After Citizens United opened the floodgates for political money, will Romney’s presidential campaign go down in history as proving that you can’t buy any election just by throwing unlimited amounts of money at it?
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has an article “Super PAC Influence Falls Short of Aims“. Their conclusion is “So far, these super PACs are looking less than super.”
Good question, a moral lesson is about to learned but which one has yet to be decided. It could as easily be that “America is for sell to the highest bidder, be it domestic or foreign”.
We’ve already seen that money alone cannot make us trust a fabulist nor love the loathsome. The lesson left to learn is whether it can keep an incompetent politician competitive.
Pardon my blunt language, but despite my moderate tendencies, I am totally disgusted with the shameful depths to which the Republican party has descended.
Don’t forget that all that SuperPAC money can be thrown at Congressional races that are close to keep GOP control of the House and take back the Senate.
For the google virgins who want to read the article
1) Go to http://www.google.com
2) Paste the following text in the text field “Super PAC Influence Falls Short Of Aims”
3) Click on the first search result
As the saying goes, money can’t buy love – but it can rent a lot of affection. The fact that unlimited spending is not enough BY ITSELF to throw the election isn’t the point, of course, because in close races it DOES make the difference – especially since between 80% and 94% (depending on the year) of winning candidates outspend their opponents.
So we need to overturn Citizens United and completely revise campaign finance, but it’s nice that in THIS election is looks like money alone will not succeed.