The GBPG Runs a Negative Attack on Campaign Spending

The Green Bay Press-Gazette ups the rhetoric on campaign finance reform:

Campaign finance statistics from recent elections are nightmarish, with candidates and their backers spending record amounts of money, and the campaign advertising reaching new lows in negativity.

I wonder: what if the spending were the same, or even greater, but the messages were all positive? Would the PG be okay with that? Or could the campaigns keep spewing the negativity, as long as they do it for less?

Can you economize on negativity? Are there coupons or something?

And just how much campaign spending is all right with the PG's editors? Ten percent less than was spent in the last election cycle? Twenty percent less?

Do they even know? Or is this just an excuse for another mindless blathering editorial for the sake of righteous pontification?