Example of the New York Times - craftily DISGUSTING and NO NEED FOR IT

Reporting the news has turned into a joke. Everywhere.
An event occurs and we immediately are presented by editorial slant in 2 ways.

1. Report or ignore the event.
2. Report the event with every conceivable edge taken to USE the event as a delivery method for your personal political serum?

Would you like that inoculation by syringe or oral?
In THIS ARTICLE  the Times is reporting on an important new event set. Large amount of moneys are coming into advertising buys, not from the candidates, but from outside groups whose overall agenda may match the general purpose of the OPPOSITE candidate (these are ALL attack ads)
Once of the groups they cite (which MUST not be a 501c) they cite THIS GROUP which is pouring $1m late this week into buys for Ms Shaheen (who I  once voted for for governor„ but never would have for Senator - we had moved to Maine by then). This group, whose name would yield a function, one would think would oppose the SUCCESSFUL message of Scott Brown, is instead buying adds touting Shaheen’s support for veterans.
OOOOOH. Nasty but quite american. Glad to know about that, Thank NY Times. Good going.
But they CAN’T STOP THEMSELVES.

The onslaught shows how fast and aggressive strategists and donors in both parties have become about using the array of tools now available for pouring a lot of late cash into races. The efforts are a byproduct of court rulings like Citizens United and lax enforcement by the election commission and the Internal Revenue Service.

Now the Times makes a point by saying that this Immigration outfit with a misleading name DOES NOT disclose its contributors, and it would be nice to know them, but I CAN live without it if the donors are willing to forgo tax deductions to use their money as free speech for what they believe in. So why bring up the IRS which was exposed as attacking free speech ONLY by those to the right of the civil servants’ unions’ political goals.
I am not thrilled that some thinking folks, found ANOTHER way to get a message in to try and score points which I think is HARMFUL to the nation by saying one thing about veterans (which is NOT what those folks are about) in order to defeat someone who is opposed to illegal immigration, which IS what those folks are about.
There are other examples from both sides which make this point.
But I can live with it because efforts to suppress messaging which might be MISLEADING TO SOME, in order for the govt to have more power to ‘prevent’ purposefully misleading messaging will BE ABUSED.
IPSO FACTO. INARGUABLE. But the Times editorial  point of view is that YOU IDIOTS OUT THERE must be more controlled to think CORRECTLY.
I will even live with the ‘wrong’ person getting elected every now and then by the balance being tipped RATHER than making this speech ILLEGAL for all who can attain it. We get the govt we deserve. Our choice.

“It’s yet another way to hide money from the public,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor for the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates more transparent campaign spending. “What’s particularly insidious is that these are the late contributions that can sometimes tip the balance in a close race. And because of the timing, it looks like people are deliberately trying to mask the source of the money until after Election Day. If money is free speech, why are you standing on a soap box in a burqa?”

I will live with it - both sides.
You MORONS
Sooner or later under such a regime, a conservative with amoral goals would turn the focus of such power on them, just as an unthinking, unyielding, vicious Chicago borne admin has done so in the last 8 years, coarsening EVERYTHING.
How STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID can you be?
So the Times has to make sure they slip this kind of CRAP into the very activity which alerts citizens.
To dislike the activity of a few citizens is simply not enough to make their actions ILLEGAL FOR ALL.
Kafka.
A society in which all not forbidden is compulsory.

Is that the direction the Times REALLY wants?