The Post thinks that super PACs are doing “the dirty work” in politics and that there is “no solution in sight” [“The power of super PACs,” editorial, Jan. 10]. I suggest that the solution is to end the limits on contributions to candidates by anybody.
Super PACs exist solely as a legal fiction to avoid the limits on campaign contributions. Everyone knows this, and some such legal fiction will always be devised as long as the fruitless effort to limit contributions continues.
No limits with prompt, full disclosure is the best realistic solution. We all now know that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson gave $5 million to Newt Gingrich’s super PAC. If that is dirty work, voters can decide if it is a reason not to vote for Gingrich.
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision was founded in part on the idea that political contributions are a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. As long as that view is the law, efforts by Congress to limit political contributions will fail. As always, the solution is more speech, not less.