Jacob Sullum on How Misguided Regulations Gave Us the Pretense of 'Independent' Campaign Spending
During Sunday's Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich said they cannot control controversial ads supporting their bids for the nomination because they are legally barred from "coordinating" with the "super PACs" that produce them. Critics argue that super PACs encourage reckless mudslinging and pose essentially the same risk of corruption as unlimited campaign contributions would. Senior Editor Jacob Sullum says super PACs, like prostitutes who masquerade as masseuses or head shop owners who insist their fancy water pipes are intended for use only with legal herbs, have a shady reputation because of misguided prohibitions.
Hide Comments (0)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?