SuperPACs and dirty politics

Chris Weigant's article in the Huffington Post gives us a quick historical guide to dirty politics. Dirty Politics is nothing new but, it is being taken to a whole new level by the money being spent by SuperPACs. Weigant says in his article, "The only real difference in 2012 may be the sheer amount of money being spent on the outside groups. Citizens United has opened the floodgates for such money to pour into these "unofficial" campaign organizations, and they will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars before we all head off to the polls in November."

I once had a discussion with the head of NPR news about the possibility of using interns to gather news. He pointed out that in Washington everything is spun. Without professional journalists there would not be a way to discern the truth. Since then journalism has fallen on hard times. Newspapers have become shells of their former selves as they lay-off staff and in many cases just close shop. Fewer journalists are watching and, there are many who prefer that.

Planet Money had a two part series on money and politics last week. Especially revealing was the second segment where a lobbyist was pulled into a congressman's private office. He was asked about a contribution to the congressman that was late. The money was buying access.

Bill Moyers recently wrote about his efforts to get media outlets to reveal who's paying for these ads. Right now you can go to the station and look at the public file. He wants easier access to make the process more transparent. "The FCC is scheduled to vote on their proposal on April 27, and on Monday its chairman, Julius Genachowski, walked into the lion's den -- the really nice one in Las Vegas -- and addressed the NAB's annual convention. He noted that, "Using rhetoric that one writer described as 'teeth-gnashing' and 'fire-breathing,' some in the broadcast industry have elected to position themselves against technology, against transparency, and against journalism."

The negative ads are effective and have a huge influence on opinions and how we vote. Most of these ads at best promote a point a view. At worst they are deliberately inaccurate.