Will 2012 be convincing evidence that the Citizen’s United decision by the Supreme Court now means that it is now possible to simply buy an election?
UPDATE: Romney claims that he was “vastly outspent” by Gingrich in South Carolina, which is why he lost there. But independent analyses show that Romney’s campaign and associated super PAC spent almost twice the amount of pro-Gingrich groups in South Carolina. And now in Florida, Romney is outspending Gingrich five to one.
4 Comments
No. Those who would be convinced already said as much from the beginning. Those who did not think that CU could cause problems (e.g., Roberts and the like) will never be convinced regardless of facts. They will simply quibble over the fact that while, yes, the unlimited money basically gave you a disproportionate advantage, it is ultimately up to the voters to magically ignore all psychological effects and see beyond the corruption.
They’re the same people that say it’s okay for fast food restaurants to advertise in schools because the “individual responsibility” applies only to the consumers…not the individuals running the marketing or election campaigns.
“Now”?
🙂
1032 has a point. It’s not as if money has been out of elections before now. Also, with Gingrich as his primary opponent, it’s pretty incredible that Mitt has needed all this money to point out to potential GOP voters that he is not Gingrich.
Just reinforces the fact that to run for the highest office you need to be either independently wealthy or beholden to some other interest group who will finance you (and probably has a contract for you to pull strings if elected). Thus, ethically compromised or out of touch from ‘real’ people. Likely both.