Last election cycle, I wrote that you need to mute the ads. The fact is that most political ads' impacts are fleeting. They are most likely paid attention to by those who already support what they are advertising, but if you spend more than thirty seconds checking the facts on sites other than the biased ones, you wild discover how twisted they are.
projected at 35. Another add demands that Obamacare should be repealed. Anyone, whether they like the program or dislike the program, knows that The Affordable Care Act is not going away anytime soon. It is an ad clearly aimed at the Tea Party base.
now 40th in student funding K-12 and 50th in higher education. The irony of this ad is that it attempts to scare voters about an out-of-state company making money in an ad paid for by an out-of-state company.
You may have noticed that I said the ad was "most likely" paid for by out-of-state gambling interests. That is the problem with dark money. It does not have to reveal who its donors and supporters are. For all we know the anti-68 movement is paid for by one rich guy sitting in a loft apartment in Hoboken. Why scare us? Will it really cut into the other casinos? I doubt it. What it could do, if we pass it, is perhaps start us thinking that it really might not be such a bad idea. It might help our poor state, which is hobbled by TABOR, by raising taxes on existing casinos. Hey, if 68 gives us money for schools, and the sales tax on pot gives us a boost...why not look at what we are charging the other gambling establishments?
If an ad does not say it is approved by the candidate, it is dark money no matter what the name of the organization. They may be owned by the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson or Michael Bloomberg. Dark money is not the voice of the many but the few. It's time to hit that mute button and
TURN IT OFF