For months, Republican super PACs have been raising vast sums from wealthy donors, heavily influencing the race for the GOP presidential nomination, and setting the stage for a breathtakingly expensive general election. The political world, however, hasn't heard much from Democratic super PACs, which have raised far less money.
That will apparently soon change.
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."
The general spin on this story so far has been that Obama's position has shifted -- he opposed the court rulings that cleared the way for these super PACs; he'd prefer that the outside groups not exist, and yet he's now urging financial backers to invest in an allied super PAC anyway.
But there's a reasonable case to be made that the president and his team are simply adapting to circumstances beyond their control. The far-right and well-financed Republican super PACs are going to exist and will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in 2012, whether Obama likes it or not.
The question, then, is whether the president and his allies are prepared to fight fire with fire. As of today, the answer appears to be "yes."
Indeed, Jim Messina argued overnight that the Obama campaign just doesn't have a choice.
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.
He added that Republican super PACS, in aggregate, are "expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President." That may sound like hyperbole, but it's a reasonable estimate. The Koch brothers alone are prepared to spend $100 million later this year to defeat Obama.
Under these circumstances, the Democrats' move is easy to understand: they didn't want the post-Citizens United changes to the system, but they're stuck with them nevertheless. In this case, Dems simply intend to play by the rules -- rules they don't like, rules they wish were different, rules they'd gladly change, but the rules nevertheless.
Democrats had a choice: stick to principle, refuse to play by the new rules, and make defeat far more likely, or level the playing field. I don't imagine the debate lasted very long -- national campaigns in which Republicans, the Koch brothers, and Karl Rove are held to one standard, while Democrats voluntarily abide by a more difficult standard would appear to be a recipe for failure.
The national discourse doesn't benefit from these new rules, but the discourse also suffers when only one side follows the rules to get its message out to voters.
As Paul Begala explained in April, "We strongly support reform. We support new laws to require transparency of all donations. We support repealing the wrongheaded Citizens United ruling. But, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the laws you have, not the laws you wish you had. Mr. Rove, the billionaire Koch brothers, the Chamber of Commerce, the NRA, the American Action Network, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, the Club for Growth, and other right-wing groups are projected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to advance an extreme agenda which would hammer the middle class. We will not let their attacks go unanswered."
The only surprise here is that anyone would be surprised by the decision.
Leave a Comment:
Good call Obama!
Playing it right instead of playing by the rules is a losing game, regardless of how wrong the rules are!
This fall's election is a game that the American workers cannot afford to lose!
Your last sentence is perfect. It does feel like a dirty game of basketball sometimes to me. But it seems like the rules are changing. If the Right wants to alter them to its own favor, then Obama gets to follow them and see how they like it.
You don't ask Marshall Earp to take a pop-gun into the OK Corral, do you?
This is what I've said before (not on this site)---when that second term comes around, Obama won't be playing nice anymore. He's got nothing to lose on the last term.
Actually, he does -- the next Democratic administration. :-(
I think he'll be no nonsense on everybody, though. Whether the democrats or the republicans agree with him won't matter to him, as long as he continues our progress. This is all hopeful thinking here.
That's good news Steve. I like the Begala quote very much, 'You go to war with the laws you have, not the laws you wish you had."
Booyaa!! It's about time!! Citizens United was a horrible decision that has affected not just the amount of money spent, but the ability to undermine our democracy!! It is past time that democrats act like they've got a pair and stand up for the values that they've supported in the past - but it can't be done with the unlimited lies being pumped out from the reich!!
The people in 2012 must be the winners!!
Thanks Steve for easing my little concern... you are absolutely right, voluntarily ceding territory does not make much sense.... But I hope the President and the Democrats continue their fight against Citizen United.....
This is like come on let’s get real, these Republican’s put out these Ads and other things on purpose saying false things than say I am sorry it wasn’t intended that way. And than it is like oh OK everything is fine now, apology accepted. How ridiculous can you get, when it is just an excuse to justify their corrupt and deceiving behavior. And than the Republicans will whine and cry when some truth comes out about them, saying oh how dare you accuse us of these things. This is about the biggest joke ever the Republicans can ever do. You know there is something drastically wrong with lying Politicians and we definitely don’t need any of them in our government. If you can’t tell the truth than get the heck out of Politics, you worthless corrupt bums. And that can apply to those Democrats that do the same thing too.
No @!$%#. That Koch sucker Pete Hoesktra played the media with his racist ad that has been repeated so many times by every media source on the planet. Blatantly racist yet he gets away with it.
good for the President's team.
I don't care how much money the Republicans spend, I want to know why any woman in her right mind would vote for Gringrich? The way he treats women. He is an adulterous whore. Not on one wife but TWO. And he is bought and paid for by the guy that owns one of the largest Casinos in Las Vegas. And Mitty has no problem telling you that he LIKES TO FIRE people. And that he is not worried about the VERY POOR. If we let the Republicans win this year, WE WILL ALL BE VERY POOR. We are the 99% and they are the 1%. What part of this is hard to understand.
Two Words: Fox News
They exist in the Faux News bubble where the alternate reality is their world. They are told that the Islamofacistcomunistsocialist Obama is out to destroy democracy , that everything he says about recovery and employment figures are made up and that a vote against their own self interest is the only thing that will save the country.
You cannot argue with a person so indoctrinated
But Newt-Newt has an endorsement from Herman Cain!!! You know the women will flock to him now...
(snark alert)
What we need to do is accept the money...but unlike the Repugnicans...Not the anonimity...Document every donation...And force the other side to be shamed into telling who is giving to Them! That way we can beat their dirty game without ourselves becoming dirty!
Absolutely agree! I wouldn't count on the GOP being shamed into anything though, shame hasn't worked on them in years!
My current over/under betting line on untraceable money funnelled into this election is $1 BILLION.
Karl Rove's operation is set up to receive funding thru a 501(c)(4) that cannot be forced to disclose who its donors are. There will be plenty of others.
No betting line is available on whether Obama and democrats receive more than 1% of the untraceable $$$.
I'm glad to see Obama's team enter the fray of post-Citizens super-PACS, especially with the public caveat that Obama opposes the Citizens decision. Hopefully, this will jump start a much needed discussion about campaign finance and ethics in politics and representative democracy.
I think we have new effective slogan.
" It is half time stupid". "From Greed to fairness you will believe in"
If we can show the collapse of 2008 and show how Wall Street thugs supported by Republicans looted the middle class it will catch the eyes of the people.
Similarly, union breaking activity in Wisconsin, Arizona, Indiana, Michigan should be shown again and again so that people can understand that there is hidden agenda of war against middle class is in progress.
I do not understand why none of the leader of Democrats speak up laud enough so people can take note of it. They are leaving to President to fight it out alone.
(Sigh) I despise this move by Obama and wish it never had to be taken. However, I know these Republican SuperPACs will spend whatever it takes to win. Even support laws that only benefit those who didn't have to work for a living. Come 2016, reversing Citizen's United should be a major topic in the next election.
The first thing President Obama should do, when he wins this fall, is introduce new legislation to outlaw all PACs and their like. Let the 'pubs filabuster their way to oblivion and show this country what they are really about. I'm investing in Popcorn. :)
A little devil's advocate:
the conversion of Newt's book tour into an anti-Romney vendetta works for me...
I understand but I am a little uneasy about this decision.
Obama's Super PAC should compromise. Use positive ads instead of negative ads.
Granted, negative ads do work..
Obama's got the advantage of being an incumbent but frankly, I don't see a Dem who's even mildly progressive ever getting elected again if Citizens United isn't somehow overturned.
I don't see how the right can get elected after the way the have treated teachers, firefighters, and police officers. Union people like their unions. Women are another group they have pissed off. And by trying to restrict voters, they have upset blacks and latinos also. That leaves a few ubber rich white guys left to cast ballots.
I would like to think that Obama is 'above' that sort of thing...but- the reality is that the Republicans are going to pull-out the stops looking for any creative avenue to raise money.
Obama can not afford to run a campaign that can't 'keep up' raising cash.
Reality is not always pretty....
????? - Obama has NO problem raising cash. He didn't 4 years ago and he doesn't now.
As this chart http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/super-pacs-501-c-groups-chart points out, the Republicans have a HUGE fundraising advantage thanks to the corrupt and ironically named "Citizens United" ruling by the ultra-conservative corporate Supreme Court.
The cons know their only path to victory is to make people forget all of the bad things they have been doing (anti-worker bills, pro-Wall St. efforts, theocracy, anti-gay measures, anti-immigration bills, etc.) by flooding the airwaves with their propaganda and agitprop. Obama and the Democrats unfortunately *need* to do something to balance this out.
Oh yeah, and for any intellectual lightweight that tries to claim that this makes "both sides the same", ask yourself, which party supports comprehensive and serious campaign finance reform and which party opposes it. The same can be said about campaign finance transparency.
We'll see who spend the most in the fall. I expect to be about even. Just my opinion - look at what Obama spent in '08.
This move only worsens our campaign financing disaster. I don't think Democrats or Republicans are really interested in reforms. It will take both parties working together to achieve real change. The truth is that neither one is willing to start the process. It's a damned shame.
ALL we can do now is get the 28th Amendment going. Working smarter, not harder will ultimately be Citizens United's undoing. #GetMoneyOut
According to the linked Huffington Post article, the Kochs are pledging $60M themselves. The next $40M are from "allies".
So, it comes out to 100 megabucks total, but it's not just the Kochs.
President Obama "These SuperPacs are really, really, really, bad. But not soooo bad when it comes to MY re-election."
hmmmmmmmmmmm
They're ALL the same. Boot every single one of them out!
Hypocrisy Alert!
I'm not sure that you can call it hypocrisy since I don't know that Obama ever went out and said that he wouldn't accept Super PAC money or that no one should accept Super PAC money. W/ that said I genuinely agree that this is a disturbing turn of events. More influence is not better.
On the one hand he may be taking an 'ends justify the means' approach...in which case that pretty much clarifies that PBO is not a liberal. If he is taking the 'ends justify the means' approach then his intention is the use the system so that he can later destroy it or dismantle it's current hold. I suppose I could go w/ that...except that's like saying when in a suicide booth would I rather quick and painless or slow and horrible as my means of execution. On the other hand he could simply be taking advantage of what he sees as political viability: I.E. more money = greater chance of getting elected. In which case yeah, there really isn't a distinction between him and everyone else.
He's the same as all the rest in the fact that all politicians say exactly what they think their base wants to hear, not necessarily their personal convictions.
When are we going to get someone that practices what they preach?
Words are words. Spins are spins. Actions speak volumes!
I do want to apologize to MSNBC
You must consider me a "blog blocker" because every time I comment the threads seem to shut down and all the thinking is deafening
My apologies
I do not understand a lot of these comments. Remember the the President spent a record $750 Million (3/4 of a Billion) in 2008 and his campaign has a $1 BILLION goal this year - and that is without Super PACs. Yeah maybe the Republican Super PACs may spend "hundreds of millions" as the piece above states, but that won't equal the Presidents warchest without PACs. I predict the spending will be close between the parties. The Republicans have not outspent the Democrats in the last few election cycles. That said, these comments seem to me to be a bit of sour grapes.
have to fend off the already 500 million of Koch bros money some how.
They will have no problem Pilotshark. He won with a boatload of cash....a boatload. That will not change. He is good at raising cash obviously. In fact I bet the Democrats will still outspend the Republicans - PACs included.
I would imagine no one at this site complained when the President won the election in 2008 with that obscene amount spent on the Democratic side. I guess it's only unfair if the other side spends around a Billion TOO. :-)
so where did the billion figure come from? do you have any info on that?
or something some one pulled out of no where?
Im not good at links Pilot :-), but just google it and many many sites mention it. I saw a qoute from someone is his campaign committee. I mean he spent $750 Million the last time. Here is a "paste" from the Medill report out of Northwestern University (again I have problems with links - sorry):
Obama's $1 billion re-election campaign isn't farfetched, experts say
by Katie Banks
April 14, 2011
If you're an American making $30,000 a year, it would take you about 33,333 years to make the $1 billion that Barack Obama is reportedly going to spend on his 2012 re-election campaign.
But is it even realistic for a campaign to raise between now and the 2012 election?
"I don't know if he will reach it," said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization that analyzes campaign finance. "But I think the $1 billion number is probably within the ballpark. It's a testament to where we've arrived."
Other experts agreed that, compared to Obama's $750 million campaign budget in 2008, $1 billion isn't that much of a stretch.
"It's a stunning amount of money," said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. "But what we've seen over the past couple of election cycles is that the trajectory only goes upwards."
Obama set the bar for expensive campaigns in 2008 when he became the first major presidential candidate to refuse general election public financing. This removed the cap on how much money he could raise.
no problem, i have troubles myself.
Skip my point in a way is all money needs to be stopped!!! each side should get a set amount and go from there a well as the campaign season should be shorten to 90 days.
but if you are being mortar by a 4.2, until peach breaks out you come back with counter fire of a 105 howitzer. i know kind of weak, but think the point is strong.
I agree - limit on spending. Unfortunately, I think our current POTUS has set a precedent and I don't think Congress has got it in them to limt their candidate's or their own campaign $$$.
smiling dam keyboard >>guess peaches can break out as well but peace be better.
agree but that's something you, I and ever one else should be able to get behind and change. as in the end no matter the amount of money we still can vote.
Well, obviously I don't agree, but do agree with "From Down Here." Just sent the following to Jim Messina.
Mr. Messina--
I hope you see this reply...
What you're doing is a huge mistake!!! and you might want to read Russ Feingold's response on the Huffington Post to get some more particulars.
Not only are the Republicans gonna make hay out of your wanting to beef up a Super Pac in favor of President Obama, worse yet, all of us on the ground, or the vast majority of the people who put Barack Obama in the White House with grassroots organizing and fundraising, are going to see this latest move as total hypocrisy.
A Super Pac by any other name still stinks!
Why don't you expend some of your energy going head to head with all those reactionaries who are trying to reverse the right to vote in their various states, which as you must know means targeting the poor, African Americans, many national minorities, students, seniors and even the "middle class" who is rapidly slipping into the lower depths. These are the people who are Barack Obama's base and I'm one of them.
Please reconsider following in the footsteps of the Republicans, Citizens United, et al. Especially at the same time as anyone who is progressive is trying to get big money and the corporations out of the "electoral" process. Bernie Sanders has been leading the charge in Congress, and thousands appreciate his efforts. The Super Pac "Priorities USA" is not what is going to "neutralize the avalanche of special-interest(s)"--which special interests were given the green light by the Supreme Court. In fact, your plan and justifications are going to have the opposite effect.
Sincerely,