Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

President Obama reverses position on Super PACs


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:04 PM

President Obama reverses position on Super PACs, team urges supporters to donate to Priorities USA

The President has previously been a staunch opponent of so-called "super" PACs because they can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections

On second thought, President Obama would like that Super PAC money after all.

The Commander-in-Chief is doing a 180 and asking top fundraisers to support an independent political action committee backing his reelection.

The President has previously been a staunch opponent of so-called "super" PACs because they can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.

But Team Obama argued Monday night that it cannot allow for "two sets of rules" in which the GOP presidential nominee benefits from "unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm."

Obama's campaign encouraged top donors in a conference call to donate to Priorities USA, a super PAC spearheaded by two of the President's former aides.

A huge disparity was revealed earlier this month when Super PAC financial filings were made public. The Republican's American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS

#2 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,670 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:13 PM

I'm a bit morally torn about this, but can completely understand why he has to succumb to it. If your opponent has unlimited, unregulated money available, you're at a significant disadvantage. I still think the whole concept is utter bullshit though. I'm sad it's had to come to this.

#3 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:13 PM

"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..."


He was right assface. They are. But since you shitheads are going ahead and doing it, what else is he supposed to do?

Not easy for me to stick up for Barry in any way, shape or form, but it wouldn't make me very sad to see Jonathan Collegio DIAF while JingOTCOM.

#4 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:29 PM

By his own words what he's doing is a threat to our democracy.

The man will say and do whatever it takes to be elected, truth be damned.

Apparently it's now him who is trying to steal the election



Obama Ratchets Up Tone Against G.O.P.
By PETER BAKER
Published: October 10, 2010

PHILADELPHIA — With his party facing losses in next month’s election, President Obama pressed his argument Sunday that the opposition is trying to steal the election with secret special-interest money, possibly including money from foreign companies.

In a speech to a large rally here and in a new television advertisement, Mr. Obama and the Democrats escalated their efforts to present the Republicans as captive to moneyed interests. But Republicans and their allies fired back, dismissing the assertions as desperate last-minute allegations with no evidence to back them up.

“You can’t let it happen,” Mr. Obama told thousands of supporters gathered at a school park in a predominantly African-American, working-class neighborhood in northern Philadelphia. “Don’t let them hijack your agenda. The American people deserve to know who’s trying to sway their elections, and you can’t stand by and let the special interests drown out the voices of the American people.”

Mr. Obama has increasingly turned to the issue of campaign finance to motivate his supporters as the elections grow nearer and the polls remain bad for Democrats. His party is outmatched in advertising sponsored by groups in part because of a Supreme Court decision issued earlier this year which lifted restrictions on independent campaign expenditures by corporations and unions. Mr. Obama has suggested that the sponsors of campaign advertising have sinister motivations.

“You don’t know,” he said here. “It could be the oil industry, it could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose. Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy.”


More
http://www.nytimes.c...cs/11obama.html

#5 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,670 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:37 PM

It IS a threat to our democracy, but unfortunately his hands are pretty much tied. Good case for a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United! www.movetoamend.org

#6 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:41 PM

His hands aren't tied, if it's truly a threat against our democracy, then as President he should not do it, plain and simple. Hell, I'd think for him to knowingly do so he's opening up the door for criminal charges.

Some might even consider it terrorist activity :wink:

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 03:55 PM

Oh, look! The single party is doing the "we're different" dance again. Suite. I love that dance. Been watching it go on for years and years.

Seems no one can run on honesty, so they must turn to the next best thing. Flood the joint with propaganda of their own ilk to drown out their "opponents".

The ironing, it is absolutely delicious.

There is an easy fix to campaign finance reform without a new amendment. Throw out the garbage in interstate commerce that does not apply to its original intent, get government OUT of business so that no concessions can be made to businesses that volley money into their coffers and return to a sane monetary policy. Leave the government to do its original job. Protect our rights, the constitution and keep the money sound.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:02 PM

Politicians on both sides don't like that idea though. Because then they lose all their accumulated powers to intervene in almost every sector of our lives. the republicans of today talk about smaller government, but I think we all know that true limited government republicans is the unicorn of their party. They are rare adn when they do come along as honest conservatives, their own establishment marginalizes them.

Democrats, are of the same large government nanny state. They do not hide behind balanced budgets etc....they are all out spenders for "social progression".

Both love war. Both love spending. Both love power and the line between them is as simple as unfounded, never to happen, rhetoric that divides the country.

#9 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:51 PM

It IS a threat to our democracy, but unfortunately his hands are pretty much tied. Good case for a constitutional amendment to get rid of Citizens United! www.movetoamend.org


well then, instead of taking a "can't beat em, join em" stance, he should be pushing for this amendment. him succumbing to it only weakens the push for this amendment to pass, since whoever wins used PAC money in their favor.

this is up there with one of the worst things obama has done domestically. sad day.

#10 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,670 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 04:57 PM

well then, instead of taking a "can't beat em, join em" stance, he should be pushing for this amendment. him succumbing to it only weakens the push for this amendment to pass, since whoever wins used PAC money in their favor.

this is up there with one of the worst things obama has done domestically. sad day.


Sadly, I don't disagree. However, if that doesn't work, which it likely won't in the time frame available, should he just let himself be outspent 10 to 1 and risk handing the election over to the cons?

Trust me, I'm as unhappy about this as you, but I don't see many other options at this point.

#11 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:20 PM

Option #1

He could maybe stick to his word and protect our democracy like he sorta swore to do. :bang:

#12 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:28 PM

Option #1

He could maybe stick to his word and protect our democracy like he sorta swore to do. :bang:


this. if he had fought back from the start, we wouldnt be dealing with him selling us out yet again.

#13 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,670 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:27 PM

Okay. But let's talk present reality. As disappointed as we are about that, what's he supposed to do now? I guess even without PAC money he has a pretty good chance of beating the lunatic fringe that are his opponents, but are we really ready to take the chance that Romney or (GASP) Newt the Impaler wins because of this?

I'm not, even though I'm pissed at him, I'm certainly not.

#14 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:31 PM

stand the fuck up, now, and stop being a pussy, or acting like a pussy when this is where he really stood all along

i'm tired of this guy's games...nothing he has done has been against politics as usual in any way other than words

#15 vic

vic
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,913 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:32 PM

it doesn't matter who wins if super PAC money has all the influence...romney and obama are fiercely the same in so many ways that i fail to see why it would even matter who wins

#16 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 07 February 2012 - 06:44 PM

A RINO controlled congress with a RINO president??? :shudders heavily:

We'll be at war within 2 month of that inauguration. WWIII, that is. Of course, that may just happen anyway.

#17 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 08 February 2012 - 01:43 AM

A RINO controlled congress with a RINO president??? :shudders heavily:

We'll be at war within 2 month of that inauguration. WWIII, that is. Of course, that may just happen anyway.


now you admit there's a slight difference.

that's pretty dizzying.

#18 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 02:18 PM

Okay. But let's talk present reality. As disappointed as we are about that, what's he supposed to do now? I guess even without PAC money he has a pretty good chance of beating the lunatic fringe that are his opponents, but are we really ready to take the chance that Romney or (GASP) Newt the Impaler wins because of this?

I'm not, even though I'm pissed at him, I'm certainly not.


IMO any vote for Obama sends the message that his actions are acceptable. Both these parties suck and it is never going to change unless people stop voting for either one of them.

This is probably the last election we'll have before they have us so locked down it will be too late to even try to fight back.

It's time to either vote them both out or take that Occupy Oakland style "diversity of tactics" shit to the front door of the White House until they smarten the fuck up.

Sadly if Obama gets re-elected then those who have opted to look the other way at the rights they're taking from us will likely do the same for another 4 years.

By then we'll prolly all be wishing we had been 2012'd prolly :sad:

#19 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,832 posts

Posted 08 February 2012 - 02:59 PM

it doesn't matter who wins if super PAC money has all the influence...romney and obama are fiercely the same in so many ways that i fail to see why it would even matter who wins


Yassir, you betcha.

#20 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 08 February 2012 - 04:06 PM

vote them both out :lol:

good luck with that, Joke. Is posting on this message board the extent of your publicity campaign, or will we see a book signing tour?

#21 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:47 AM

Obama joins crowd trying to buy the election

How many billionaires does it take to buy a presidential election? We're about to find out. The 2012 campaign probably will be a battle between one group of millionaires and billionaires supporting President Obama and another group supporting his GOP rival.

Perhaps this was the inevitable result of the Supreme Court's grotesque decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission in 2010, which opened the floodgates to unrestricted campaign money through super PACs. But I'm not sure. What if Obama had stuck to his guns and eschewed super PACs?

Sadly, this month the president caved. He endorsed a super PAC set up to funnel unrestricted campaign money from fat cats into his campaign. And he's made a total mockery of the court's naive belief that super PACs would remain separate from individual campaigns, by 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, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the Obama super PAC.

Why did he do it? His campaign aides explained that they had been surprised by how easily Mitt Romney's super PAC delivered Florida to him and pushed Newt Gingrich from first place to fourth place in Iowa. They also took note of the fact that Republican super PACs outspent the GOP candidates themselves in several of the early primaries. Messina said they didn't want to "unilaterally disarm" by failing to use the same technique.

I don't believe Obama's refusal to play the billionaire election game would have been unilateral disarmament. Obama has proven himself a hugely successful fundraiser, especially with small donors. He cobbled together an unprecedented $745 million for the 2008 election, including an unprecedented amount of small donations, and has already raised more than $225 million for 2012.

Had Obama continued to eschew his own super PAC, he might have had 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 large corporations and fewer people 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 democracy!"

Obama could have highlighted the starkest choice facing America in a century - an economy and a democracy dominated by great wealth, or an economy and a democracy that work for everyone. What better way to dramatize this choice than by offering America a choice between a political campaign financed by millions of small donors, and a Republican campaign underwritten by a handful of America's most powerful and privileged?

Romney's friends on Wall Street and in the executive suites of the nation's biggest corporations have the deepest pockets in the nation. Romney's 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. If Romney is the Republican nominee, more money will come into his presidential campaign from the smallest number of super-rich than ever before in American history.

Had Obama taken a strong stand against this, my guess is that average Americans would have flooded the Obama campaign with enough small donations to overwhelm Romney's billionaire friends. The people would have been given a chance to be heard, and the people would prevail.

But we'll never know. Now that Obama has decided to embrace super PACs, big money is flowing as never before.

The president has called Citizens United a threat to democracy. If he is re-elected, and he's sincere about his concerns, he should go to bat for a system of public financing that will make it possible for candidates to raise enough money from small donors and matching public funds that they won't need to rely on a few billionaires pumping unlimited sums into super PACs.

In addition, he should fight for public disclosure of all donations, including those to super PACs. He should commit himself to nominating Supreme Court justices who will reverse Citizens United. And he should give his unbridled support to a constitutional amendment that would limit the vote to American citizens, not corporations.

And I hope he shows the public that, despite support from some of the fattest cats in the land, he'll still fight for a tax system that requires millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share of the nation's bills.

One Obama adviser crows that 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."

That's exactly the problem. When a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want to fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans, the rest of us are left on the sidelines. And if we're sidelined in the election, we could be left on the sidelines of our democracy.

As the great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "We can have a democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at UC Berkeley and the author of "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future." He blogs at www.robertreich.org. To comment, go to sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.


http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1mmvbT15d

#22 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 06:08 PM

PayPal founder gives $1.7M to Ron Paul super PAC

PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel donated $1.7 million last month to a super PAC supporting GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, a report filed today shows.

Overall, Thiel has donated $2.6 million to Endorse Liberty, created last year to aid the Texas congressman.

The Republican presidential candidates and the other super PACs active in this year's election are filing January fundraising reports to the Federal Election Commission today.

The reports are expected to show a sharp uptick in fundraising for former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who raised less than $2.2 million in 2011 before winning a string of contests early this year. He now leads Mitt Romney in the latest public polls in Michigan, which votes Feb. 28.

On Friday, President Obama reported a sharp drop from four years ago in his fundraising. He collected $29.1 million for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee in January. Nearly $11.9 million went into his campaign account, a third of what he raised as a candidate in January 2008.

Today's filings are giving the public a picture of how much a handful of unions, corporations and wealthy individuals can shape super PACs, new outside groups raising and spending unlimited amounts to influence the presidential contest and other races.

Jon Huntsman Sr., the billionaire father of former GOP candidate Jon Huntsman, donated $335,000 in January to Our Destiny PAC, a super PAC that supported his son's failed candidacy, the reports show. In all, the elder Huntsman gave $2.2 million to the super PAC, nearly 70% of the total it collected.

The reports are due by midnight.


http://content.usato...ws#.T0KKwRwaBgs

#23 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 05:36 PM

Maher pledges $1 million to Obama support group

WASHINGTON (AP) — Faux news host Stephen Colbert isn't the only comedian with a super PAC connection. Political satirist Bill Maher got into the act Thursday night, pledging $1 million to a political committee supporting President Barack Obama.

Maher announced during a Yahoo-webcast special, "CrazyStupidPolitics," that he was giving $1 million to Priorities USA Action, a super political action committee backing the president. Even as he made his sizeable pledge, Maher mocked the committee's "tongue-twister name," joking that it was dreamed up by Borat, the English-addled Eastern European comic creation of Sacha Baron Cohen.

A cynic on politics who often takes liberal stands on issues on his HBO talk show "Real Time," Maher joins Dreamworks Animation executive Jeffrey Katzenberg and the Service Employees International Union as the committee's top funders. Katzenberg gave the group $2 million, and the union donated $1 million.

Priorities USA Action officials were not immediately available for comment.

Colbert created and funded his super PAC — Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow — to satirize the unfettered flow of corporate and union funds into political campaigns.

More than half of the $60 million donated to groups supporting Obama and his GOP presidential rivals since early last year has come in million-dollar-plus donations. With Maher's donation, $4 million of Priorities USA Action's entire $5.5 million in contributions will have come from million-dollar-plus gifts.


http://www.google.co...af295249ed9ee6c