"Perry pushed for a law that lets insurance companies raise homeowners’ rates without having to justify the increase." Back to Basics, --Wednesday, September 8th, 2010.
Spending by interest groups, so-called Political Action Committees and Unions most notably, is up well over 5 times what it was in the 2006 midterms, according to
an article in New York Magazine. Spending is up on both sides of the aisle, but these third-party groups are putting most of their money behind Republican candidates by a huge margin, approximately 7 to 1,
according to The Washington Post! This was all made possible by last years Supreme Court decision saying that limits on spending were essentially the same as limits on free speech.
I have a problem with this because I don’t think a pharmaceutical corporation should have a stronger voice than a network of cancer survivor groups just because they can spend more on campaigns, but I suppose outside spending isn’t all that different than spending by the candidates themselves. Nothing stops a multimillionaire candidate from using his own funds to vastly outspend opponents on advertising. In a sense this is buying the election, but legally it’s not seen that way.
What is disconcerting is the out and out dishonesty of the campaigns. I am not naive. Politics has always been a dirty game. But in this election it seems that the fact that the backers of those PACs with the patriotic names can remain anonymous has emboldened them.
Politifact.com, a non-partisan service that evaluates the claims of political discourse, evaluated 31 claims made in the advertisments of these third party groups in the current campaigns throughout the country. Only 5 were rated “mostly true” and two “true.”
Think about that for a minute. 31 claims were made in the political ads of third party organizations
analyzed by Politifact.com. On 16% of those were claims were based substantially on fact, on only 6% were essentially true. All others were significant distortions of the facts or outright lies.
Continue reading →
The Scholars at Risk media review seeks to raise awareness about academic freedom issues in the news. Subscription information and archived media reviews are available here. The views and opinions expressed in these articles are not necessarily those of Scholars at Risk.