Super PACs To The Rescue

Outside groups campaigning for candidates, called "Super PACs," have been gaining importance in the upcoming election. While the groups are prohibited by law to coordinate with their specific candidate, the Super PACs are allowed to accept donations of any size, whereas candidates can receive only $2,500 from individual donors. This is legal because of court decisions that have struck down many limiting restrictions on spending money for elections, and also because the groups are legally separate from the campaigns.

The tactic of choice for the interest groups has been mud-slinging and attacking opponents, which leaves the candidates more money and time to spend on spreading positive messages as the Super PACs are doing all of the dirty work. Of late, the candidate receiving the most help from the new tactic has been Mitt Romney. According to data from the Republican media buyer, Romney has only spent $287,000 on TV advertising starting this week on Monday, while his independent support group has spent $780,000. This huge difference goes to show just how much the support and money of the interest groups have been playing a role in campaigning. And, as if the side-committees didn't seem unfair enough on their own, many Super PACs are being run by "political strategists with longstanding ties to the candidate." So despite the legal obligation to be separate from the official campaigns, it seems suspicious that major candidates know their Super PAC founders all too well.

So with the new frontier of campaigning, how will these major money-funded techniques bode for the smaller, less funded candidates? Is it even a fair race anymore?

(*this information is from an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "New Funding Rules Fuel Ad War, Shape Race." Unfortunately the full article is not online, sorry!)