Campaign Finance

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.

NEXT: Always Wear a Condom...and a Reflective Vest...and a Helmet...

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.

  1. Be afraid! Be very afraid! Be very, very afraid! Be very, very, very afraid!

  2. So inside spending buoys Democrats? What is inside spending? Sounds a lot like The United States Treasury.

  3. Does the NYT count negative coverage of Tea Party candidates by NPR?

  4. 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.

    1. And there’s always the John Houseman way: smear, smear, smear, ummm…..I mean they have to earn it.

  5. “For Democrats, Financial Edge in Campaigns
    But Outside Spending Buoys Republicans”

    “Women and minorities suffer most”



  6. So the dems are dramatically outspending the rethuglicans, but the “outside groups” giving money to team red are “undisclosed”.

    The country is truly doomed.

    1. 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.

  7. 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?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.