| Soleron said: I consider PACs "directly". It's a media blizzard for 2 years out of every 4, instead of a 6 week, low-key, low-budget tour like the UK. Koch can publish all the editorial it wants. The line on when something is advertisement is very clear. |
But PACs aren't direct contributions. The majority of new PACs are single issue pressure groups, which are generally more interested in influencing politicians to take certain stances or actions than they are in getting a particular individual elected. I'm sure most politicians could gladly do without such annoying groups.
While the runs up to elections are ridiculously long and overblown affairs here, PAC ads are a minor irritant compared to the year-round 24/7 campaigning on the part of the government-media complex to create and maintain a particular narrative. Again, it seems very arbitrary to me to say that anyone who happens to own a newspaper or TV channel can editorialize to his heart's content while anyone who doesn't is limited in terms of how much ad space he can purchase in other people's outlets.
The FEC rightly lost this case, in part, because it argued it could actually ban a book if it were published too close to an election for their liking. If there is a problem with too much money in politics, it isn't a problem of outside money but "public" money. The power of redistribution is what really corrupts every aspect of the system, including the electorate. And curtailing political speech will only exacerbate this problem, as the entire system is necessarily structured so as to perpetuate the status quo.
