It is hard to argue that more speech is not better than less speech; yet
that is what the Supreme Court decided last year in the case of Arizona
Free Enterprise Club's Freedom PAC v Bennett. This disallowed an
Arizona law that would have provided public financing to candidates who
were competing against heavily self-financed opponents.
The problem with the flood of PAC money is that the volume of speech
that it generates drowns out the speech of ordinary people who cannot
compete in the advertising market. If there was some method for
generating countervailing speech then Mr. Weinstock's competitive
elections might well come into being (New York Times, March 6, 2012:
A26). At present big money alone talks.
Sent to New York Times