Naive, naive, naive, Part II:
Hub Blog and Reader No. 1 (an old friend) have had a nice exchange about Massachusetts' Clean Elections Law and the reaction of supporters to the "negative" TV ads paid for by you, the taxpayers, through the new publicly funded campaign program. Reacting to the shock of supporters that public funds are being used for nasty little commericals in the governor's race, Reader No. 1 responded:
"For this reader, (the articles) confirmed Massachusetts is full of well-educated, articulate people without a lick of common sense. Clean elections:
"1.) Obviously hasn't changed the tone of elections.
"2.) Hasn't reduced the importance of money in elections, in fact, has ACCELERATED the use of money in elections -- it could be argued that Tolman's ads led to the increase in Birmingham's spending, which feeds more money for Tolman's ads."
Hub Blog would add: Tolman also has received millions
of dollars that he otherwise wouldn't have been able to raise, so the argument of accelerated spending is more than valid. It's just plain common sense. ... For more on the subject, see the item below.