Super PAC Woes From Kentucky?

Radley Balko reports on an election win from Kentucky that should make both progressives and libertarians happy, except a supposed progressive isn't happy with the infusion of cash the winner got from out of state.

A Tea Party supported candidate who is opposed to the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, the police state, the drug war, and military adventurism won the primary over a candidate who took opposite stands, in part due to a generous donation from Texas. At least one progressive thinks that's a bad thing.

The best of the two- as far as progressives go- wins but that's a bad thing because of the out- of- state money? Radley Balko doesn't think so:

"Kilgore is right on one point. Without the half million dollar infusion from the super PAC, it’s doubtful Massie would have won. And that of course is precisely the point. Strict limits on campaign contributions only further entrench the two major parties. If your views aren’t in line with establishment thinking, if the party machinery has backed a more traditional candidate with predictable positions, you start your campaign in a hole. They have the phone lists, the existing office holders and the perks of their offices, name recognition, and campaign infrastructure. It takes money to overcome all of that. It takes money to merely be heard. Take all the money out of politics (assuming you could) and the two-party machinery advantages don’t go away. It just makes it more difficult to challenge them."

"So I’d ask Ed Kilgore: Let’s assume the GOP nominee wins this seat in November. Aren’t progressives better off with Thomas Massie in Congress than with Alecia Webb-Edgington? And if super PAC spending is the reason why that’s now likely to happen, how is this particular race an example of the perils of unlimited campaign spending?".

I've made pretty much that same argument here and elsewhere, so I naturally agree.