Unsurprisingly, Obama Re-Elect Will Accept SuperPAC Aid
The Obama Campaign is being criticized for agreeing to play the SuperPAC game like everyone else does.
In a move that some are calling hypocritical, President Obama’s re-election campaign is signaling to donors that it will not object to donations to SuperPACs acting on behalf of the President’s re-election:
WASHINGTON — President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re-election, reversing a long-held position as he confronts a deep financial disadvantage on a vital front in the campaign.
Aides said the president had signed off on a plan to dispatch cabinet officials, senior advisers at the White House and top campaign staff members to deliver speeches on behalf of Mr. Obama at fund-raising events for Priorities USA Action, the leading Democratic “super PAC,” whose fund-raising has been dwarfed by Republican groups. The new policy was presented to the campaign’s National Finance Committee in a call Monday evening and announced in an e-mail to supporters.
“We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back,” Jim Messina, the manager of Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign, said in an interview. “With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can’t be unilaterally disarmed.”
Neither the president, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., nor their wives will attend fund-raising events or solicit donations for the Democratic group. A handful of officials from the administration and the campaign will appear on behalf of Mr. Obama, aides said, but will not directly ask for money.
The decision, which comes nine months before Election Day, escalates the money wars and is a milestone in Mr. Obama’s evolving stances on political fund-raising. The lines have increasingly blurred between presidential campaigns and super PACs, which have flourished since a 2010 Supreme Court ruling and other legal and regulatory decisions made it easier for outside groups to raise unlimited donations to promote candidates.
The Republican National Committee sharply criticized the decision. A spokesman, Joe Pounder, declared: “Yet again, Barack Obama has proven he will literally do anything to win an election, including changing positions on the type of campaign spending he called nothing short of ‘a threat to our democracy.’ “
The President’s critics on the right, and the left, didn’t waste much time pointing out that this was the same President who took the time to openly criticize the Supreme court for it’s decision in Citizens United during the 2010 State Of The Union Address, and who called SuperPACs a “corporate takeover of democracy” during an August 2010 Weekly Radio Address. However, Obama 2012 Campaign manager Jim Messina put it this way in a post on the campaign’s blog:
The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.
But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.
(…)
With so much at stake, 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.
Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.
It’s perhaps not surprising that Republicans and conservative pundits are using this opportunity to hit the President for hypocrisy given his previous statements about the supposed evil of SuperPACs, but he’s is also getting criticized from the left. Jonathan Turley cites it as another example of what he calls the Administration’s lack of commitment to principles:
What is interesting is that Obama is not lacking funding. He is hauling in huge contributions. Yet, principles seem to be the first to go in this Administration when it is not politically convenient. What they have lost (beyond credibility) is a campaign issue. They could have run on the corporate influence on our political process. What is left is the cult of personality surrounding the President: it is not the principle, just the person.
Steve Kornacki at Salon agrees:
The move calls to mind Obama’s decision four years ago to rationalize his way out of an early commitment to participate in the public financing system for presidential elections. Then as now Obama had a compelling financial incentive; by thumbing his nose at matching funds, he was able to create a massive gap between his own campaign treasury and that of his Republican opponent. The difference is that this time he’s doing it in the name of leveling the playing field.
In 2008, Obama took plenty of heat from good government-types and even from some supporters, and the same will probably be true this time. In a way, his decision is easy to justify: Given how important money is to modern campaigning and how close the November election is supposed to be, how could Obama not do everything in his his legal power to neutralize any GOP advantage? At the same time, it also reinforces the worst image of Obama — the guy who specializes in high-minded, inspirational rhetoric only to junk it the minute it becomes politically inconvenient.
John Cole takes a more practical approach:
It’s not good enough that Obama win re-election, he has to do it with one hand tied behind his back. We went through this crap in 2008 with public financing, and I imagine we will be hearing kvetching from the usual suspects for a while about this.
Look- I wish Super PACS didn’t exist. I wish politicians weren’t as beholden to monied interests and slaves to raising campaign cash. I really do. But that is the reality we live in, and I’m not going to hamstring my candidate and demand he play by different, tougher rules.
Cole, who appropriately titles his post Life Is Not A West Wing Episode, gets it absolutely right here. The idea that the Obama campaign would hamstring itself by declining to make use of a perfectly legal method of supporting the campaign is insane, and the people from the left who are criticizing him for it are guilty of the kind of suicidal purism that would doom any candidate. As long as SuperPACs are legal, why shouldn’t Obama’s supporters make use of them just like Romney’s supporters will? The fact taht some people actually would have expected the Democrats to sit on the sidelines in the SuperPAC fight is a pretty apt demonstration of the self-righteous silliness that surrounds much of the “get money out of politics” meme. Money has been a part of politics from the beginning, and it always will be. The idea that it can ever be eliminated, or that another round of regulations won’t lead to the invention of some other completely legal method to get around said regulations. Trying to fight it, or deny its existence, is just silly.
Kornacki is correct when he analogizes this to the President’s decision four years ago as a candidate to forgo participation in the public financing system despite previous statements where he said that he would. Personally, I was perfectly fine with that decision at the time largely because I am fundamentally opposed to the idea of public campaign financing. On a more practical level, though, the decision made absolutely perfect sense. Outside the public financing rules, Obama’s 2008 campaign could, and did, raise historic amounts of money that could be used to put together a massively organized campaign. Inside the system, the limitations on fundraising likely would have made it difficult to do that. Since Senator Obama had proven during the primary against Hillary Clinton that he was capable of raising massive amounts of money in short periods of time. Why wouldn’t they want to continue that through the General Election? While the McCain campaign and many of its supporters criticized the President for his decision back then, my question was why John McCain didn’t immediately follow suit. Instead, the McCain campaign tied a hand behind its back by opting into the public financing system, a decision that probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the election but which still seems inexplicably stupid in retrospect.
I’ve got no problem with the President’s decision here. SuperPACs aren’t a big deal for me, other than the fact that I think the law needs to be amended to require fuller and more immediate disclosure of the sources of donations and how money is expended by the SuperPAC. As for the issue of the President going back on his word as some on the left are saying, well he never really said that he wouldn’t accept help from SuperPACs, and anyone expecting moral certainty from a politician is asking for something that never has existed.
John Cole is exactly right…as is the position of the Obama Campaign.
I wish the SuperPACS didn’t exist…I’d like to see real campaign finance reform…but hate the game, not the player. Obama would be stupid to ignore the reality of the post-Citizens United world. And I would never vote for someone that stupid.
This demonstrates why there was no other option for the President:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/koch-brothers-100-million-obama_n_1250828.html
In three days the Koches outdid the Obama Campaign’s entire quarter of fund raising ($68 million last quarter).
Good thing Obama never really said he wouldn’t accept help from SuperPACs. Otherwise, he might sound a bit hypocritical.
In related news, two American brothers of a Mexican casino magnate who fled drug and fraud charges in the United States and has been seeking a pardon enabling him to return have emerged as major fund-raisers and donors for President Obama’s re-election campaign.
You know, when I suggest “personal donations only and a cap on those at $10K,” it’s usually people on the right who say no, personal donations should be unrestricted. That despite “cash for pardons” having a long history.
This is basically the same argument that many on the left make against libertarians, that if you don’t think a particular program should be financed with tax dollars, that you can’t take advantage of the program once it is. e.g. if you think schools should be privately funded, you can’t send your kids to the public school you’re being taxed to provide.
@Septimius:
You know, in another thread, someone was reminding us how naive the left was for backing unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 80’s. The parallel, noted above, is obvious.
You’re just demanding they be stupid now, for your convenience.
But .. are you ready for bilateral disarmament? Or are you completely dishonest?
@Septimius: The corporate takeover has already occured. If the President wants to actually do anything about it he and down-ticket dems need to first actually win their elections which means pragmatically operating within the confines of our currently insane system. Another option, I guess, is going the purity route, and abandoning the levers of power to those that advocate for opening the floodgates even wider.
@Stormy Dragon:
“Many on the left?”
I realize I’m not on the left, but I’ve never actually heard that demand before. Serious?
@Septimius: You do realize your quote only shows that Obama doesn’t like Super PACs and wishes they didn’t exist. Is there any doubt he would sign legislation to outlaw these if he could?
@john personna:
It’s a common response of the John Cole style pundits of the world: “Silly glibertarians; you can’t be for real. After all, you still drive on roads”
@john personna:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/major-obama-donors-are-tied-to-pepe-cardona-mexican-fugitive.html?_r=1&hp
@john personna: @Jeremy R: @David M:
Hey, if Obama was stupid enough to make those comments, then he should have to live by them. If unregulated campaign contributions to SuperPACs really represents a “corporate takeover of our democracy,” as he said, then he shouldn’t benefit from them. Unless he believes his re-election is more important than our democracy. In which case he should be challenged to defend it.
Otherwise, you all should think twice the next time you accuse a Republican of hypocrisy.
@Septimius:
Apparent age: 8
@Jeremy R:
Good on them, that is the correct course certainly. Though I’d prefer the general cap at $10K, in which case it wouldn’t really matter.
@Stormy Dragon:
Personally, I love the roads thing, just because so many on the right want the gas tax reduced or eliminated.
That is actually a concrete policy issue.
@Septimius: That’s supposed to be remotely convincing? Assuming Obama supporters care quite a lot about campaign financing, you’re advocating ceding elections to people who don’t support campaign finance reform. And that helps how?
There’s nothing hypocritical about following the current laws and simultaneously wishing they were different.
Super PAC’s are poison to the legitimacy of our political process because they allow big money from wherever it comes to hijack it. But in this circumstance the president has to deal with the world as it is not how he’d like it to be.
@john personna:
As old as that? I thought he was still in diapers overnight.
@ Septimius…
It is critical that Obama be re-elected so that, among other critical issues, the Supreme Court is not loaded with more Koch Brother Justices who confuse corporations with people and money with speech. Fighting fire with fire…or SuperPAC with SuperPAC…is a necessary means to that end. There. Defended.
Now you can back to causing the fall of Rome.
@David M:
I appreciate that description. So, following your logic, there’s nothing hypocritical about a Republican who believes in smaller government and lower taxes receiving benefits like Social Security and Medicare. After all, current law says anyone 65 or older is eligible. There’s nothing hypocritical about Red State voters electing Republicans yet receiving more federal dollars than Blue States. After all, current law determines the income levels regarding who is eligible for federal assistance.
I’m really glad you cleared that up.
@ Joe….
Which is one of the principle tenets of Conservatism…further supporting the fact that Obama is the most Conservative President since Reagan.
@Septimius:
Not particularly illogical but perhaps indicating a high level of stupidity and irrationality with it’s disregard of self interest. The president’s decision while arguably illogical isn’t remotely irrational which is a mode of thought more commonly found amongst conservatives.
@Septimius:
The thing that’s wrong with all those examples is that some, not all, Republicans pretend they aren’t the takers. They pretend it is all the other people, and that other programs, not their own, should be cut.
Seriously, are Republicans asking that their own Medicare and Social Security, for their own age group, be cut? And just taking payments until it happens?
@Septimius:
So, following your logic, there’s nothing hypocritical about a Republican who believes in smaller government and lower taxes receiving benefits like Social Security and Medicare. After all, current law says anyone 65 or older is eligible. There’s nothing hypocritical about Red State voters electing Republicans yet receiving more federal dollars than Blue States.
This is correct. However when one of these Republicans or red state voters starts whining about how everyone who receives a government paycheck or food stamps or whatever is just a “moocher” and a “taker,” well then those same Republicans or red state voters will have their words thrown back in their faces, as they are also moochers and takers by their own logic. Get it?
@ Septimius…
No…you are completely wrong…they are not the same thing.
Hypocrisy is pretending to have values that you do not have, and beliefs that you do not believe.
One can express admiration for a virtue without practicing it.
One can be confident in the advantages of a course of action without taking that course of action. For instance someone who preaches sobriety, and pretends to be sober, when he actually drinks like a fish is a hypocrit.
Republicans claim to be the party of Small Government…when they in fact grow Government and have every single time they have been in power. They claim to have a value that they do not actually have. They do not say that the Country would be better if only we had small Government…they claim to be the party of small Government. Yes…hypocrisy is a form of lying. I could discuss the whole Family Values thing if I had more time.
For the same to be true in the case of Obama and SuperPACs he would have had to claim
to be not simply against them, but claim that the Democratic Party is the party of no SuperPACSs…and then actually enable their existence. That’s not what he did. He said they are bad for Democracy. He asked for help in stopping them. That is expressing an admiration for a virtue…but due to circumstances…not being able to practice it.
That’s not hypocrisy.
@Brummagem Joe: It’s not irrational to ask your wealthy Democratic donors to participate in a scheme that you have described as a corporate takeover of democracy?
If Obama is re-elected, how exactly is he going to convince anyone that the campaign finance laws should be changed “by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.” I’d like to hear that speech.
@Septimius: what you’ve just said … is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
@Hey Norm:
He is enabling their existence. He’s asking wealthy Democrat donors to contribute to them. They wouldn’t exist if people didn’t contribute to them.
@David M: Wow. Did you have that memorized or did you have to look it up?
@Septimius:
As you yourself rather gleefully pointed out there’s nothing particularly illogical about acting within the law while wishing to change it. Or are you suffering from short term memory loss?
@Septimius: Wikiquote, although I could probably get 90% of it by memory.
Obama is responding the creation of Super PACs by the GOP. You keep discussing this as if it were happening in a vacuum, and there wasn’t going to a massive amount of GOP Super PAC spending.
@ Septimius…
Seriously? Did you even read the segment you copy/pasted? He never claimed to be free of SuperPACs. He never claimed to not enable their existence. If you have reading comprehension problems please let other commenters know so that they may take that into consideration.
@Brummagem Joe: First of all, I never said it wasn’t illogical. I said it wasn’t hypocritical. There is a difference. Secondly, I was making a point. I regularly read about Republican hypocrisy in these comments. There were numerous comments just the other day that the Republicans are hypocrites because red states receive more federal money than blue states. I was simply pointing out the cognitive dissonance that must surely result when one believes it hypocritical for Republicans to object to government social programs while benefitting from them and also believe it not hypocritical for President Obama to object to SuperPACs while also benefitting from them.
@Septimius:
No there isn’t. It neither illogical or hypocritical to disagree with a particular law but to operate according to its requirements. For example your redstaters aren’t being hypocritical in accepting Medicare while accepting its benefits but arguing for its aboltion or electing those that might abolish it….you said so yourself! Viz.
So, following your logic, there’s nothing hypocritical about a Republican who believes in smaller government and lower taxes receiving benefits like Social Security and Medicare. After all, current law says anyone 65 or older is eligible. There’s nothing hypocritical about Red State voters electing Republicans yet receiving more federal dollars than Blue States.
This was you Septimius wasn’t it?
@Brummagem Joe:
“For example your redstaters aren’t being hypocritical in accepting Medicare while accepting its benefits but arguing for its aboltion or electing those that might abolish it”
I’m glad you feel that way, but that’s not the consensus of many of the commenters on this site. I have seen numerous comments exactly to the effect that it is hypocritical.
Secondly, there is a huge difference in redstaters accepting government benefits that they have paid for through the tax system and Obama voluntarily encouraging and accepting the help of a SuperPAC. The Obama campaign and the Democratic Party are not required to use SuperPACs. I could rail all day against Social Security and Medicare, but I’m still required to pay taxes to support those programs.
@Hey Norm:
1. Obama absolutely claimed to be against SuperPACs. He called it a “corporate takeover of democracy.”
2. He criticized the Republican Party for “blocking his reforms and wanting to keep the public in the dark” as if SuperPACs were specifically Republican.
3. He is actually enabling their existence by encouraging wealthy Democratic donors to contribute to them.
That’s exactly what he did.
@ Septimius…
Yes…he did say those things. But none of those things makes him a hypocrite. Again…read my comment above slowly and carefully…out loud if it helps.
@Septimius:
Indeed I do and said so much earlier. On the other hand it makes your criticisms of the president for hypocrisy on this issue entirely specious….almost hypocritical one might say.
@Hey Norm: It’s probably easier to just shorten most of what Septimus wrote to “I don’t like Obama.” He likes the idea of the GOP with a massive cash advantage and doesn’t understand why people that support Obama don’t.
@Hey Norm: Maybe you need to go back and read your post again. Everything I just explained is exactly what you said would make him a hypocrite. I quoted you exactly! Now you’re still saying he’s not a hypocrite!
Septimius…
Amazing. You need to look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Is Septimmy really JTea?
@Septimius:
Does he contradict himself? Very well, then he contradicts himself. He is large, he contains multitudes
Of potential donors to the Pac, we can only hope.
Don’t be naive.
@Hey Norm:
Reminds me more of Juneau.
@Septimius:
According to your own definition he’s not a hypocrite but you’ve accused him of being one…..sigh
@Septimius: Nothing hypoticritical. Ironic, maybe a little.