The Pummeled PACs will survive.

Pummeling the PACs is popular. There is a cry for fairness and a crusader’s criticism hurled at the Supreme Court for a ruling that enabled the embryonic super PACs to hatch. The PACs have money, which by many standards is the root of all evil. The pummelers’ theme is that money, or those who have it, should not be able to buy votes. Money does not buy votes of course, but it does buy advertising-accurate and inaccurate, factual and non-factual, half-lies and half-truths, depending on the point of view.

There is another side of the story. For example, Alan Smithson is an American citizen. Alan is a successful entrepreneur and he wishes to give $100 million to a candidate that espouses the principles he believes in. Why should he be denied this option? Why should he be penalized, albeit not allowed to promote the principles that made him successful, just because he made it big? He should not.

Far be it from me to affirm a Supreme Court ruling, as if I had the legal acumen to understand the ruling language anyway; however, I do have a fundamental belief in capitalism. If you make a few bucks, then you should be able to invest your winnings to sustain the principles that allowed you to be successful in the first place.

My fear is that a few idealists will give up the fight to control the PAC expenditures and begin new efforts to regulate the content of the message. I fear they would like to establish a pre-fact finding regulatory authority that rates ads for accuracy or content, such as, “This ad is suitable for adults between the ages of 35-50, with a college education, with a full time job and the ability to recognize various forms of logic and flawed reasoning.” Not possible? Read the medical drug disclaimers. Read the movie disclaimers. And lest you have forgotten, the terrorist threat rating colors. The problem is no one ever rates the raters.