Politics ain’t beanbag, as writer Finley Peter Dunnefamously, and correctly, said. But you’d be led to believe otherwise by the constant pearl clutching, even by some candidates, over Super PACsand negative ads this election cycle. Egads! People band together in support of one candidate to run negative ads against an opposing candidate — and they often contain half-truths or outright lies? Get me to my fainting couch!
Super PACs are so prevalent and dominate campaigns nowadays due to a plethora of absurd campaign finance reform laws. If you don’t like them, you can blame campaign finance reform and limits being put on individual contributions to candidates and their campaigns. But, until the laws change or the Supreme Court revisits cases like Buckley v. Valeo, get used to them. And for cripes sake, candidates, quit whining about them.
The proper response to a Super PACs negative ad blitz is not to cry ‘unfair’, it’s to fight back. If you don’t, you might as well hang it up. Negative ads work; they are highly effective. You must counteract them offensively or you are doomed. I mean, we’ve seen how well not fighting back worked for Newt Gingrich in Iowa. By “well” I of course mean horribly. The Super PAC ‘Restore Our Future‘, which supports Mitt Romney, went all out in their attack ads aimed at Speaker Gingrich. His response? To have lawyers send letters demanding television stations not air them. Then complained to Mitt Romney,basically asking him to tell the PAC to stop being so meany pants.
This is not the Newt I know nor want. First, Romney cannot, by law, tell the PAC anything. Look, I am not a fan of Governor Romney and, if the Super PAC is any indication, then I’m also not a fan of the company he keeps, another criterion on which I judge a man. But the laws are set up so that he cannot admit to having any communication with the PAC. Which is why people should be able to contribute as much as they want to a candidate, giving him full accountability and no Super PAC cover of anonymity for ‘negative’ jackassery.
I’m still supporting Newt. Romney is a repeat of McCain and we all know what happened. In the last debate, all of the candidates answered the ridiculous contraceptive and gay marriage questions for over 15 min. Newt was the only one to stop the nonsense and turn it around on the liberal moderators. He is the only one who can bring it to the MSM, educate the misinformed/uninformed about who Obama is and what he has done to the country. Newt has a proven record to turn things around and I know he can do it again. Decimating Obama in the debates is icing on the cake.
The super PACs will make for an amazingly negative campaign, by the look of things. All the benefits of negative advertising, conveniently at arm’s length so that none of the downside redounds to the candidate’s detriment. And in Gingrich’s case at least the super PAC has more money available for TV ads than the candidate himself.