speak is “treating government like it IS God”.

      And rubes like Tony, Chad, and Max would jump at the chance to be bishops in this moo world order.

      1. It wouldn’t be the first time anyone has ever gotten the cows to vote for someone promising more prime steak on everyone’s plate, or the sheep to vote for more mutton for everyone.

        1. Hush, Theos. You’ll wreck My game.

  19. triggered a flood of negative advertising by what President Obama calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.”


    1. MooOn.bOrg?

  20. The (Democratic) truth that dare not speak its name:
    When you vote for a repub it is because you are stupid. You probably are religious, carry a gun, do manual labor. You are too stupid too see through commercials. When you do vote for us it is only because you think you will get benefits that you do not pay for thorough taxes.

    The (Republican) truth that dare not speak its name:
    When you vote for a Democrat it is because you are stupid. You probably are an atheist, want to help the poor with other people’s money, and have never done real work (like in physics – actually moving something)in your life. You are too stupid too see through commercials. When you do vote for us it is only because you think you will pay less in taxes than the cost of the benefits.

  21. “a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going.”

    I for one, couldn’t agree more.

    1. Present!

      1. Exactly. This is the breath-taking hypocrisy. For decades outside groups like MoveOn, ACORN, various fakey union-funded “grassroots” groups, and supposedly non-partisan non-profits have been doing this for the Democrats. It’s only a scandal now that Republicans are benefiting from the same thing.

        Much the same way Democrats dismissed all talk of vote fraud until 2000 and 2004. And yet even now they don’t want to require IDs when voting.

    1. We don’t wanna hear it though ‘K? It sucks and it makes us feel bad!

  22. So far, elections have fallen entirely along historical expectations. 98% of incumbents have won their primaries. Not that you could tell from media reporting which presents the 2% as though it was a sea change.

    Whether or not they all lose their re-elections remains to be seen. If 10-15% lose lose, that still won’t be news.

    In any case, swapping seats between Team Red and Team Blue doesn’t interest me all that much.

  23. So, they’re not opposed to the ads on principle; they’re just opposed because it appears to benefit the other side. Pfah. Typical.

    1. Progressives have no principles other than the need for principals.

  24. thomas sowell put it well when he pointed out how these people get angry because they don’t understand how others can disagree with them..

  25. Hey, it’s the same First Amendment that put Democrats in Congress in 2006 and in the White House in 2008. There’s no rule that says Libertarians, Republicans, Greens, etc. can’t use it too. GET OVER IT, OBAMA!

  26. “triggered a flood of negative advertising by what President Obama calls “shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names.” Does Obama mean like George Soros’

  27. …while Democrats are dispirited by the unpopularity of their party’s policies.

    Anyone with half a brain would back off once they realized their policies were not just unpopular, but also ineffective and destructive.

  28. This one has Henry Waxman sweating:

  29. They are correct.
    If they liberals had maintained a monopoly on the media, it’s quite possible they could have pulled it off through biased reporting, non-reporting, continuous smears on conservatives, and just plain lies.

    But that dog won’t hunt anymore.

  30. Reason is a Communist Front organization, with a plan for Totalitarian Control.

    Once I become a billionare, and can put together a great, anonymous ad campaign using the greatest minds in modern psychology and propoganda, I will convince a majority this is true, even though its not. Maybe some burning at the stake as the solution thrown in just for fun!

    What? its not true? Oh Well, I’m free to do it! Sorry, you’re the ones who won’t stand up against private tyranny!

    The sooner Libertarians can be honest about real threats to honest liberty, and admit we can pass some laws as a democracy that set some ground rules, then allow competition to do its’ thing in the ring, the sooner it will be taken seriously by more people.

    Even Hayek recognized the legitimacy of setting a legislative framework to allow competition to be harnessed for the benefit of freedom loving people.

  31. there are always some commons existed in every age.similar complaints have been heard from both major parties in every recent election cycle.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.