The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday about the left’s use of campaign finance as a vehicle to advance their political agendas. The article, “Soros: The Super PAC Man,” makes the point:
One of the great cons of the 2012 Presidential campaign has been the loud Democratic fretting that President Obama would be outspent by Mitt Romney and Republicans. The much-massaged story has been that because Democrats and liberals are too virtuous to accept or donate Super PAC money, they’d be unspent by the dastardly capitalists financing the GOP.
Candidates have used the claim that they have been outspent by outside groups for months as a reason their supporters urgently need to donate to their campaigns. The article continues:
We don’t begrudge Mr. Soros his right to indulge his partisan preferences, in contrast to those on the left who want to block donations from the Koch brothers and others on the political right. Elections might be more competitive if we spent more. What is hard to take, however, is all the liberal moralizing about the evils of money in politics. Their real objection is to money spent for their opponents.
The Wall Street Journal hit the nail on the head. Money facilitates competitive politics by allowing candidates to spread their message. This year’s primary showed that the actions of independent expenditure groups allow unlikely candidates to remain competitive and provided a platform for their voices to be heard. Attempting to limit speech is a disservice to everyone who participates in our democracy.