George Will’s latest piece is an excellent bit on why SuperPACs are nothing more (or less) than another useful, moral, legal, and just political tool. In fact, given the limitations that do exist on campaign contributions (all of which restrict the freedom of men to dispose of their money (their personal property) as they see fit), super PACs provide a necessary outlet for free speech.

An excellent rebuke of the notion that super PACs are “kingmakers” (with an excellent conclusion on the topic of the marginal dollar, a key economic concept):

“The Post, dismayed about super PACs, reports “a rarefied group of millionaires and billionaires acting as kingmakers in the GOP contest, often helping to decide, with a simple transfer of money, which candidate might survive another day.” Kingmakers? Where’s the king?

If kingmaking refers to, say, Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino owner, keeping Newt Gingrich’s candidacy afloat with large infusions to the super PAC supporting Gingrich, then kingmaking isn’t what it used to be. Notice that the fellow with the most muscular super PAC, Mitt Romney, has failed to vanquish a singularly weak set of rivals. Might the power of political dollars be finite, and utility of the last dollar be less than that of the first? Who knew?”

And excellent quip regarding the hypocrisy of liberals on this topic:

“Critics of super PACs — critics who were remarkably reticent in 2004 when George Soros was lavishing his own money on liberal advocacy — often refer to them as “outside groups,” much as Southern sheriffs used to denounce civil rights workers as “outside agitators.”

Pray tell: Super PACs are outside of what? Is the political process a private club with the parties and candidates controlling membership?”

And the thrilling conclusion consists of words that Joseph Ivy could well have said during any number of campaign stops:

“Happily, such laws will never be written because voters, those puzzling nuisances, do not want a new entitlement program — welfare for politicians. We know this because every year Americans have a chance to check a box on their tax returns to give $3 — without increasing their tax liability — to fund presidential campaigns. More than 90 percent refuse to do so.

Perhaps they object to funding candidates they oppose. Who knew?”