Russ Feingold: Obama "is wrong to have embraced the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United"

[Better Believe It]

Russ Feingold: Obama Super PAC Reversal Will Lead To 'A Legalized Abramoff System'
by Sam Stein
February 7, 2012

Former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) ripped into both President Barack Obama and his re-election team on Tuesday morning for backing off its previous criticism of outside spending on campaigns and embracing the role that super PACs will play in the 2012 election.

"It is a dumb approach," Feingold said in a phone interview with The Huffington Post. "It will lead to scandal and there are going to be a lot of people having corrupt conversations about huge amounts of money that will one day regret that they went down the route of what is effectively a legalized Abramoff system."

"I also think it guts the president's message and the Democratic Party's message," Feingold added. "We are doing very well right now. The president is doing brilliantly. This is no time to blunt that message by starting to play this game. I think people will see it as phony that Democrats start playing by Republican rules. People will see us as weak and not being a true alternative and just being the same as the other guy. And as I have said before, to me this is dancing with the devil."

"The president is wrong to have embraced the corrupt corporate politics of Citizens United and that's what you're doing when you start using and consorting with super PACs. They can raise unlimited amounts of money from wealthy individuals and corporations and often they can do it in total secrecy," he said. "I am a supporter of the president. I will continue to support the president. But on this one I couldn't disagree more."

Read the full article at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/obama-super-pac-russ-feingold-campaign-finance_n_1259836.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Zeese Discusses Super PACs on The War Room - OFA
http://www.occupyforaccountability.org - Kevin Zeese, Occupy DC Freedom Plaza activist, discusses Super PACs and their corrosive effect they have on our politics.
February 8, 2012

#at=57

[Bonobo]

1. Soon someone will post "That's why he lost."

Ugh.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Under the bus, russ

[ProSense]

3. As

I said in another post:

Not all principled stances lead to good outcomes simply because the person taking the stand is a progressive.

Feingold stood on principle and voted for John Roberts.

John Roberts delivered the Citizens United decision that struck down McCain-Feingold.

Feingold loses his Senate seat because he's outspent and refuses to fight fire with fire.
This is not the path to progress.

I prefer that President Obama employ common sense in this situation.

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002287806

[blue neen]

5. Excellent points.

[brentspeak]

15. Wrong again

Prosense: Feingold loses his Senate seat because he's outspent and refuses to fight fire with fire. This is not the path to progress.

Actually, it was Feingold who outspent Johnson (and Feingold didn't require a Super PAC to raise funds).

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+CAN+WI

Feingold net disbursements: $15,544,093
Johnson net disbursements: $15,316,651

Prosense: Feingold stood on principle and voted for John Roberts.

John Roberts delivered the Citizens United decision that struck down McCain-Feingold.

Feingold's yea vote for Roberts was immaterial, as there were already more than enough votes for confirmation: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00245

[ProSense]

22. Um

Wrong again

Prosense: Feingold loses his Senate seat because he's outspent and refuses to fight fire with fire. This is not the path to progress.

Actually, it was Feingold who outspent Johnson (and Feingold didn't require a Super PAC to raise funds).

...nonsense. Citizens United is not about the candidates' spending, it's about outside groups, and they spent about $3 million to defeat Feingold.

<...>

Polls show Feingold in serious trouble in his reelection fight with Republican businessman Ron Johnson. Johnson has invested more than $8 million of his money in the race, and although the two campaigns are competitive with each other financially, outside groups have spent nearly $3 million on Johnson’s behalf.

Feingold said he has requested that outside groups stay out of the race, and a Washington Post analysis shows 92 percent of the outside spending has supported the Republican. The impact has been obvious: The Wesleyan Media Project said there have been more commercials about the Senate race in Wisconsin than in any state outside Nevada, where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is running for re-election.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_4b0eafde-e5c9-11df-b035-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1m5XlTk52

[arely staircase]

28. facts are stubborn things nt

[arely staircase]

24. well put, principled suicide my be principled but it is still suicide nt

[Swede]

4. You gotta fight these rightwingers,fire with fire.

They will spend untold millions,and there will be no rebuttals without Obama also spending.

[denem]

6. Let's hold hands today.

Karmadillo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002285800

Better Believe It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002291426

color me surprised..

[FSogol]

9. They had duplicate cut and paste articles yesterday too.

[Better Believe It]

12. I take it you don't have an opinion on the articles or at least can't refute them.

Is that right?

[FSogol]

13. I posted my opinion on your cut and pastes about 4 times yesterday.

I want Obama to win the election. Why should he not use every legal avenue to accomplish that task?

[Better Believe It]

16. And why shouldn't Obama raise a billion or so from his pals on Wall Street and Corporate America

And of course they expect nothing in return .... isn't that right?

Come now.

You're certainly not that naive.

[Better Believe It]

11. If you disagree with Robert Reich and Russ Feingold how about refuting their points?

Have you considered doing that?

At least attempt a rebuttal.

[arely staircase]

25. one cannot refute opinons, merely disagree with them. refuting those articles would mean proving

feingold never said those things. just fyi.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. So he should lose, and maybe...

write a book about how he was so principled?

Get real!

[TheKentuckian]

8. Well and good but there is little "winning" down this path

The resource balance isn't there and all of it comes with strings for the pols and chains for the "small people", even from the well heeled "on our side".

Long term the money isn't there and at the same time the "small people" get smaller and smaller which means our influence shrinks and is funneled to the wealthy, giving them greater domination.

[spanone]

10. sadly, it's the law of the land and Obama would be foolish to reject them

[Better Believe It]

19. So we must live with and accept the fact that corporate tycoons will buy every election?

And that's called corporate democracy!

They get to decide among themselves, democratically of course, the winner.

Embracing Republican fund raising methods is a fatalistic losing approach.

[spanone]

26. it's the law of the land. it's not republican fund raising methods. change the supreme court.

[arely staircase]

27. we must accept that their money will finance them until we have public financing

yes, that is a fact.

[SidDithers]

14. How'd that work out for you, Russ?...nt

Sid

[undeterred]

29. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything...

Its pretty clear to me what Senator Feingold stands for and believes in because he lives by what he says.

Its very murky what President Obama stands for at this point in time.

[JoePhilly]

17. Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad

[arely staircase]

18. never take a knife to a gunfight - my scots-irish daddy used to say

i think our system needs fixing, but until it is i don't recomend unilateral disarmament.

[Better Believe It]

20. Nice saying but totally irrelevant. What political gunfight have you been watching?

Oh .... it's the election year rhetoric that influences your thinking.

I know there is a temporary and limited pause in political rhetoric during this election "phase". However, expect appeals for bi-partisanship to fully erupt the day after the election led by President Obama should he be re-elected. And in 2013 the Democrats and Republicans will make deals to cut government deficits on the backs of working people and the elderly. They'll be taking aim at so-called "entitlements" of course.

But I couldn't fail to notice that even during this election campaign rhetoric we see still bi-partisanship in Congress when it comes to passing anti-worker legislation making it more difficult for working people to organize labor unions!

[arely staircase]

21. for one, the 500 million dollar gunfight the koch brothers undoubtedly have planned. with all due

respect, i am glad the president agrees with me and not you on this. until we have public financing of political campaigns the dems would be fools to go into this at a disadvantage.

[Better Believe It]

30. So which of their candidates do you think Wall Street/Corporate American will/should fund the most?

[arely staircase]

31. well, i would like them to join my union in supporting president obama but

i'm sure they will go lopsidedly for the gop. as for the koch brothers, they will go 100 percent for the repub. which is why, thank god, the president decided to make it a more even fight.

[SidDithers]

23. Irrelevant?...

Really?

Sid

[dansolo]

32. Russ lost the moral high ground on this issue

Russ never once criticized John McCain for his flagrant violations of McCain-Feingold during the 2008 presidential campaign.

[Better Believe It]

33. That's all you got? Under the bus with Feingold!

Are you writing about John McCain's withdrawl from public financing of his 2008 campaign to win the Republican Party nomination ....

just like when Howard Dean withdrew from public financing of his primary election campaign in 2004?

A lawsuit was filed. What was the outcome?

Do you know since you followed the Dean and McCain cases so closely?

And you might enlighten us on what those two cases have to do with corporate funding and sponsorship of the Democratic and Republican party presidential candidates.

I wonder if decision to be funded by Wall Street and corporate America is just a logical follow-up on the decision of the Democratic Party to hold their campaign rally (convention) in the most right-wing anti-labor state in the nation! The union officials at the convention will be compelled to stay and meet at non-union facilities. What an insult!

And of course big business will once again cover most of the Democratic and Republican party convention expenses.

Gee.

I wonder why they want to do that?