The super pac kind of thing you’re pointing out doesn’t seem of a different kind, just bigger than previous ones.

Seems akin to me to financial firms effectively outgrowing any ability to regulate them.

Expand full comment

Given the tsunami of politicking misdeeds and endless orgies of litigation with which we are inundated each and every election cycle, pointing out isolated incidents seems like a “look! A squirrel!” strategy to normalize the fundamentally fakakta reality of elections in the United States of America. By decrying a specific misdeed here or there, perhaps one can retain the fundamentally untenable philosophy that “the electoral system is all perfectly fine until it can be proven otherwise in a court of law” (a view that has been proffered here previously.) One might not be sitting so smug in judging others if one were to adopt a “I will believe elections are free and fair when there is substantive evidence to support such a conclusion.” The latter philosophy places a duty upon the individual to do something like question, challenge, and reform.

As one might expect of a country whose 2016 presidential election resulted in Members of Congress objecting to certifying election results from nearly 1 in 10 states (Alabama Florida Georgia Michigan Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Wisconsin Wyoming), dozens of Members boycotted the inauguration which violent saboteurs disrupted by burning vehicles the night before and blocking access to the capitol grounds, the United States of America does not perform well on objective measures of free and fair elections. For example, on the V-Dem Institute’s Electoral Democracy Index: which “measures the principle of electoral or representative democracy, including whether elections were free and fair” (as well as the “prevalence of a free and independent media”), the United States of America ranks 33rd in the world, between Taiwan and Chile. Even though they are ranked beneath us, one must envy the Chileans for having had the nobility to attempt to do something substantive about it. Whether it is because our anti-democratic constitution won’t allow it, our corrupt legal system suppresses it, or if the people of the United States of America prefer deluding themselves, we will never earn the pride and nobility to which the Chileans can legitimately lay claim.

Expand full comment

Good luck with running the shame meters up. Trump was a superpower because he had no visceral response to shame. At this point, the only way to function in politics is to have no emotional response to accusations of any kind, from any direction or even targeted at associated innocents. This cannot be good.

Expand full comment

The first rule of politics is there are no rules, Dr. Kling. Leftists are more ruthless- it is their inbuilt advantage- and the Right had better learn this soon because they, the Right, are on the brink of never winning another Presidential or Congressional election in the US.

As for the Arabella Group, they probably are violating the tax laws if the article is accurate about their political activities (I don't know the article is accurate), but the IRS is firmly in control of the Democrat Party, like they are in control of pretty much every agency based in the DC/Northern Virginia/Maryland area. I know for a fact, though, that were the Arabella Group supporting Republicans, the IRS would have been auditing them on a regular basis, and denying them tax free status of a non-profit. If you want to try something, make all charitable donations non-deductible and taxable at the recipient level (it won't work to make certain donations deductible/taxable while others are not).

Expand full comment

"1: If the other side did it, you would cry foul.

2: If what you were doing were shouted from the rooftops, so that everyone knew knew who was responsible and understood what you were up to, your tactic would backfire."

I appreciate that the two signs are essentially the impartial spectator in execution. Chalk another one up for Adam Smith.

Expand full comment

And then people tell us there is no conspiracy to drive us towards a particular form of global governance and elections aren’t rigged, involving anonymous, well funded, well organised, powerful entities and people in the shadows.

Expand full comment

Yet none dare admit who is behind it all, lest they be deleted!

Expand full comment

"Are there no rules?"

The only rules are laws. And laws are quite malleable. There is a legal principle called impartiality. That's why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. But today's left have judges and lawyers and staff within the legal system that doesn't feel obligated to be impartial.

What do you think of Bryan Caplan's assertion that he doesn't feel bound to follow laws. While some might say that no one is above the law, Bryan Caplan boasts of being above the law. Bryan Caplan is part of a political elite that plays dirty tricks and cheats to win and he's gleefully proud of that. Kling calls this "bare knuckle politics", Caplan calls it being a "righteous scofflaw".


Expand full comment

Sure there are rules BUT - the Democrat deep state primarily enforces them against Republicans and often conspicuously does NOT enforce them against Democrats.

"Rule of Law" means same bad actions get same enforcement. But not today in the USA.


This year there have been dozens of stories of anti-Republican unequal enforcement of rules.

The $200 million bribe to the Clinton Foundation so that Obama & Clinton signed off on Russia buying up US uranium assets comes to mind after the billions in Dark Money are discussed.

It was Bush Derangement Syndrome before TDS, and could have been called Reagan DS. Pwerful Democrats, inspired by successful colleges who have long been discriminating against Republicans, want to make "being Republican" illegal.

The Reason article claiming both sides are at fault is false. The radical Democrats continue to increase the unjust and semi-illegal -- if the cops don't care, it's not "really illegal" -- actions to demonize and attempt to terrorize MAGA republicans. Called out by the US President as domestic terrorists, for opposing terrible Democrat policies.


The USA needs reform of NGO / non-profits.

Expand full comment

Your two rules for underhanded tactics also work for the new Iran nuclear deal.

Expand full comment

Fun, I have no side. All sides seem corrupt to me.

Expand full comment

<i>It would be nice if we could shame out of existence any organization that engages in such tactics.</i>

Once you convince yourself you're "saving democracy", what's to stop you?

Expand full comment

If the political status quo is deeply corrupt, then seeking the more "moderate" candidate may simply be a way of bolstering it and derailing needed change. Many Democrats in 2016 were eager that President Trump be the nominee since they thought him too "extreme" to win. Many voters have become disillusioned with the establishment which comprehends both Democrats and "moderate" Republicans. Progressives regard this as a "threat to democracy." I don't think that word means what they have in mind.

Expand full comment

Whenever I see an essay like this, this is what I link to:


Expand full comment

This seems like it's probably pretty different from those slimy fake ads for MAGA candidates, and not as bad. Reminds me of accusations from back in the day that the Tea Party wasn't a real grassroots movement. It's easy to make legitimate activism look like astroturfing just because it attracts funding.

Expand full comment