Western Editorial Sampler: Elections. Money. Mud. ...
Above: Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
Campaigns. Money. Mud. And what voters are for.
Talking money: Negative TV ads swamp campaign Salt Lake Tribune Editorial
For this you may thank the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority and its Citizens United decision, which opened the sluices for corporations and wealthy individuals to spend any amount they wish on election messages. All they need do is make sure they don't tell the candidates or their campaigns what they are doing. (Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.) However, it's fine for the super PACs (political action committees) and other independent electioneering outfits not associated directly with candidates or parties to conspire among themselves. ...
Amendment 65 not the answer Denver Post Editorial
Three weeks from Election Day, many Coloradans are tired of the parade of negative ads and unrelenting dinnertime robocalls surrounding the presidential election and three competitive congressional races.
And given estimates that a record $7.8 billion will be spent on federal elections this year, who can blame them?
As a result, we can see why voters in Colorado might be tempted to support an amendment that would direct our congressional delegation to propose and support campaign finance limits.
But a number of other problems with the measure prompt us to urge a "no" vote on Amendment 65. ...
Who are these guys? Las Vegas Sun Editorial
Republican rhetoric doesn't reflect the reality of where they've been
Is Arizona turning into a purple state? Prescott Daily Courier
Too much mud-slinging Tulsa World Editorial
Electoral College blues: Only nine states matter, and California isn't one San Diego U-T
(Neither is Utah)
Voter-lawmakers ought to do their homework Billings (Mont.) Gazette Editorial
See more about comments here.