PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Obama embraces PAC and it's money


mlyonsd
02-07-2012, 09:10 AM
Obama changes tune, urges fundraisers to back super PAC

Published February 07, 2012 | Associated Press

President Barack Obama's campaign is asking top fundraisers to support a Democratic-leaning outside group that is backing the president's re-election bid, reversing Obama's opposition to "super" political action committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.

Obama's campaign urged wealthy fundraisers in a Monday night conference call to support Priorities USA, a super PAC led by two former Obama aides that has struggled to compete with the tens of millions of dollars collected by Republican-backed outside groups.

Obama has opposed the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/citizens-united.htm#r_src=ramp) decision that stripped away some limits on campaign contributions. The new super PACs can't coordinate directly with campaigns, but many have played a major role in the Republican primary contests, raising millions of dollars to use in negative advertising in early contests such as Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/deputy-chief-of-staff-jim-messina.htm#r_src=ramp) said in an email to supporters Monday that the president's campaign "can't allow for two sets of rules" in which the Republican presidential nominee benefits from "unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm."

"We decided to do this because we can't afford for the work you're doing in your communities, and the grassroots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads," Messina said.

Messina said senior campaign officials, along with some White House (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/white-house.htm#r_src=ramp) officials and Cabinet members, would attend and speak at fundraising events for Priorities USA but would not directly ask for money. He said Obama, Vice President Joe Biden (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/joe-biden.htm#r_src=ramp) and first lady Michelle Obama (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/michelle-obama.htm#r_src=ramp) would not be part of the effort and would remain focused on Obama's campaign.

The decision to promote the outside Democratic group came after new fundraising reports revealed a large disparity against Republican super PACs. American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, two groups tied to Republican strategist Karl Rove (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/karl-rove.htm#r_src=ramp), raised $51 million last year while major Democratic groups, including Priorities USA Action, collected $19 million last year.

Republicans criticized the Obama campaign's embrace of the outside groups, calling it a hypocritical shift by Obama after he chided the influence of secret, special-interest money. Obama has previously referred to the money as a "threat to our democracy."

"This is a brazenly cynical move by Barack Obama and his political handlers, who just a year ago had the chutzpah to call outside groups a threat to democracy," said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads.

The super PACs have played a major role in the primary contests. In GOP primaries so far, groups working for or against presidential candidates have spent roughly $25 million on TV ads -- about half the nearly $53 million spent on advertising so far to influence voters in the early weeks of the race.

The group supporting Mitt Romney (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/mitt-romney.htm#r_src=ramp), Restore Our Future, collected $17.9 million in contributions since July, most of which it spent on advertisements supporting Romney or attacking Republican rival Newt Gingrich (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/newt-gingrich.htm#r_src=ramp). A pro-Gingrich group, Winning Our Future, received $11 million from the family of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.

The new super PACs can't coordinate directly with campaigns, but many that are active in this election are staffed by longtime supporters or former aides of the candidates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/07/obama-changes-tune-urges-fundraisers-to-back-super-pac/#ixzz1lgejyCr4

oldandslow
02-07-2012, 09:44 AM
Of course he did. Any illusions I had about Obama were washed away a couple of years ago. He is bought and paid for just like his repub counterparts.

blaise
02-07-2012, 09:48 AM
He only did it because he had to.

mlyonsd
02-07-2012, 09:56 AM
He only did it because he had to.Yeah I don't expect this thread to stay on the first page very long.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 10:40 AM
Yeah I don't expect this thread to stay on the first page very long.


Neither do I, because there's nothing to see here. The SCOTUS made their decision and unless the Democrats plan to disband, they need to have the same tools in their toolboxes that the Republicans have. Anything else would be monumentally stupid.

You can disagree with a decision, but then take advantage of the "benefits" of it if the only alternative is to be the roadkill of your political opponents.

HonestChieffan
02-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Question is why did he bash them day before yesterday then do a 180 overnight?

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 10:52 AM
Question is why did he bash them day before yesterday then do a 180 overnight?

See the above response re unilateral disarmament.

Also, and I know that this might be a mindhole blower, but you can simultaneously be against something (i.e., Buffet and favorable taxation of the rich, Ayn Rand and Medicare) and take advantage of it.

blaise
02-07-2012, 10:57 AM
He doesn't really want the money, but what can he do?

KC Dan
02-07-2012, 10:57 AM
See the above response re unilateral disarmament.

Also, and I know that this might be a mindhole blower, but you can simultaneously be against something (i.e., Buffet and favorable taxation of the rich, Ayn Rand and Medicare) and take advantage of it.especially if you have ZERO integrity. But, he did what he had to do to win reelection and I get that. That is ALL that matters to today's politicians

Mr. Kotter
02-07-2012, 11:45 AM
especially if you have ZERO integrity. But, he did what he had to do to win reelection and I get that. That is ALL that matters to today's politicians

You gotta play on a level playing field, or you are doomed to annihiliation.

From the article:
the president's campaign "can't allow for two sets of rules" in which the Republican presidential nominee benefits from "unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm."

Amnorix has it right; you gotta play by the same set of rules as your competition. The Supreme Court screwed the pooch on this one, so if you are looking for someone to blame....start there.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 11:56 AM
The Supreme Court screwed the pooch on this one, so if you are looking for someone to blame....start there.



How did they screw the pooch. When you look at the ruling, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than they came up with.

kcfanXIII
02-07-2012, 12:01 PM
i have an idea to curb this type of problem. make it illegal to mention your opponent in your ads. the way i see it, there isn't much positive things these guys can say about themselves, while the negative is almost unlimited. take away there negative campaigning and they don't really have a need to spend all that money.

Mr. Kotter
02-07-2012, 12:11 PM
How did they screw the pooch. When you look at the ruling, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than they came up with.

They've opened the floodgates of unlimited campaign financing to whomever is the preferred candidate of the real plutocracy. I understand that some equate money with "speech," but that's where things started to go wrong. This only entrenches government to the highest bidder even more than ever.

Money is no more "speech" than is sedition, sabotage, or treason. The Court screwed up in the Buckley vs. Valeo....and they compounded the problem with this subsequent atrocity.

FD
02-07-2012, 12:12 PM
i have an idea to curb this type of problem. make it illegal to mention your opponent in your ads. the way i see it, there isn't much positive things these guys can say about themselves, while the negative is almost unlimited. take away there negative campaigning and they don't really have a need to spend all that money.

There's this thing called the first amendment.

blaise
02-07-2012, 12:15 PM
Saying, "They're doing it too," shouldn't be an excuse. You're either doing it, or not.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 12:26 PM
They've opened the floodgates of unlimited campaign financing to whomever is the preferred candidate of the real plutocracy. I understand that some equate money with "speech," but that's where things started to go wrong. This only entrenches government to the highest bidder even more than ever.

Money is no more "speech" than is sedition, sabotage, or treason. The Court screwed up in the Buckley vs. Valeo....and they compounded the problem with this subsequent atrocity.

They didn't open the flood gates to any of it. The Constitution opened it by allowing the first amendment. The Supreme court simply made a ruling that the right to the first amendment cannot be abridged. They didn't equate money with speech in the ruling. They merely said that congress could not prevent a group of people from pooling their money to run a political ad.

Mr. Kotter
02-07-2012, 12:28 PM
There's this thing called the first amendment.

The First Amendment, as it pertains to campaign financing...has become overly broad. Money is not "speech;" any fourth-grader understands that.

They didn't open the flood gates to any of it. The Constitution opened it by allowing the first amendment. The Supreme court simply made a ruling that the right to the first amendment cannot be abridged. They didn't equate money with speech in the ruling. They merely said that congress could not prevent a group of people from pooling their money to run a political ad.

It was by the same twisted and stupid logic that says a "corporation" is a person, when any fourth grader knows otherwise. Apparently, on this issue....the SC is not smarter than a fourth grader.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 12:29 PM
Saying, "They're doing it too," shouldn't be an excuse. You're either doing it, or not.


Of course he does it. And you do it too. I do it. We all do it. I love to do it. Oh wait...that's not what we're talking about.


Right...he's doing it and I think he'll admit to it, though he wishes he didn't have to. If politics is war and one side uses nukes or whatever, then what choice do you have but to go nuclear also?

dirk digler
02-07-2012, 12:31 PM
Saying, "They're doing it too," shouldn't be an excuse. You're either doing it, or not.

Don't know if this is a good analogy or not...

If the NFL decided on opening day that teams could use up to 15 players on offense and defense but because you as the owner believe that ruins the integrity of the game you decide not to let your team do that. But after 3-4 ass kickings what do you do?

Taco John
02-07-2012, 12:31 PM
I think this critique of the Citizens United ruling backlash hits it out of the park:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=1&feature=plcp

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c5uJgG05xUY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FD
02-07-2012, 12:31 PM
The First Amendment, as it pertains to campaign financing...have become overly broad. Money is not "speech;" any fourth-grader understands that.


That may be true but the idea I was responding to is about the most unconstitutional thing I've ever heard. Read it again.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 12:32 PM
It was by the same twisted and stupid logic that says a "corporation" is a person, when any fourth grader knows otherwise. Apparently, on this issue....the SC is not smarter than a fourth grader.

They're clearly smarter than you, and you clearly don't understand the issue. The Citizens United case has nothing to do with "corporations" being people.

blaise
02-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Of course he does it. And you do it too. I do it. We all do it. I love to do it. Oh wait...that's not what we're talking about.


Right...he's doing it and I think he'll admit to it, though he wishes he didn't have to. If politics is war and one side uses nukes or whatever, then what choice do you have but to go nuclear also?

So, he can have his cake and eat it, too. Just use it, reluctantly.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 12:35 PM
They didn't open the flood gates to any of it. The Constitution opened it by allowing the first amendment. The Supreme court simply made a ruling that the right to the first amendment cannot be abridged. They didn't equate money with speech in the ruling. They merely said that congress could not prevent a group of people from pooling their money to run a political ad.


The issue is whether the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech of a fictitious entity which is solely the creature of statute. Originally, EACH corporation was created by a specific act of the relevant state government, and its capitalization, purposes and lifespan were delineated by that statute. Later, states passed statutes permitting the organization of corporations for any legal purpose pursuant to such methods and subject to such restrictions and requirements as they deem fit. In many/most states, an annual fee is still required for a corporation to continue to have valid existence, or else it will be administratively dissolved.

There's no requirement anywhere that corporations be given specific rights. Indeed, I'm not a criminal lawyer but my memroy is that a corporation has NO 5th amendment rights. Yet it has 1st Amendment rights?

Viewed in the context that corporations (and other fictitious entities) are non-natural persons which are entirely the creatures of state law (or federal law in very few instances), I see now reason why they have any Constitutional rights.

Can corporations really be given inalienable rights by their creator when THE STATE ITSELF IS THEIR CREATOR?!

Makes no sense to me. Didn't then, doesn't now.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 12:36 PM
So, he can have his cake and eat it, too. Just use it, reluctantly.


What is his cake in this context? That he gets to speak out against a decision he doesn't like? Not very cake-like...

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 12:38 PM
They're clearly smarter than you, and you clearly don't understand the issue. The Citizens United case has nothing to do with "corporations" being people.


I haven't read the case. DIdn't then and haven't yet. I'll go read it at some point in the next day or so and see if my understanding of the basis of their decision is off, which it definitely may be.

mlyonsd
02-07-2012, 12:39 PM
Neither do I, because there's nothing to see here. The SCOTUS made their decision and unless the Democrats plan to disband, they need to have the same tools in their toolboxes that the Republicans have. Anything else would be monumentally stupid.

You can disagree with a decision, but then take advantage of the "benefits" of it if the only alternative is to be the roadkill of your political opponents.Oh absolutely I see democrats adding it to their toolbox. Don't blame them.

It's just not very often you see a sitting president openly promote and partake in a practice that threatens to destroy our democracy, just so he can be re-elected.

Mr. Kotter
02-07-2012, 12:40 PM
They're clearly smarter than you, and you clearly don't understand the issue. The Citizens United case has nothing to do with "corporations" being people.

Same twisted and stupid logic, yes...yes it does. Your tin-foil hat is probably is creating interference in your brain trying to grasp that.

....There's no requirement anywhere that corporations be given specific rights. Indeed, I'm not a criminal lawyer but my memroy is that a corporation has NO 5th amendment rights. Yet it has 1st Amendment rights?

Viewed in the context that corporations (and other fictitious entities) are non-natural persons which are entirely the creatures of state law (or federal law in very few instances), I see now reason why they have any Constitutional rights.

Can corporations really be given inalienable rights by their creator when THE STATE ITSELF IS THEIR CREATOR?!

Makes no sense to me. Didn't then, doesn't now.

Dead on.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 12:41 PM
The issue is whether the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech of a fictitious entity which is solely the creature of statute. Originally, EACH corporation was created by a specific act of the relevant state government, and its capitalization, purposes and lifespan were delineated by that statute. Later, states passed statutes permitting the organization of corporations for any legal purpose pursuant to such methods and subject to such restrictions and requirements as they deem fit. In many/most states, an annual fee is still required for a corporation to continue to have valid existence, or else it will be administratively dissolved.

There's no requirement anywhere that corporations be given specific rights. Indeed, I'm not a criminal lawyer but my memroy is that a corporation has NO 5th amendment rights. Yet it has 1st Amendment rights?

Viewed in the context that corporations (and other fictitious entities) are non-natural persons which are entirely the creatures of state law (or federal law in very few instances), I see now reason why they have any Constitutional rights.

Can corporations really be given inalienable rights by their creator when THE STATE ITSELF IS THEIR CREATOR?!

Makes no sense to me. Didn't then, doesn't now.



You are conflating the issue. A corporation doesn't have 1st Amendment rights because a corporation is merely a legal distinction granted by the government to a group of people in order to limit the liability of those people. The corporation, as a legal entity, has no particular rights. The people, however, do.

I personally believe corporations are granted too much when it comes to limiting their liability and would happily see this umbrella of protection removed in order to ensure that moral hazard is always present. But if we're talking about the actual ruling where Citizens United is concerned, I have yet to see a valid critique that doesn't meander down the path of demagoguery to explain why the Supreme Court got it wrong. No, "corporations" aren't people, but what does that have to do with the Citizens United ruling?

mlyonsd
02-07-2012, 12:41 PM
Same twisted and stupid logic, yes...yes it does. Your tin-foil hat is probably is creating interference in your brain trying to grasp that.Maybe you should send your resume in right now to Obama for when Ginsburg's spot comes open.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 12:41 PM
Same twisted and stupid logic, yes...yes it does. Your tin-foil hat is probably is creating interference in your brain trying to grasp that.

Sorry if I can't dumb it down to a public educators level.

blaise
02-07-2012, 12:44 PM
Maybe you should send your resume in right now to Obama for when Ginsburg's spot comes open.

The Supreme Court needs more ROFL and emoticons in their decisions.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 12:47 PM
Note that the New York Times decision from the 70s also relates to corporations having 1st amendment rights, so this isn't an entirely new area of the law.

Will need to read/study the opinion to have further or more specific thoughts, but it's a bear. Very long. No idea if/when I can get to it, so I'll shaddap about it for now.

mlyonsd
02-07-2012, 12:47 PM
The Supreme Court needs more ROFL and emoticons in their decisions.Unanimous decision = :toast:

Taco John
02-07-2012, 01:15 PM
Note that the New York Times decision from the 70s also relates to corporations having 1st amendment rights, so this isn't an entirely new area of the law.

Will need to read/study the opinion to have further or more specific thoughts, but it's a bear. Very long. No idea if/when I can get to it, so I'll shaddap about it for now.

It is a bear. I can't read it, and I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't either.

However, I trust the analysis of this guy, who did read it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=1&feature=plcp

I think he provides a pretty solid framework of critique on the knee jerk reaction against the Citizens United ruling. I'd be curious about what you think of his critique.

Cave Johnson
02-07-2012, 01:34 PM
So, he can have his cake and eat it, too. Just use it, reluctantly.

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/7227/portalf.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/714/portalf.jpg/)

whoman69
02-07-2012, 01:45 PM
There's this thing called the first amendment.

Bribery is not speech. Money is not speech.

Taco John
02-07-2012, 01:57 PM
Bribery is not speech. Money is not speech.

Citizens United didn't rule that money is speech. They ruled that if you and I got together to run an ad 30 days before an election, the Federal Government has no recourse to stop us from doing it. This is not ruling that money is speech. This is ruling that when the constitution says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," it means it.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 01:59 PM
The First Amendment, as it pertains to campaign financing...has become overly broad. Money is not "speech;" any fourth-grader understands that.



It was by the same twisted and stupid logic that says a "corporation" is a person, when any fourth grader knows otherwise. Apparently, on this issue....the SC is not smarter than a fourth grader.

Disagree with the Court's opinion all you want, but it wasn't stupid nor do it feature twisted logic.

FD
02-07-2012, 02:02 PM
Bribery is not speech. Money is not speech.

Again, read the dumb idea I was responding to. A law making it illegal to run a TV ad criticizing a politician is clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech. It limits exactly the type of speech the 1st Amendment exists to protect, the ability to speak out and criticize the government. What does the 1st Amendment protect if not the ability to criticize politicians? That is its primary purpose.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:04 PM
I personally believe corporations are granted too much when it comes to limiting their liability and would happily see this umbrella of protection removed in order to ensure that moral hazard is always present.

Limited liability is the whole point of corporations. That umbrella of protection is the reason why people invest in companies.

La literatura
02-07-2012, 02:05 PM
It is a bear. I can't read it, and I wouldn't blame you if you couldn't either.

However, I trust the analysis of this guy, who did read it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xUY&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=1&feature=plcp

I think he provides a pretty solid framework of critique on the knee jerk reaction against the Citizens United ruling. I'd be curious about what you think of his critique.

I think you're linking to the wrong video. Maybe you mean this? :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJEeKez1Jlw&list=PL39879C27CAFE5561&index=7&feature=plcp

mikey23545
02-07-2012, 02:17 PM
Obama shouldn't be criticized about this.

We should all act according to our own moral compass, unless it's easier not to.

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:31 PM
Of course he did. Any illusions I had about Obama were washed away a couple of years ago. He is bought and paid for just like his repub counterparts.

You aren't as dumb as I look.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 02:52 PM
Obama shouldn't be criticized about this.

We should all act according to our own moral compass, unless it's easier not to.


Dont' think Obama's position on this reflects any moral compass issue. It's a statement as to what he thinks the Constitution ought to be applied in one specific instance. The SCOTUS, granted the authority to make such determinations, disagreed and he is moving forward in adherence to their ruling.

No moral compass implications. No hypocrisy. Sorry.

Amnorix
02-07-2012, 02:53 PM
You aren't as dumb as I look.



Nobody can be THAT dumb.



:p

vailpass
02-07-2012, 02:55 PM
Nobody can be THAT dumb.



:p

:grr:

mikey23545
02-07-2012, 04:11 PM
Dont' think Obama's position on this reflects any moral compass issue. It's a statement as to what he thinks the Constitution ought to be applied in one specific instance. The SCOTUS, granted the authority to make such determinations, disagreed and he is moving forward in adherence to their ruling.

No moral compass implications. No hypocrisy. Sorry.

And because you say so, Obama's halo remains untarnished.

Amazingly, you and Hussein have nearly the same narcissistic egotism.

chiefforlife
02-07-2012, 05:45 PM
I think everyone agrees that this should not be a part of our elections. Mr. Obama is against it and should be praised for coming out against it.
As long as this is part of the process anyone who wants to compete MUST have it. People who think he shouldnt use this money are not looking at it seriously.
It has to be both or no one. Lets not pretend it can be any other way. At least one of the candidates has publicly stated its wrong.

blaise
02-08-2012, 05:02 AM
I think everyone agrees that this should not be a part of our elections. Mr. Obama is against it and should be praised for coming out against it.
As long as this is part of the process anyone who wants to compete MUST have it. People who think he shouldnt use this money are not looking at it seriously.
It has to be both or no one. Lets not pretend it can be any other way. At least one of the candidates has publicly stated its wrong.

Why does he believe it's wrong?

Amnorix
02-08-2012, 06:03 AM
And because you say so, Obama's halo remains untarnished.

Amazingly, you and Hussein have nearly the same narcissistic egotism.


How is it different from your view that everything he does is a result of sporting horns on his head and a pointy tail?

And, for whatever it's worth, you're way off base. I'm increasingly disenchanted with Obama, though in fairness to him it's really applicable to all politicans. In any event, I certainly don't view him as perfect or anything.

whoman69
02-08-2012, 03:02 PM
Citizens United didn't rule that money is speech. They ruled that if you and I got together to run an ad 30 days before an election, the Federal Government has no recourse to stop us from doing it. This is not ruling that money is speech. This is ruling that when the constitution says "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," it means it.

It has everything to do with money and pretending its just a speech issue is sweeping it under the rug. It took away limits on what corporations and unions can spend on electioneering.

All public elections should be publically funded. Take the money out of politics.