Romney Makes Strong Case in Illinois
Plus the rising power of the Super PACs
Not that he hadn’t before, but in yesterday’s Illinois primary, Mitt Romney made a convincing case that he is the Republican candidate best suited to taking on President Obama in November’s general election and indeed will be the nominee. He won nearly 47 percent of the votes to runner-up Rick Santorum’s 35 and seemed likely to collect roughly three times as many delegates, forestalling fears that he will not accumulate a majority by the convention in late August (in fact, it appears that Santorum still has a chance to deny Romney a majority, but at this point that would probably also take some unforeseen event). Romney outspent Santorum, but of course, he has also outraised him, and so actually that just becomes one more part of the electability argument.
Speaking of spending: a valuable article notes that more than ever before, as some funders begin to dry up and others refuse to commit, Super PACs, those ostensibly unaffiliated political groups birthed by the Citizens United ruling which can accept unlimited contributions, are only becoming more important. This is true even for Romney, whose campaign spent more than it raised last month but who was buttressed by its Super PAC. And it may be more true of Newt Gingrich more than anybody else: his Super PAC raised a little over $5.7 million while his campaign likely went into debt. Of that $5.7 million and change, how much came from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson? $5.5 million.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.