More Bad News For Shelly

How bad is it when a liberal reporter calls out a liberal politician and calls her plan is silly and pointless?  Well, Jon Ralson, liberal reporter from the Las Vegas Sun has called out Shelly Berkley and her proposal to eliminate accepting money from out of state.
From Jon Ralston:  Such was the effusion flowing from the Shelley Berkley campaign this week as it tried to embarrass the reconstituted Heller-Slanker team into agreeing to a ban (that neither side could enforce) on outside spending such as the 2006 extra-Nevada money that almost defeated the congressman-turned-senator.
Of course, Team Berkley didn’t point out that four months before Slanker’s statement she had voted against a measure to reduce the amount of money going into 527s, which sprouted through the loopholes in McCain-Feingold, because it might have limited the likes of George Soros from helping Democratic causes. But now that Soros West (or is it Right?), aka Sheldon Adelson, might want to put a fortune into a super PAC, no worse and in some ways better than 527s, to defeat Berkley, her tune has changed.
The cynicism here is breathtaking and is especially obnoxious coming on the heels of Berkley’s misguided campaign to force Clear Channel to fire Rush Limbaugh because he is a sexist pig. Yes, Slanker’s comment is silly and a reflexive response to the Club for Growth, which has as much right to spend money here as does SEIU or American Crossroads. But does that mean Heller should be importuned by Berkley’s media campaign to sign the pact to “free Nevada”?
Berkley’s campaign stunt will be greeted with yawns by most sentient beings. And Heller will resist the call, not so much on principle but because he likely believes GOP groups — and perhaps Adelson — will pour money into the state to help him.
But this, like hypocrisy, is not a partisan issue; it is about free speech, and, as I have written before, I wish politicians would stop wailing about it.
There is no moral high ground here, only a slippery slope. I didn’t hear Berkley lamenting the outside spending in 2010 when a group helmed by a former Harry Reid spokesman bloodied up Sue Lowden in the primary and then sliced up Angle in the general to help the majority leader survive. That was an outside group trying to buy an election, as Berkley fulminated this week, so I wonder why she didn’t speak up in 2010. Yes, I am suffused with wonderment.
Maybe Berkley isn’t afraid of Adelson, for whom she worked in the 1990s before ideology severed their relationship. But he tried to beat her in her first congressional race in 1998, and he is likely to be after her again, perhaps aided by another rich guy named Steve Wynn. With no equivalent wealthy benefactors ready to come to her aid, Berkley may be correct that stopping outside money is to her political benefit.
But she is wrong — as much of the media have been — about super PACs, which are subject to more disclosure rules than the 527s she voted against limiting six years ago.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/mar/16/berkleys-spending-ban-silly-pointless-stunt/?hpop
Obviously, Berkley must be reading some polls that show her trailing because Berkley is getting desperate by her phony issues like Rush Limbaugh and accepting money from out of state.  Berkley and her behavior is a sign of desperation  and we are still a little less than 8 months from the November elections.  I wonder what other phony issues Berkley will come up with next?  It would be nice if Berkley can grow up and discuss grown up issues instead of kindergarten issues.