Chicago Tribune Editoral: Super PACs = Super Democracy

[Martin Eden]

Last edited Fri Feb 10, 2012, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

I usually skip past the editorials in the Tribune because they almost always represent GOP/corporate interests, but this one caught my eye and my jaw dropped lower and lower as I read it:

Super democracy
Why super PACs are good for our political system

One of the surprising things about this year's Republican presidential race is how long it's gone on and how competitive and unpredictable it's been. What's different this year?

It's not just the candidates or the political climate. It might just have something to do with the fact that there are more ways for citizens to spend and contribute money to help candidates they like, or to hinder candidates they don't.
...............................
But what's so terrible about the infusion of so much money into the presidential campaign? The political action committees' main function is one at the heart of democracy: spreading information and arguments that voters may find useful in casting their votes.

Link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-superpacs-20120209,0,2061678.story

I just couldn't resist dashing off a LTTE:


Next time the Chicago Tribune publishes an editorial (Super Democracy, Feb 9) intended as satire, you really should let your readers know not to take it seriously. The dead giveaway for me was the sentence "The political action committees' main function is one at the heart of democracy: spreading information and arguments that voters may find useful in casting their votes."

The notion that Super PAC commercials provide "useful information" for voters rather than slickly packaged propaganda to mislead them is almost as hilarious as the assertion that PAC funding by deep-pocket special interests equates to "more ways for citizens to spend and contribute money to help candidates they like, or to hinder candidates they don't" -- as if the average citizen is on a level playing field with billionaires who can spend the kind of money that influences the outcome of elections.

Th editorial was very well done, but please put in a disclaimer at the end just to let people know it's purely for laughs.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Primo snark.

[Martin Eden]

2. Maybe, but I missed the typo in the subject title before posting :(

I'm not holding my breath for them to print my letter.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. You can edit your title.

Unlike the old DU, you can edit a post at any time after posting it.

[Martin Eden]

4. Thanks!

An old DUer just learned a new trick!