Quote:

---

Obama gives blessing to a super PAC

Fearing a tide of spending by outside conservative groups, President Obama is giving his blessing to a pro-Democratic Party “super PAC” that will work to help his reelection, his campaign said late Monday.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a message to supporters that “our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it stands,” which he said gives a large financial advantage to Republicans and their allied groups. Messina said Obama will throw his support to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC founded by two former White House aides that until now has been unable to match its conservative competitors in fundraising.

“We can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,” Messina wrote.

The move marks a clear political risk for Obama, who has staked much of his political career on opposition to the outsized role of “secret billionaires” and other monied interests while also attempting to win reelection in a struggling economy.

The decision underscores the dramatic changes that have rocked the U.S. political system in the wake of a series of rulings, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that have made it easier for corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to bankroll political advertising and other efforts. The clearest example of the changes have been super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates, who nonetheless can help raise limited amounts of money for them.

Priorities USA raised just $6.7 million in 2011 between its super PAC and related nonprofits, officials have said. That sluggish pace put it far behind its Republican rivals, in part because many major Democratic donors said they did not feel the Obama campaign was supportive of the effort.

Obama has regularly slammed the Citizens United decision as misguided, and complained about super PACs in an interview aired earlier Monday on NBC News. “Unfortunately right now, partly because of Supreme Court rulings and a bunch of decisions out there, it is very hard to get your message out without having some resources,” he said.

Jonathan Collegio, spokesman for American Crossroads, one of the largest Republican-leaning groups, called the shift 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.”

Messina said senior Obama campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events, but will not solicit donations during the appearances. Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will not appear at any Priorities USA events, he said.

Super PACs have outpaced regular campaigns in the GOP primary race, including one group supporting Newt Gingrich fueled by $11 million from casino magnate Shel Adelson and his family. Many other outside nonprofit groups are also able to spend unlimited funds on elections without having to reveal their donors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlueHandedMenace:
How exactly do you relate using Super PACs to supporting Corporate Personhood? That makes no sense.

---

Quote:

---

The decision underscores the dramatic changes that have rocked the U.S. political system in the wake of a series of rulings, including Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that have made it easier for corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to bankroll political advertising and other efforts. The clearest example of the changes have been super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited funds as long as they do not directly coordinate with candidates, who nonetheless can help raise limited amounts of money for them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Because SuperPACs are pouring millions and millions of dollars into the most expensive election in US history, Obama is supposed to get by on whatever meager funds he can raise without them! This is PRECISELY what is intended by SuperPACs in the first place; that those who don't have them or can't get enough donated to them will lose elections because of that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Geezer

I don't see many democrats here with a hard-on for Obama like you all had for Bush. Like you all had for Bush even when he engaged in illegal wiretapping, started an illegal war, broke the budget, and created the situation that led to a global economic crisis. In the posts you all posted, Bush could do no wrong, no matter how disastrous his actions.

That btw is how I tell a person who really is an RWA at heart - it's that idolization of anyone in authority who tells you you're on the side that's righteous. Also, you all assume we feel the same way about 'our' side. That somehow, we're starry-eyed in love.

I can assure you, personally, I'm not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If your point is that the president is a hypocritical fellow, I endorse your point. This president is the worst candidate in the upcoming election, except for all the other ones.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's not that I find corporate personhood and its consequent superPACs acceptable. And in fact you'll find a lot of democrats, liberals, and others, myself included, who made extremely negative comments about the whole travesty.

So, what's your point?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
He was against them, before he was for them ?

Seriously, is that part of the Democratic motto or something ?

Wow.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And yet, when the Dems are guilty of it, the first thing we hear is " but EVERYONE does it ".


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Of course superPACs are bad, anyone who hasn't figured that out is ignorant at best. Colbert/Stewart have done a GREAT job of illustrating how and why, and it's brought attention to the idiocy of them nicely. But to say the President shouldn't use them because he's against them is pretty transparent

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I (and I suspect most) don't like superPACS b/c they could give rise to elections or policy for sale. If that wasn't an issue, I don't think anyone would care one way or the other.

The republican governors I listed above pretty evidently were bought by the Koch brothers.

>IF< Obama creates policy at the behest of superPAC money then he will be just as despicable. That hasn't happened yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Of course superPACs are bad, anyone who hasn't figured that out is ignorant at best. Colbert/Stewart have done a GREAT job of illustrating how and why, and it's brought attention to the idiocy of them nicely. But to say the President shouldn't use them because he's against them is pretty transparent

---

Did I say the President shouldn't use them?

No.

I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them should recognize that there's an ethical dilemma presented by the man they support using the methods they decry, and that they should admit this dilemma exists.

I understand that a lot of politics is money, and that it's difficult for a politician to turn down funds, even if the method of collecting then is not in line with their views.

It'd be nice if we could get the money out altogether, but since we can't, folks running for office have to make decisions about what level of corporate support they'll take. And the folks supporting them have to recognise that they sometimes have to hold their noses and admit that their candidate has taken the less-than-high road for the sake of political expediency.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:


I just said that the folks who were against SuperPACs when only Republicans used them should recognize that there's an ethical dilemma presented by the man they support using the methods they decry, and that they should admit this dilemma exists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Where is the dilemma? He said he didn't agree with the Citizens United decision, but it's the Court's decision, which makes it the law of the land. He's following the law as set out by the conservative Supreme Court, and now conservatives have a problem with it.

---

Quote:

---

Wanna get the big money out of the elections? Pass an amendment to the Constitution and do away with this idiotic notion of "corporate personhood" once and for all. Until then, hate the game if you want, but don't whinge about Obama playing by the same rules everybody else gets to play by.

---

Quote:

---

I agree 100%. I don't like Obama using them, mind you, but he is against them and if given the option, I'm almost positive he wouldn't use them.

---

Quote:

---

As long as everyone understands he's doing the same thing that was evil when only Republicans were doing it, I'm good with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's been suggested before that politicians should wear NASCAR-style driving suits with all their "sponsors" listed on them, so you know exactly who they owe fealty to, because it's for damn sure they don't feel they owe anything to US!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Looks the the Right is worried that things THEY ENABLED are turning around and going to bite them in the ass.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The money is going for what?

Advertising.

1.) One of the fixes is really simple: Just have the FCC require that all of its licensees provide a meaningful amount of free prime airtime to all state or national candidates on the ballot. That way, candidates like Ron Paul will manage to get their word out. And to those who would whine about lost advertising revenues I have two responses: "Everyone is on the same playing field" here, and "What is more important, your revenues or our democracy?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The money is going for what?

Advertising.

1.) One of the fixes is really simple: Just have the FCC require that all of its licensees provide a meaningful amount of free prime airtime to all state or national candidates on the ballot. That way, candidates like Ron Paul will manage to get their word out. And to those who would whine about lost advertising revenues I have two responses: "Everyone is on the same playing field" here, and "What is more important, your revenues or our democracy?"

---

Considering the number of folks who'd declare as candidates if they could get free prime time air, I'd think most folks would be whining about to loss of any broadcasting but political ads.

As to "Everyone is on the same playing field," I'm not sure I'd care to winnow through all the "Aliens probed me" and "Let's go back to the poll tax" candidates who'd pop up, just in hope of getting to someone with a reasonable platform.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Better than most reality TV.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Better than most reality TV.

--Anthony

---

What isn't?

But to paraphrase SignyM, "What is more important, your entertainment or our democracy?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, it's not an easy thing to get on a ballot. It's not like you can just say "I'm running for office"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, it's not an easy thing to get on a ballot. It's not like you can just say "I'm running for office"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I would wish so.

But I've read the reason why people are so polarized now is b/c they are geographically polarized - like lives with like. And people tend to select their information sources based on what they believe. So while there are a million TV channels, internet news sources and blogs, radio stations, newspapers etc people restrict themselves to a few sources (and for FOX 'news' watchers, 80% restrict themselves to that one source). People tend to learn the same thing a million times over and dig their mental rut ever deeper, rather than break out and learn anything new.

The internet is not so much a learning resource and information venue as it is a self-selected droning propaganda.

---