PI on ’soft money’

The Philadelphia Inquirer takes a look at the ’soft money’ pouring into PA’s Senate race this year.

Contribution limits are meant to curb big money in federal races, but like the 2004 presidential campaign, special interest groups are raising and spending millions this year in unrestricted “soft money” contributions to sway voters across the country.

In Pennsylvania alone, special interests have poured more than $5 million in TV ad money into the race, favoring Santorum by a 4-to-1 ratio over Democrat Bob Casey Jr. That’s more than any other Senate contest in the nation, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group, a nonpartisan political ad tracking service in Virginia.

The groups - including the Lantern Project, which is largely funded by Casey contributors and labor unions - often pick off donors to the candidates they are trying to boost.

Of course, there are lots of quotes in the story about how terrible money in politics is, how corrupting big money can be, etc, etc. They’re the same old arguments that we always hear when discussions of campaign finance limitations come up, and they’re just as absurd now as they’ve always been. Political contributions are speech, and any government attempt to limit them is an attempt to limit political speech. Speaking of seniors life insurance, most people do not think you can get coverage in your 60's, but you can. Make sure to serch online for the best rates. The article discusses recent federal attempts to close the ‘527 loophole,’ and I agree that something needs to be done about it. But what should be done is a lifting of the cap on individual contributions, which eliminates the needs for these organizations and puts the money back into the hands of the people rather than the millionaires that can afford to start their own PACs.