ARKANSAS and Kentucky held their primaries on Tuesday. While Barack Obama's feeble primary performance in states where he is unpopular is good for a snicker or a sigh, the real story of the night is the surprise blowout victory of Thomas Massie (pictured), a Ron Paul-style conservative, against the GOP establishment candidates in Kentucky's 4th congressional district. As the Republican candidate in a right-leaning district, Mr Massie is expected to win the forthcoming congressional election. What's unusual in this story is that Mr Massie, currently the "judge executive" (sort of like city manager) of Lewis County, took the nomination with the generous help of a super PAC bankrolled by a wealthy 21-year-old student from Texas. The Louisville Courier-Journal reports:

Massie came into the race largely unknown in the district's population center of Boone, Kenton and Campbell counties but was able to overcome his lack of name recognition by scoring a couple of big name endorsements and getting the backing of several tea party organizations. He also got more than $500,000 worth of backing from a super PAC called Liberty for All, which was funded almost entirely by a 21-year-old Texas college student with an inheritance. The group ran ads supporting Massie and criticizing Webb-Edgington and Moore. Marc Wilson, a supporter of Webb-Edgington, criticized the group after the ballots were counted. “It's a shame that a Texas libertarian super PAC could come in and invade the Republican Party to buy a congressional seat,” he said.

Mr Wilson isn't the only one a bit nonplussed by the intervention of super PAC money in the election. "Wow", quips Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly. "Wonder if the kid down in Texas turned in a term paper to his poli sci class entitled 'How I bought a congressional seat in Kentucky.'" Mr Kilgore's flippery evidently irks Radley Balko, a civil-liberties reporter for the Huffington Post, who takes a look at Mr Massie's and his opposition's views, and then writes:

So what happened last night, then, is that instead of an establishment, party machine GOP operative who supports the Homeland Security-industrial state, Kentucky got a waste-cutting opponent of the PATRIOT ACT and other war-on-terror government power who also wants to end pointless wars, repeal drug prohibition, and has a record of tackling corruption. Given that the GOP nominee will be the favorite in November, you'd think Massie's victory would be something a progressive like Kilgore could appreciate. 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.

As opponents of government censorship of campaign speech frequently emphasise, campaign-finance restrictions generally benefit incumbents who come into races with name recognition, large, well-established donor networks, and backing from a party. Large gifts, like the one Mr Massie in effect received from Liberty for All, make it possible that candidates without access to the works of the party machine can mount a serious challenge to incumbent or party-establishment candidates. Mr Massie's success last night looks rather less like a case of "buying" an election than a case of big money buying voters a real choice. Prior to the Citizens United decision, this couldn't have happened, and that would have been too bad.