It’s wrong to call for brakes on super PAC spending
Renée Loth’s criticisms of SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which eliminated limits on contributions to so-called super PACs, miss the mark (“The birth of the super PAC,” Opinion, Nov. 23). Contrary to her claims, SpeechNow.org eliminated a legal disparity that favored the wealthy. Wealthy individuals acting alone had long been permitted to spend unlimited amounts on political ads, yet individuals who pooled their money with others were severely limited. SpeechNow.org simply recognized that if one person is allowed to spend freely, groups should be allowed to pool money to do the same thing.
Loth is also wrong to seek to curtail super PAC spending. The money raised by super PACs is spent on one thing: trying to persuade voters. Whether these efforts succeed is entirely up to those voters. Perhaps Loth longs for greater government control on the sources of information that voters may consider before casting their ballot. Thankfully, the First Amendment prohibits that.
The writer is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represented the plaintiffs in SpeechNow.org v. FEC.