|
The recent issues with the Deanites crying about the Osama ad, for example, is going to come up again and again, because people who cannot donate money to their candidate, will then donate money to defeating their candidate's opponent. That means you will see a lot more attack ads, and attack ads frankly, suck.
I think it also helps the Republicans. There are far more wired Republicans with disposable income than there are Democrats (Bush has 6 million people on his e-list, for example), and when push comes to shove, they will out raise Democrats at will. Dean wants 2 million people to donate $100? How about 6 million people donating $100? $200? More? Middle class America is largely Republican, and they're the people with the money; by contrast, lots of Democratic money comes from very large donations from individuals or industries.
It's nice to see an attempt made, but I think when all is said and done, hard caps on spending are going to be needed, and restricting the types of ads that can be run by third parties makes sense. You run into 1st amendment issues, but it's the only way to cut down on the negative ads and spending that defeats the purpose of CFR.
|