Obama criticizes super PACs, uses aides to fundraise for super PAC, not a hypocrite

[Bregor]

In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president.

Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from Priorities USA Action.

But in the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to change its position, and announced the new stance to members of its national finance committee Monday evening.

Two Obama campaign aides confirmed that senior campaign and administration officials who participate at fundraising events for the president's campaign will also appear at events for Priorities USA Action, the PAC supporting Obama.

"This decision was not made overnight,” one campaign official said. “ The money raised and spent by Republican super PACs is very telling. We will not unilaterally disarm."

The president, first lady Michelle Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden will not appear at super PAC events, the aides said.

In an e-mail to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the decision was a reaction to massive fundraising posted by super PACs supporting GOP presidential candidates.

"The campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PACs," Messina wrote.

"We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission."

Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.

"The President opposed the Citizens United decision," Messina wrote. "He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view.

“He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action - by constitutional amendment, if necessary - to place reasonable limits on all such spending.”

Priorities USA Action posted receipts of $4.4 million through December 31, 2011, compared to the more than $30 million reported by Restore our Future, a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

In an e-mail blast, Jonathan Collegio, spokesman for the conservative groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, called the Obama campaign's move a "brazenly cynical" reversal for a president who just two years ago called spending by these outside groups a threat to democracy.

Collegio highlighted a quote from an October 2010 rally in Philadelphia, when the New York Times quoted Obama as saying, "You don’t know, it could be the oil industry, it could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose. Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy."

American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS plan to raise $300 million to help defeat Obama and his agenda in November.

Mitt Romney's super PAC reported raising $30 million in 2011, the vast majority of which was spent on negative advertising.

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod told MSNBC Tuesday morning that the president is not a "hypocrite" for agreeing to accept super PAC money. The president and his campaign have spoken out against the unlimited corporate financing now allowed in political campaigns, but Axelrod said Tuesday that the campaign cannot "play by two sets of rules."

"We have to live in a world as it is, not how we want it to be," Axelrod said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ing/?hpt=hp_t1
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...ting-super-pac

[Ragnus]

Oppose Super PACs
Gladly Take Their Money

[Alarial]

You can be against a concept (they are horribly destructive) and still understand that the current election system requires him to be supported by one or not get elected.

[Bregor]

the current election system requires him to be supported by one or not get elected.

No one's arguing that. Priorities USA Action is going to feed Obama's campaign support regardless. The issue is using White House and official campaign aides to fundraise for it. Sort of a grey area.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

He called super PACS a "threat to democracy". If that's what he believes, nothing justifies supporting something that would destroy our nation.

[Churchill]

Agree with Swamp

[archibaldcrane]

He called super PACS a "threat to democracy". If that's what he believes, nothing justifies supporting something that would destroy our nation.

Agree with Swamp

Lol

The only thing that would be a bigger threat to democracy than SuperPACs, is if only one party used them.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S 4G using Tapatalk

[Kurokikaze]

This is one of those "if you can't beat em, join em." thing... Archi is right, if only one party used PACs then elections would be completely one sided.

[Churchill]

I'm not particularly interested in the reasoning behind hypocrisy lol, if you are against something because you feel it is wrong, then participating in the aforementioned activity/subject makes you garbage.

[Bregor]

The only thing that would be a bigger threat to democracy than SuperPACs, is if only one party used them.

Sort of agree with you there, just wondering why Obama used the rhetoric he did when attacking super PACs, and then largely ignored them. He has done a pretty poor job of making it an issue after the Citizens United ruling if he felt it was a "threat to democracy." Christ, Steven Colbert has done more to raise awareness about the issue than anyone in the administration, which is pretty sad.

[Talint]

Sort of agree with you there, just wondering why Obama used the rhetoric he did when attacking super PACs, and then largely ignored them. He has done a pretty poor job of making it an issue after the Citizens United ruling if he felt it was a "threat to democracy." Christ, Steven Colbert has done more to raise awareness about the issue than anyone in the administration, which is pretty sad.

I'll agree with this. I think it makes him a hypocrite, but nuclear weapons, etc.

Russ Feingold disagrees though.

[archibaldcrane]

Obama has two choices here - either push for and get passed a constitutional amendment barring corporations from participating in political speech, or use super PACs. It sucks he's doing the latter (Feingold is correct as always because he's a mega-boss), but let's not pretend he could do neither.

[Bregor]

Just one more thing I'm hoping Obama rectifies with a second term.

[Ragnus]

I hope you're not getting more Obama hope in you. Because if he's reelected he'll probably expand Citizens United as a trade for something nowhere near as politically valuable.

[Bregor]

I hope you're not getting more Obama hope in you. Because if he's reelected he'll probably expand Citizens United as a trade for something nowhere near as politically valuable.

Not like the first time 'round with the "HOPE" and "CHANGE" bullshit, just for an improvement over the last three years.

[Churchill]

^good luck on your getting trolled then

[RKenshin]

I'm not particularly interested in the reasoning behind hypocrisy lol, if you are against something because you feel it is wrong, then participating in the aforementioned activity/subject makes you garbage.

That line of logic makes for a pretty silly situations.

If you're against the auto bailouts, never buy a car from GM/Chrysler/etc again.

If you're against bank bailouts, never put your money in BoA/Citi/etc.

If you're for raising taxes, pay more taxes every year.

If you're against a cash stimulus, never cash the check.

If you're against spending more money on infrastructure, stop using the roads.

If you're against oil dependence, never drive a car again.

It just gets silly. I'm sure you have plenty of things you disagree with and don't support, but still in some way take part in or contribute to.

Just because you believe something is wrong, doesn't mean you have to be a martyr for your cause or otherwise a hypocrite.

I support raising taxes across the board, at least minor reforms to SS/Medicare, and gaining oil independence as part of our ultimate debt/deficit and economic solutions. Doesn't mean I'm going to freely give an extra $1k to Uncle Sam every year, refuse medical care, and refuse to drive a car out of principle until policies are passed.

[RKenshin]

Sort of agree with you there, just wondering why Obama used the rhetoric he did when attacking super PACs, and then largely ignored them. He has done a pretty poor job of making it an issue after the Citizens United ruling if he felt it was a "threat to democracy." Christ, Steven Colbert has done more to raise awareness about the issue than anyone in the administration, which is pretty sad.

Obama has two choices here - either push for and get passed a constitutional amendment barring corporations from participating in political speech, or use super PACs. It sucks he's doing the latter (Feingold is correct as always because he's a mega-boss), but let's not pretend he could do neither.

SOTU address:


He mentioned it at another point, but I can't find that video.

Pretty clear he still opposes it and would (or at least, so he says) sign a bill to overturn the ruling, but honestly there's next to no chance that anything like this is passed at least until after the next election.

The ironic thing is, that if a bill was proposed it would put Republicans between a rock in a hard place. Either support it and lose a major part of their current campaign financing power among their candidates, or oppose it and potentially look corrupt in the eyes of America. Although it could be spun as 'taking focus away from jobs with violating our freedoms!'

Though, honestly I don't believe Obama could write/push this bill right now without it looking like/the chance the opposition spins it into 'Obama attempting to rig the election!'

But frankly, I'm more concerned with this subject being ignored completely by GOP candidates, despite it being a major source of their campaigns.

[solanis]

I'm not particularly interested in the reasoning behind hypocrisy lol, if you are against something because you feel it is wrong, then participating in the aforementioned activity/subject makes you garbage.

it sickens me to agree with churchill, but, this. he's done the same thing with wall street, in which he rails against us but happily takes more money from us than anyone in history.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That line of logic makes for a pretty silly situations.

If you're against the auto bailouts, never buy a car from GM/Chrysler/etc again.

If you're against bank bailouts, never put your money in BoA/Citi/etc.

If you're for raising taxes, pay more taxes every year.

If you're against a cash stimulus, never cash the check.

If you're against spending more money on infrastructure, stop using the roads.

If you're against oil dependence, never drive a car again.

It just gets silly. I'm sure you have plenty of things you disagree with and don't support, but still in some way take part in or contribute to.

Just because you believe something is wrong, doesn't mean you have to be a martyr for your cause or otherwise a hypocrite.

I support raising taxes across the board, at least minor reforms to SS/Medicare, and gaining oil independence as part of our ultimate debt/deficit and economic solutions. Doesn't mean I'm going to freely give an extra $1k to Uncle Sam every year, refuse medical care, and refuse to drive a car out of principle until policies are passed.

None of those are a "threat to our democracy."