Opinion: Obama falls victim to lure of super PAC
By Robert Reich
It has been said there is no high ground in American politics since any politician who claims it is likely to be gunned down by those firing from the trenches. That’s how the Obama team justifies its decision to endorse a super PAC that can raise and spend unlimited sums for his campaign.
Baloney. Good ends don’t justify corrupt means.
I understand the White House’s concerns. Obama is a proven fundraiser – he cobbled together an unprecedented $745 million for the 2008 election and has already raised $224 million for this one. But his aides figure Romney can raise almost as much, and they fear an additional $500 million or more will be funneled to Romney by a relative handful of rich individuals and corporations through right-wing super PACS like “American Crossroads.”
Robert Reich
The White House was surprised that super PACs outspent the GOP candidates themselves in several of the early primary contests, and noted how easily Romney’s super PAC delivered Florida to him and pushed Newt Gingrich from first-place to fourth-place in Iowa.
Romney’s friends on Wall Street and in the executive suites of the nation’s biggest corporations have the deepest pockets in America. His super PAC got $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of last year, including million-dollar checks from hedge-fund moguls, industrialists and bankers.
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.
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.
One Obama adviser says Obama’s decision to openly endorse his super PAC has had an immediate effect. “Our donors get it,” the official said, adding that they now want to “go fight the other side.”
Exactly. So now a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans. And we call this a democracy.
Robert Reich is chancellor’s professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written 13 books.
If I’m going for a job interview and all the other candidates are wearing a suit and tie and I’m in jeans and a t-shirt it would be pretty easy to figure the outcome.
Let me put it another way: You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight! Just saying, if you want to play ball, you better be in the same ball park.
Thank the supreme court for this situation!
Saw the headline and wondered who would EVER call Obama a VICTIM of anything or anyone?
Robert Reich. Of course.
How absurd.
America, you have been duped by this type of liberal rubbish. The PACs are a big part of the democrats history. Have you ever heard of Move-on dot org??? Just one of MANY LIBERAL BIASED GROUPS SPREADING LIES.
And the super rich are the republicans – what malarkie – George Soros, Steve Winn, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates… on and on. just a few super rich PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS off the top of my head. Obama got more money from Wall Street then any candidate in history – Another example of the duped America. More proof that Wall Street and big banks are run by LIBERALS – Progressive Liberals!
GIVE ME A BREAK – PEOPLE STOP LISTENING TO LIES FROM GUYS LIKE THIS.
SLT is an example of how bad it gets when you have brainwashed liberals suppressed and bullied by the progressive liberals in education and media.
South Lake Tahoe deserves what you have now because you were stupid enough to follow the people that led you here. In fact, you still follow them.
More proof that you can’t fix stupid!
… but you can move away and let it rot and die without you.
I’ll come back and pick up the pieces when it’s over.
Not one dime from me before then!
I am very confused… I have always been told that once I started making real money, I will become a Republican conservative and that all liberals are on the public dole ( general comments on line to news articles), though it has yet to happen. And now I am told that Wall Street is run by progressive liberals as they gave more money to Obama than McCain (but only slightly more than they gave Bush. I guess there has been a big change at the head of the Wall Street banks. Now they are overwhelmingly giving to Romney. So now that they are back to donating to the Republicans in a far higher amount, I guess they are Republicans again. Did I get that right? As for liberal groups spreading lies… can you also tell be how the term “swiftboating” became a verb in English?
Sorry, Lisa. As pointed out in the post above yours, just having money does not make one a Conservative.
You have to start actually THINKING for yourself first.
Lisa,
Romney is not a conservative. That’s part of the GOP big issue with him. Nor was George Bush in many ways, again the media portrays otherwise. Saps soak it up.
Consider this, Progressive liberals will support the candidate that they think will help advance their position and power.
Conservatives are principle centered by and large and want a fair and balanced field based on economic and personal freedom. They are not against regulation per see’ they are against excessive regulation designed to benefit a few at the expense of others.
Non principled people will support whoever they think they can bribe to their side.
As for swift boat issue, you need to take another look NO ONE EVER PROVED THEM WRONG. NO ONE, PERIOD. Lame stream Media portrays otherwise and saps soak it up.
You seem very in line with the typical shallow knowledge but so certain you’re right. AKA Brainwashed.
Pub W TV,
You intimate that all liberals are brainwashed, but from what I’ve read of your posts I think you too may fall into that category! Both sides of the political spectrum have their share of over zealous participants (of which I would have to categorize your viewpoints). But to generalize and lump every person of any specific group (be it race, religion, gender, or political persuasion) as being totally single minded is over the top, and in my opinion is EXTREMELY IGNORANT!
I love to speak through analogies so here are a couple: All whiskies are not scotch and all vertebrates are not mammals.
Hooray! for Dogula and PubworksTV! They Always have ideas that are 100% just like Me! If those inferior libruls want to get right they should get un-brainwashed by facts and start tuning in to a daily regimen of foxNfriends followed by rush followed by bible study, followed by more foxnews, followed by reading sites like worldnutdaily and freerepublic. Y’all can be cured of all those “reality based” thoughts in no time! It’s not easy to be like Me! but that’s a good start!
Big Picture –
DO NOT BRING UP RACE IN DISCUSSION CONSERNING ME. Nowhere in any of my posts has race ever come into play.
THAT IS OVER THE TOP!
IT IS OFFENSIVE.
I think your post should be removed and re-posted without that reference.
IT’S OUT OF LINE WHEN PEOPLE PLAY THE RACE CARD WHERE IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED!
As for your point,
Liberals i know fall into two categories, ignorant or progressive.
Whether or not you think that is the case is irrelevant to me.
My position is based on years of personal observation.
South Lake Tahoe is full of ignorant liberals. Manipulated by a biased media and education system, I call it brainwashed.
Pub W,
Nice spin!!
I only used the word race (along with gender, religion, and political persuasion) as an example of a group of people. Please explain how I played the race card.
You young republican jedi have learned well from your masters Beck, Limbaugh, Ingram, Hannity, etc.
Hey Little photo-
IT IS NOT SPIN IT IS OUT OF LINE THAT YOU BRING IT UP.
NEVER USED IN ANY OF MY POSTS AND I FIND IT OFFENSIVE THAT YOU BROUGHT IT UP!
YOU ARE RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE LEFTY APPROACH AND MORE AND MORE ARE STARTING TO SEE IT!
Put simply:
94% of the time the person who raises the most money wins.
-Local Yokle
Here are the campaign finance statistics for the coming election…
If one party uses PACs the other would be foolish to not do the same.
Not saying I think this is right but that it is our current reality given the dollars wasted on these people. Just think how fast our deficit could be reduced if this money was spent for something fruitful.
Local Yokle
http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do
pub
“You seem very in line with the typical shallow knowledge but so certain you’re right. AKA Brainwashed.”
Pot calling the kettle black?
Cut the hate folks…
Republican Party: Cut Corporate Taxes and reduce Corporate Regulation – Corporations benefit!
Democrats: Tax and redirect Government funds to Corporations and change regulations to favor Corporate Activities – Corporations benefit!
Both parties are offering two different approaches that favor corporations. Either way the Corporations get our money. With Health Care the majority will pay more either way and the Corporations get the dough (you pay for it one way or another whether it is through taxes or directly to the Companies in question).
Take Health Care for example…
Republicans want to ‘allow’ citizens to ‘choose’ their own Health Care but say nothing about changing the way Health Care works leaving the Health Care Industry to continue to rob those that can afford their graft.
Democrats want to force citizens to use Government funded health care but also do not fundamentaly change the way Health Care works leaving the Health Care Industry to continue to rob those a larger pool of ‘customers’.
They look different if you only look at how they go about things but the end result is the same… No change for the people and the Corporations win either way.
Calling each other names and avoiding facts doesn’t help. Both parties are based on differing Principals but the people in power are focused only on their Party and not the good of the people. This is true no matter which major candidate or party you favor.
Local Yokle
Yokle, that’s why I am a libertarian, though I do most often argue the Constitutional Conservative point of view. I’ve never been registered Republican, libertarian for 35 years.
KAE You hit the HOT Button on this piece!