Robert Reich: The Sad Spectacle of Obama’s Super PAC

[Better Believe It]

The Sad Spectacle of Obama’s Super PAC
by Robert Reich
February 8, 2012

.... would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind: “More of the nation’s wealth and political power is now in the hands of fewer people and large corporations than since the era of the robber barons of the Gilded Age. I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!” Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard.

The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground on campaign finance. He refused public financing in 2008. Once president, he didn’t go to bat for a system of public financing that would have made it possible for candidates to raise enough money from small donors and matching public funds they wouldn’t need to rely on a few billionaires pumping unlimited sums into super PACS. He hasn’t even fought for public disclosure of super PAC donations.

And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC and allowing campaign manager Jim Messina and even cabinet officers to speak at his super PAC events. Obama will not appear at such events but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the Obama super PAC.

So now a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans. And we call this a democracy.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/08-3

[Mz Pip]

1. Given how horribly nasty

the primaries have been thanks to the Super Pacs, I don't see how Obama could afford not to play the hand he's been dealt. I'm sure the Republicans would like nothing better than for Obama to stand on high moral ground so they can start shooting at him with the full force of Super Pac money.

Maybe that's was the GOP plan all along - that they would bethe only ones with super pacs - and they would only be used against Democrats.

[shraby]

3. Not taking the super big bucks would be like taking a knife to a gunfight. Any message

Obama might have would be drowned out by constant negative ads all over the country. We have to fill congressional seats in both houses with a super majority of good solid Democrats and put Obama back in the driver's seat then maybe things can be changed.

[rhett o rick]

4. Sorry, sounds like rationalization to me. "But he started it". nm

[Mz Pip]

6. Maybe

but it's the reality that Obama is faced with. These are the rules of the game. You may not like the rules but you won't win playing a different game.

[SammyWinstonJack]

26. Does to me, too.

[DonCoquixote]

2. Ok, where do I begin

First, this thread has been done to death:

Second, as much as you can blame Obama, the supreme court made the bloody ruling, and sort of a constitutional amendment, they designed the rules. If Obama decided to bring a hockey mask to a fottball game, he would get crushed, but of course, that would not stop the GOP administration from acting like they had a mandate from a blue eyed blonded Jesus! We tried that before, remember Nader?

I hate to rub it in, but to all the people that voted nader, and told us that there was no reali difference, well, you have it, and they are on the supreme court, making sure that anyone that does not get as dirty is going in unarmed against an army of snipers. Elections mattter, the one in 200 did, and so did 2010, where a bunch of holier than thou people gladly let the GOP run buckwild because Obama did not fit their liking.

[Electric Monk]

5. dupe thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002285800
48 replies and 14 recs

[FSogol]

7. Unrec. You want Obama to enter the race with one leg tied behind his back?

Copy and Paste!
Copy and Paste!

Now what does this post remind me of?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002287491#

[JoePhilly]

10. Yup ... seems like the word went out.

[Better Believe It]

13. So you think Obama should depend upon Wall Street and corporate funding to "win"?

And that's their sponsorship is necessary? Like Reich pointed out in his article:

How many billionaires does it take to buy a presidential election? “With so much at stake” wrote Obama campaign manager Jim Messina on the Obama campaign’s blog, Obama couldn’t “unilaterally disarm.”

But would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament? To the contrary, I think it would have given the President a rallying cry that nearly all Americans would get behind: “More of the nation’s wealth and political power is now in the hands of fewer people and large corporations than since the era of the robber barons of the Gilded Age. I will not allow our democracy to be corrupted by this! I will fight to take back our government!”

Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard.

And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by officially endorsing his own super PAC and allowing campaign manager Jim Messina and even cabinet officers to speak at his super PAC events. Obama will not appear at such events but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the Obama super PAC.

[FSogol]

15. I want Obama to win.

Anyone who doesn't should go screw themselves.

[Better Believe It]

20. That sounds just a wee bit evasive to me. Care to answer the question?

If you think Obama can only "win" re-election by courting Wall Street and big business and accepting their "strings attached" money what do you expect to "win" in return?

I know what the fat cats and tycoons expect to "win" in return for their campaign investment.

[FSogol]

27. Evasive? I want Obama to use all legal methods to win. Here's

a perfect analogy from DU'er jefferson dem from another one of your posts:

"The teacher says your son can use his notes on the exam. Tell him not to because that's not an honorable way to demonstrate academic ability. Don't worry that all other students will be using notes, and they will be put into a grading curve against one another."

[Ikonoklast]

17. Reich makes a huge assumption here based on facts not in evidence.

"Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard."

And if this doesn't happen, then what?


Yeah, let's make Obama adhere to some moral high-ground point-making position while getting pummeled by the other guy who uses every tool allowed by law.


Wishful, simplistic thinking.

[flamingdem]

23. Reich is so uneven in his logic

I've got to wonder how he managed to get so far in his career!

[Le Taz Hot]

8. This point can't be posted enough.

For those arguing on a purely political platform, Reich (and others) have correctly pointed out that the time was RIPE for Obama to make HUGE political gains from this issue had he refused to get on the SuperPac bandwagon. More short-sighted thinking. He's fortunate in his enemies which will be his saving grace for obtaining a second term.

[JoePhilly]

9. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

[Fumesucker]

11. You cannot fight evil without first embracing it..

Then you can know what true evil is, right down to your core.

That's the way to fight evil, join it, revel in it and then turn your back on it.

That's why the fundies love their "come to Jesus" moment, they know there's no smiter of sinners more formidable than a former sinner who has seen the light.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Buy-Partisan corruption. Now, both parties have put out the "For Sale" signs.

Why not just drop the farce and let us vote directly for the corporations?

[FarLeftFist]

14. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Seems appropriate.

[one_voice]

24. Appropriate..

indeed!

[woo me with science]

16. It's okay if our guy does it.

Reich speaks the truth:

The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground on campaign finance. He refused public financing in 2008. Once president, he didn’t go to bat for a system of public financing that would have made it possible for candidates to raise enough money from small donors and matching public funds they wouldn’t need to rely on a few billionaires pumping unlimited sums into super PACS. He hasn’t even fought for public disclosure of super PAC donations.

And now he’s made a total mockery of the Court’s naïve belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns

[JNelson6563]

19. There's no doubt it's a shame US politics

is a big money game. I've known it for years because I have managed lots of campaigns and way too much of the effort goes in to raising money.

With that said....it is easy to wrinkle your nose at the dirty, filthy money game. Yes, it's icky but there it is. You can take the high road and not soil your fingers with filthy lucre but, and it's a BIG but, your opponent will. While you are out there being principled and talking to voters one on one, your opponent is out there running commercials on TV & radio. Newspaper ad, billboards, lawn signs everywhere, every other car in town's got the opponent's bumper sticker on it. And your candidate? Oh yeah, out there talking to the people. Zero presence, zero buzz, zero exposure, zero name recognition being built.

Good luck. May you and your principles enjoy the Rethuglican rule! Of course it won't be your house bombed out by the war machine the Rethug Prez will fire up. Is ityour right to a safe legal abortion that will be threatened if a Rethug takes the WH? We know Reich won't be worried about such things, will he?

Yeah, I just love the commentary of those who live in ivory towers and don't have to get their ass out there and win the fucking election. Gotta love the ivory tower wanna be dwellers too, lining up to cheer "Hear, hear!" at the self-righteous pap served up by the ivory tower dwellers.

Julie

[JNelson6563]

18. Julie: The sad spectacle of those who WANT Obama to lose

Is it just me or does this country need a huge fleet of Clue-buses? My gawd but the stupid hurts.

Julie

[SidDithers]

22. Well said...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

21. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. meh...

Of the One Percent
By the One Percent
For the One Percent

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. I agree with Reich --

O could have used this to distinguish himself from the eventual GOPer.

This is the year of OWS, of the credit union, of Americans waking up to Citizens United, and the corrupting influence Big Money has on our political system.

A laser clear distinction could have been made: who are you going to vote for? The candidate who has been bought lock, stock, and barrel by Wall Street or the one is is By the People and for The People?

A perfect fundraising and rallying cry gone wasted.