It is good that we will have some disclosure of the mega-donors to the spate of super PACs that have dominated the landscape and the airtime across the presidential primaries and caucuses so far — but it is ridiculous that reporting requirements are so lame that the first disclosure in six months will not come until after the Florida primary.

Former White House Counsel, now AEI scholar, Peter J. Wallison comments about the "real significance of the Obama campaign's reversal on the use of super PAC."

In recent days, two ads were released in Florida attacking Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital. One was produced by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a left-wing public-worker union that has pledged to spend upward of $100 million to reelect Barack Obama. The other was...

There has been much handwringing recently about super PACs and their potential to doom the American political system. As the argument goes, super PACs mean that corporations or wealthy individuals can make unlimited contributions to groups that are thinly-veiled surrogates for candidates, so candidates can stay positive while the PACs function as attack dogs. Trouble is, this argument isn't true.

In just a few days’ time, Gingrich has managed has to do something Romney has tried and failed to do for more than five years: rally conservatives behind Mitt Romney.

It has been reported that the Obama campaign this year, as in 2008, has disabled or chosen not to use AVS in screening contributions made by credit card. That doesn't sound very important. But it's evidence of a modus operandi that strikes me as thuggish.

Philip Ewing, of DOD Buzz, points out another possibility that I didn’t contemplate: that we could “swing and miss,” as he puts it. In other words, try to shoot down the missile and fail to do so.

Jan. 21 is an auspicious day, for two reasons. It is the date of the South Carolina primary, and it is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.