This is a poorly researched and argued article, containing numerous errors in fact and logic. 1. The author writes "The Republican party's official position is the farcical one of supporting what Mitt Romney in January called "self-deportation", i.e. hoping the illegals will turn themselves in". No, "self-deportation" refers to illegal immigrants returning to their countries of origin, not "turning themselves in". It is not a "farcical" concept. On the contrary, several million illegals have done so since 2008. 2.) The author writes: "although in some states the Republicans are far tougher, supporting non-consensual deportation." Federal law already provides for non-consensual deportation. Republicans merely want to enforce existing statutory law. 3.) "why didn't the Democrats bang the immigration drum on the other side, hoping to scare the Latino voters into their camp by summoning up the fear of deportation?" They have tried to do so Mr. Roberts. Have you not been paying attention to the election? This issue has not gained any traction, because the majority of Americans support the enforcement of our immigration laws. 4.) "the campaigns by Michael Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns making headlines, the issue of gun control is another one that is being discussed everywhere in America, except on the hustings." This is a completely false statement. Gun control is not being discussed anywhere outside the NY Times editorial room, Upper West Side cocktail parties and a few other cloistered precincts. Mr. Roberts needs to get out into the real world more often. The American people overwhelmingly support our civil rights regarding gun ownership. That's why gun control is not being discussed in the campaign. It would be political suicide for the Democrats to do so, and they know it. 5.) "As 85 per cent of Democrats, 76 per cent of Republicans and 80 per cent of independents oppose the Citizens United decision..." The author cites no source for this statement. Perhaps there is some bogus poll that claims such a thing, but no way do 76% of Republicans oppose the Citizens United decision. There "will be little (or no) price to pay from voters", precisely because voters don't care about this issue. They have other priorities. 6.) "There has to be a cheaper way of delivering democracy in America without abridging the First Amendment..." Here, it is obvious that the author lacks the common sense and reasoning abilities needed to address this issue. The $6 billion being spent is coming from entirely private sources, and so spending it does not deny funds to schools and hospitals. Mr. Roberts' implied solution is government-funded campaign spending, which would indeed re-allocate funds from those purposes to campaigning. Other proposed solutions, such as mandated free advertising time for campaigns on TV networks, are a clear violation of property rights and free speech rights, and free press rights. Is it too much to ask that Standpoint Magazine employ writers with adequate research, reasoning and argumentation skills? This article reads like something out of The Guardian, minus the sneering invective and condescending attitude typical of that publication.