This line of attack is so strong and insistent that the New York Times public editor, Arthur Brisbane, felt it necessary to weigh in on whether the paper?s stories tying Citizens United to super PACs were fair. (He concluded they were, but that the truth was complicated.) The purpose of the drumbeat appears to be to insulate the Supreme Court from further criticism of the Frankenstein?s monster they?ve created.
It is true that before Citizens United people could spend unlimited sums on independent advertising directly supporting or opposing candidates.?But that money had to be spent by the individual directly.?It could not be given to a political action committee, which had an individual contribution cap of $5,000 and could not take corporate or union funding.?In many cases, wealthy individuals did not want to spend their own money on advertising, which would say ?Paid for by Sheldon Adelson? or ?Paid for by George Soros,? so fewer of these ads were made. The only way to avoid having your name plastered across every ad was to give to the 527s, which claimed they could take unlimited money from individuals (including, sometimes, corporate and labor union money) on grounds that they were not PACs under the FEC?s definition of PACs.?These organizations were somewhat successful, but a legal cloud always hung over them.?During the 2008 Democratic primary season, Bob Bauer, candidate Obama?s lawyer, barged in on a pro-Hillary Clinton conference call to say that people giving to 527s to support Clinton could face criminal liability.
Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=fb2e9acd752ae059558b65cc6881803c
richard cordray shannon de lima joe torre west virginia university michele bachmann jessica biel tim howard
No comments:
Post a Comment