Despite all the hand-wringing over Super PACs, said Josh Kraushaar, they are actually good for democracy. Campaign finance laws that limit contributions always serve to protect incumbents, who “have all the perks of power at their disposal to help them raise cash.” With the rise of Super PACs, challengers can now close this fund-raising gap. Well-heeled donors like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess have kept Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the fight for the GOP nomination long after their own funds ran out. In the general election to come, Super PACs will give the Republican nominee a way to compete with President Obama’s fund-raising juggernaut. Good-government types always bemoan the influence of money on politics, but evidence shows “little connection between strict campaign finance laws and good governance.” Virginia allows unlimited contributions and runs clean elections. New Jersey has strict campaign finance rules and is plagued by political corruption. Attempts to keep money out of politics are not only futile—they only serve to give an unfair advantage to those in power
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=29924 - "Who is Peter Thiel and why is he giving so much $$ to Ron Paul??"
I love these broad vague statements like evidence shows “little connection between strict campaign finance laws and good governance.” What study was this or what evidence? They give 2 cherry picked examples that may very well be exceptions to a rule. To be a study things need to be much more scientific than that.
My gut feeling is that if super pacs financed by wealthy interests support both sides, both sides will likely pay them back with favors if elected. To NOT return the favor insures that next election you will be at a monetary disadvantage. This is why often the promises made by a politician are soon forgotten and ignored.
As long as we keep going on this way we are sure to have the best politicians money can buy.
Word. Citations needed.
I wonder if the author of this article has ever had a legitimate grievance against a large company and tried to get someone elected who can make sure it never happens again? Definitely not. That process disproves his theory.
We already have the best that $ will buy. Obama plans to raise 1 billion for his campaign.