Just an interesting note on an emerging issue in the world of campaign finance: The Big Boss had a few thoughts this morning on the issue of ad rates for super PACs relative to ad rates for candidates. This U.S. News & World Report piece from this past summer does a fair job of explaining the issue and how it may affect new candidates to a race, and how it already affects super PACs. However, it neglects to mention what Brad Smith points out in an exchange on the topic this morning across a listserv thread:

I remain somewhat puzzled by the idea that candidate speech should be favored over citizen speech. Earlier in this campaign, for example, Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter cut a video specifically attacking Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Industries. So far as I know, this did not run on television. But the idea that Stephanie Cutter might go on the air for the Obama campaign and get a discounted rate to attack a private business and private citizens, but that the targets of her attacks would have to pay a non-discounted rate to respond, should be off putting to Americans who see themselves as citizens and the President as their servant, rather than seeing themselves as subjects and the President as their master. The same, obviously, would apply to attacks by Republican candidates against private citizens. 

So, perhaps it’s a good thing that super PACs may force advertisers to raise the lowest unit price rate for candidates? It might mean — we’ll know more in the Fall — that more people relatively disenfranchised by the political advertising system, may find their chances to speak increasing.