I was just wondering. Would it be legal to say in a Trump-bashing (or whoever-bashing) ad? … "This message paid for by Right to Rise, which is not authorized to say it is paid for by Jeb2016."
It's factual. And even if it's not legal, who's to stop it in this pre-Watergate age of Wild West finance? The impotent F.E.C.?
Allow me to make a prediction. If the Superpacs are unleashed to winnow the chaff from the Republican lineup then every single one of the targets will complain about the useless bureaucrats at the F.E.C. that did not stop it.
Posted by: Peter G | October 30, 2015 at 10:06 AM
A further related observation: the Republican field is a now engaged in a great struggle to rewrite the rules for the debates in order to stop any semblance of their being a debate. Streif at Redstate had a beautifully stupid rational for what should happen. Now why any Network other than Fox would agree to put on a show over which they have no say about what questions might be asked is a puzzle. Their economic interests in providing the Republican candidates with a combination circle jerk and snoozefest escapes me. Who wants to watch a giant game of liar's poker? It's just like the debt ceiling "debates", give us what we want or we walk. Yet the only thing keeping most of these yahoos in the public eye are these evetns. For most of them, if they walk out, it's the last you'll ever see of them. I wonder if the less than a decimal polling crowd realizes this is just a maneuver to get them off the stage.
Posted by: Peter G | October 30, 2015 at 10:15 AM
I hadn't considered the debate rules changes having to do with narrowing the field and will have to think on that. Last night Chris Hayes said he'd love to see a Republican debate moderated by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and another wingnut I don't remember. I agree. Aside from the internecine mayhem, it would show the general public who's really in charge in the GOP.
Posted by: Bob | October 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM