And close the blinds on where that money is coming from:
Starting Jan. 1, state candidates and political action committees can take maximum contributions of $5,000 per election, up from the current $4,000 benchmark. The top donation to judicial candidates will leap to the same level from the current $1,000 plateau.
Other campaign finance shifts taking effect in the new year include: Allowing political parties to use corporate donations to pay up to three staffers whose primary duties are administrative in nature. Corporate donations are currently limited to building expenses, repealing the state’s pioneering “stand by your ad” law that required candidates to declare in advertisements that they “approved this message,” and ending the requirement that outside groups identify their five largest donors on political print advertisements.
This is another one of those issues where the vast majority of voters would prefer less money and more disclosure. In a perfect world, they would punish Republicans for making the political process even more sleazy, but we don't live there. If we did, people like David Lewis would be a laughing stock:
“We increased the individual limits because we wanted the candidates to be able to raise the money they needed to raise to get their message out,” he said in a recent interview.
Noting the increased presence of outside spending from groups that can raise unlimited amounts, Lewis said candidates were at a disadvantage. “This is actually a way for candidates and campaigns to be able to compete with all this new money that flows in from outside expenditure groups that truly is outside the regular or traditional realm of campaigning,” he said.
Master of the self-perpetuating circular logic. You allow all this shadow money to come into play, then you use that as an excuse to raise individual limits. The frightening thing is, many people would hear that and just nod their approval at such strained reasoning.