Quoted in this one in the AZ Central.
Some have criticized the outside groups for allowing special interests, instead of constituents, to set the agenda for what an election is about.
"What the average voter is getting is a lot of commercials and radio ads, but what they are not getting is a lot of debate on the issues," said Jessica Levinson, who teaches election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "What it sets up is the candidates aren't necessarily the most important speakers. Sometimes it's these shadow campaigns of independent-expenditure groups. And many times it's not terrifically informative or educational. It sets up a world in which the voters need to be even more on alert to the true identity of these spenders and what their agenda might be."
"People might start pulling away from outside groups to give to candidates," said Levinson, the Loyola professor.
That could increase transparency, she said, as long as federal campaign rules remain in place that require candidates and committees to disclose their donors.
But it could bring politics even closer to pre-Watergate days, before campaign-finance limits were adopted to combat corruption, or at least the appearance of corruption, Levinson said.