G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Not long ago Newt Gingrich seemed to be a big fan of super PACs.
The former House Speaker two years ago called the new legal framework that gave rise to unlimited fundraising by outside groups a “great victory for free speech” and predicted that the biggest of the recent federal court decisions deregulating campaign rules would make “it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.”
Then he got a taste of the new rules in Iowa.
After weeks of withering attacks by a super PAC supporting his rival Mitt Romney, Gingrich won’t stop talking about the injustices of unchecked spending — specifically the $3 million spent attacking him.
He even coined a name for it, saying he got “Romney-boated” by his chief opponent’s “millionaire friends.”
Though Gingrich says he still supports the court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,his shift in attitude illustrates the difficulty that the free-wheeling big-money election landscape can pose for politicians — even, and perhaps especially, conservatives who philosophically oppose campaign rules as restrictions on free speech.
Romney, for his part, has also of late bemoaned the rise of super PACs. But he, too, supported one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions that set the stage for the explosion of outside groups, and he even appeared at fundraisers for the super PAC that eviscerated Gingrich.
McCain-Feingold and other campaign regulations were gutted by a series of federal court rulings in the past few years, capped by the 2010 decisions in cases brought by the conservative groups Citizens United and SpeechNow.org.
They paved the way for the new breed of political action committee known as super PACs...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71097.html#ixzz1int6ZKt4
The former House Speaker two years ago called the new legal framework that gave rise to unlimited fundraising by outside groups a “great victory for free speech” and predicted that the biggest of the recent federal court decisions deregulating campaign rules would make “it easier for middle-class candidates to compete against the wealthy and incumbents.”
Then he got a taste of the new rules in Iowa.
After weeks of withering attacks by a super PAC supporting his rival Mitt Romney, Gingrich won’t stop talking about the injustices of unchecked spending — specifically the $3 million spent attacking him.
He even coined a name for it, saying he got “Romney-boated” by his chief opponent’s “millionaire friends.”
Though Gingrich says he still supports the court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,his shift in attitude illustrates the difficulty that the free-wheeling big-money election landscape can pose for politicians — even, and perhaps especially, conservatives who philosophically oppose campaign rules as restrictions on free speech.
Romney, for his part, has also of late bemoaned the rise of super PACs. But he, too, supported one of the landmark Supreme Court decisions that set the stage for the explosion of outside groups, and he even appeared at fundraisers for the super PAC that eviscerated Gingrich.
McCain-Feingold and other campaign regulations were gutted by a series of federal court rulings in the past few years, capped by the 2010 decisions in cases brought by the conservative groups Citizens United and SpeechNow.org.
They paved the way for the new breed of political action committee known as super PACs...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71097.html#ixzz1int6ZKt4