Hope and change? Naw, just another lying dirt-bag from Chicago politics. 

Corporations are people, my friend.

The astonishing thing is that Obama, a former constitutional law professor, suggested the Congress could reverse a Supreme Court interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by enacting legislation.  Not since Marbury v. Madison did that end-run work.

With millionaires and billionaires going to their swiss bank accounts and their Cayman Island fund, the president has no other option than to use a SuperPac of his own.  

Well, I think there are a number of restrictions that can be placed on Super PACs that would stand up to judicial scrutiny. Problem is there hasn’t been another effort at campaign finance reform. 

“Which leads to the what President Obama could have afforded to do concerning Super PACs: vowed not to support or receive money from Super PACs. He could have denounced their use and continued (in earnest) to push for changes in election law that would have nullified the Citizens United decision. But he didn’t. And does one really think he’ll make it a priority to change it after the election? If so, how could Congress take him seriously? What effect will his hypocrisy have? Very little.”

Reminds me of the old Bill Cosby stand up routine about the referee’s coin toss before the Battle of Bull Run between Custer and Sitting Bull:

“Cap’n Custer, this is Cap’n Sittin’ Bull. Cap’n Sittin Bull, this is Cap’n Custer”

“Call the toss, Cus”

“He calls heads, it’s tails. You lose Cus — heh”

“What will you do there, Sit?”

“Allright, Cap’n Sittin’ Bull sez that you and your boys got to wait down at the bottom of the hill while him and all the indians in the world ride down on top of you.”

Since he came out against Citizen’s United, Obama’s got to sit at the bottom of the hill while the Republicans and all the superPAC money in the world rides down on top of him.

I have to say that with all the money his campaign already has raised he could have afforded to not support the SP and would have been able to take the high road. Maybe I’m missing something but it is not like he would have been outspent. Gingrich, as loathsome as he is, could slither around the argument by claiming that he was just outgunned by Richie Rich and had no choice but to take money from his Las Vegas friend, Obama has no such claim.  Between this and the Catholic Church debacle it is not a good week for the brains behind the campaign.

He should have just said no, I don’t see the downside, but I’m not a paid campaign consulant making the big bucks.

His campaign is going to have ~ a billion $$$.   If he can’t get his message out with that amount or fight back what does that say about him?

Whatever Staci, he has projected a billion dollar compaign…

Way to stand on your principles Mr. President!  LMAO

How much are the Republicans spending to get their message out?

No, not at all. I detailed many reasons as to why Obama wouldn’t need Super PACs to raise the $1 billion that he was estimated to raise in the first place. 

Nonsense. Pres. was already going to raise about a $1 billion. He had little to worry about. 

I agree. And I believe he would have engendered more liberal support by sticking to his principles. 

And Obama had the audacity to call out the Supreme Court during the State of the Union address last year over their decision that government could not restrict this kind of free speech.  Remember the loud screaming and applause he got from his minions?  But of course this decison is alright with them too. Looks like he was lying, wasn’t he?   No one cares about what’s right, just if the politician is under their brand name.

That’s an estimate. They are backing away from that estimate and most of Romney’s fundraising is going into SuperPacs. Reports I have seen also say the Obama SuperPacs are taking in less than expected and that the Republican SuperPacs are outpacing them by more than 5 to one.Your certainty that Obama won’t need SuperPac money seems to be based on estimates, not real figures.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-03/nation/31017520_1_super-pacs-pro-obama-fund-raising 

Not the point.  He has enough and could have made a stand.  Comparing him to a modern day republican is not a winning argument. 

Do not sit by while Karl Rove is massing billions from his buddies. Remember Newt Gingrich is now a wounded Candidate b/c of Romney’s SuperPacs.

Its one brave stand the president is taking here. Two wrongs do make a right I guess.

He is going to have lies coming from all directions.  You seen what happen in Florida this will get nasty.  Republicans play dirty.  

He will be up against billions.  

Awwww… cry baby.

Why the hell should anybody turn down money?

How ’bout everybody running for any public office gets one single ad to run as often as you want but only that ad

  I don’t fault him for taking this kind of money its the sitting on his
high horse the whole time knowing that he was going to do this in the
end.

He is often dishonest like this.  When he pays lip service to the deficit, then later states that in times of economic distress, it is customary for the government to borrow.  Or that the recession is so bad it will take more than one president to remedy. In other words, the deficit is the next guy’s problem.  And he never does a single thing without weighing the political impact. 

 So are Super PAC’s.

 He doesn’t seem to have any of those. This isn’t the first time he’s done this sort of thing, and last time he didn’t even have the “They’re doing it too.” excuse.

Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election

Yeah, he was going to change the way things got done. The only thing he’s changed is that he wants them done his way, which isn’t any change at all.

He’s going to have Super Pac’s. That’s just the nature of the game. But to go out and publicly promote one??? He’s just putting the lie to his “pious baloney.” He doesn’t care how the game is played as long as he wins.

Super PACs are allowed precisely because of a law passed by Congress. There is nothing inherent in the Constitution that protects PACs or calls corporations people. Congress made that happen. That’s how it works. The Supreme Court interprets what Congress does via the Constitution, and so it would uphold a law that reforms campaign finance. 

Rove isn’t raising anywhere near billions. Crossroads has less than $20 million in the bank.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/02/conservative_pac_american_cros.html

It’s not a great turn of events, but it’s also pretty apparent that the real donations for the GOP campaign haven’t begun. These are early days and it would put the president in a bad position not to have the funds to fight back when (and this will happen) the Republicans try to Swift Boat him. 

This entire article makes no sense – it is comparing Obama’s campaign cash vs Mitt Romney’s campaign cash. It ignores Mitt Romney superPac money, you can say Obama could have stuck to his guns with regards to superPacs but to say he could afford it is silly. But hey Liberals wouldn’t be liberals if they actually cared about winning – I rather Democrats actually be in a position to put restrictions on this superPac Mess, than be the most pure….How’d Russ Feingold’s purity work out? He’s at home, to ignore reality is silly

The Supreme Courts allowed Corporate Personhood. Romney has been running for five plus years and his troops have their orders and are expected to get it done. Well organized and flush with money, his juggernaut will roll. President Obama not being a fool will compete on the same level. The Carl Rove and Dick Armey hostile’s have called for and mounted a 200 Million dollar PAC to defeat president Obama. It is my opinion that president Obama is much smarter than given credit for. On Wall Street, Money talks! Many Wall Street-ers are hedging their bets, wanting Romney’s experience in the White House, but remembering the massive display and small contributor base that propelled Obama into the the presidency. 
Romney’s 13.7% effective taxes on his $21.7 million in 2010, shows the glaring inequity in taxation and Wall Street-ers want to keep the Status Quo. Americans are more informed and fully aware of what has been widely distributed from the Occupy Wall Street movement, the there is a concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands. President Obama is no fool. When the opposition calls for a 200 Million dollar PAC, the president calls for the same. You don’t go to a gun fight with a straight-razor.

I rather him stand by them and be open about it…. than do like Mitt and try to pretend like he has no idea what they are doing. The fact is SuperPacs are going to play a role in the elections, for the President to ignore that fact is just silly.

How come when it’s was the other way everything was OK?

And the Republicans were going to straighten things when they got the majority. We saw how that went!

So now nasty is OK too? Wait till it heats up I will be looking for you!
 Here’s the principle 4 more years!

Now he has even less to worry about!

So are you against super PACS? Or just our President using them?

See republican stratedgy on win at all costs

It will help Dems running for congress. Now we all want that

Why we recommend you the man in military? The reason is simple: They are
not only dependable, but also romantic. They are brave and strong but also warm
in heart. Now it’s a new year, find your strong and warm
arms for a new beginning at —- uniformedkiss*c’o’m —-

Like this guy?

Mitt Romney: Super-PACs Are a “Disaster”

“We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super-PACs.”

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/mitt-romney-super-pac-disaster

 Mitt Romney: Super-PACs Are a “Disaster”

“We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super-PACs.”

Why are you going to be looking for me? And what do you mean by nasty?  I am just pointing to the president’s hypocrisy.  This is the same guy who in 2008 said he would accept the public campaign funding as it was the right thing to do…  but in the end he changed his mind because he decided that he could raise more, his whole statement of principle was only made not because he has principles, but because he had underestimated his ability to raise funds and he was making political mileage out of it, as soon as he was informed of what was available to his campaign he threw his so called principles out the window…  Now he has for a year been talking about how morally corrupt the Super Pacs are but here he goes off and supports them as long as they are going to be working for his own re-election.  If something is wrong it is wrong, kinda like you don’t support it ever even if it is in your personal interest to do so..  Why make a statement of principle if you are only going to show yourself to be unprincipled?  But that is how the president rolls…

Don’t be looking for me during the election as I really am not excited about anybody in this race, as far as I can tell at this point is that if Romney does get the nomination the only major difference between he and the president will be the color of their skin, and that in and of itself is of little interest to me.

Even if i had thrown in Romney’s SuperPAC money ($30 million) Obama would still have a big lead. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?ql3

Additionally, how effective has Romney’s money been so far? He’s dwarfed his competitors in fundraising yet as of now (midnight Wednesday), has only won 3 of 8 states. Money isn’t the sole variable. 

Folks can poo poo purity all they want, but that’s not the reality. The reality is everyone has to stand for something at some point. Feingold’s situation was much more complex than than what you inferred.

 Yeah, everything got stuck in Harry Reid’s Senate. They don’t have the majority, genius.

Congress has the power too swat down the supreme court.

Right but you are comparing current funding to projections – you don’t believe that conservative groups will work together to go after the president? Naivety is why progressives lose so often. The idea that the president should play with one hand tied behind his back (for what reason exactly?) is just crazy to me. 

No money isn’t the sole variable, and no the president wouldn’t have been defenseless, he would have money to make his case but at the end of the day if Obama is getting hit constantly form PACs – what is gained by him just taking it? If anything I think Obama’s biggest weakness as President has been him not fighting back. Why would he limit his options – he’s been pretty clear about where he stands on the law. But him not agreeing with a law doesn’t mean he should be a victim of it.

I poo poo purity because it isn’t reality – this is not a scripted Disney movie. The nicest doesn’t always win. This is a race to win the white house something that is very important if you actually care about issues – that’s the reality. All this “in a perfect world political campaigns would be solely about issues, PAC money wouldn’t be able to spend unlimited funds to trash opponents, and thus that’s how Obama should run his campaign” is that what you are calling reality? 

But back to my original question, I’m just curious what is gained by Obama limiting his options? And why do you think its wise to base an entire campaign fundraising plan on what you project Obama to raise going up against what Mitt Romney and his PACs have currently? You’re pushing this billion dollar projection number as if its already happened and then comparing it vs what is basically a split GOP donor base currently

Yeah a little, but not quite the same as Obama insulting the supreme court at the State of the Union and then bitching for a year, only to sell out. I have already said that there is little difference between these two men.  

Flipper vs Obama big difference.

Interesting turn of the screw:

“A slew of corporate boards — including those of Apple, Ford and Pepsi — are being petitioned this proxy season by stockholders demanding an accounting of corporate funds being spent on campaigns, super PACs and political causes as corporate governance experts and members of Congress press for new federal rules.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72587.html#ixzz1llzMHsqY

Obama is my shepherd; I shall not work. 
He keepeth me out of the hands of the employers, 
Which leadeth the country to class warfare and polarization. 
He encourageth sloth.
He leadeth the government to new heights in deficit spending. 
Yea, though I walk in the shadow of Economic collapse, 
I shall fear no depression, for Obama is with me. 
His handouts and monetary indiscretion supplement my income. 
He maintains spending increases in the presence of insurmountable debt; 
He punisheth businesses with excessive regulations; 
And giveth the hard-earned fruits of labor to the unproductive. 
Surely, handouts and stimulus payments shall follow all the days of his administration; 
And I will stay unemployed forever.

Perhaps he realizes his $1 billion goal is not achievable. Based on the numbers provided, he has to raise at least $1 million per month until election time.

I’m not basing it off of projections. You asked me to compare Obama’s money to Romney’s money + Romney’s SuperPAC money. I did that. Obama is still far in the lead (and I didn’t include a dime of Obama’s SuperPAC money). Moreover, Obama hasn’t even started really fundraising. Right now, it’s a drop in the bucket.
What sense does it make to ‘ties one’s hands’? The sense that the president actually believes that participating in raising SuperPAC money (by putting his blessing on it) further corrupts an already maligned system. The fact that he has earned against this since 2010 and has promised to change it. How can anyone truly believe this president will work to change a campaign finance system that is nearly irretrievably broken if his first concern is his own campaign?
Further there is precedent for Obama standing up for principle over money. Maybe you forget since its been so long since he has done it. But in ’08 Obama refused to directly take money from lobbyists. Sure bundlers still did. But Obama didn’t directly solicit or accept money from lobbyists. How about that? Standing on principle and willing to take the lumps that go with it. And guess what? He still raised a record $750 million with ‘one hand tied behind his back.’

This is an interesting story. Thanks!

Where are the votes to changing campaign finance laws? There’s a limit to even congressional action with regards to the supreme court ruling. What specific proposals would you have like to see the President push for? And where exactly do you find the votes – or is this another one of “we want Obama to do empty gestures that neither advance the debate nor have any chance of passing Congress”. To me this entire debate is more I’m looking for accomplishments you’re looking for a spiritual leader.

I honestly don’t get your end game –  Even if Obama totaly denounced all Super Pacs – raised… 10 billion dollars outspent everyone, and won re-election. What specifically is gained? He won in 2010? Did that mean no more lobbyists? Not at all. These symbolic gestures are meaningless. What is crazy is liberals are more up in arms over Obama playing by the same rules as every other candidate than about the Senate failing to pass the Disclose Act. Where were liberals then? That’s why progressive policies fail. While writes are Drudge are saying “call your senators”.. liberals, democrats and progressives are complaining Obama didn’t give enough speeches and shooting themselves in the back,I have no clue what Obama’s internal numbers look like with regards to fundraising and spending – however I do know they are looking to run a very expensive campaign. Because you have not only spending for Obama but also a HUGE fight to hold the senate. Obama is looking to actually spend in states like AZ, not only because he thinks he can win but in order to take the seat from Kyl. Having the actual votes in congress, on top of having the WH is an actual real issue. The out come of that will actually influence legislation, not only on finance reform but on a wide range of issues. I believe there needs to be less grandstanding, and more grinding because at the end of the day the purest guy who passes no laws – has in reality not changed a thing. 

Where are the votes? Where’s the administration’s push on this issue? Let me get this straight, you think Congress, heading into an election year, is going to be the forerunner on this issue? Negative. They welcome the loophole the Supreme Court gave them. That by no means gives Obama a pass on this because he, not Congress, is the one that called this a travesty and said he would send a bill to Congress. Passing the buck isn’t an option when you’re the one that made this an issue and you’re the one with the leverage to do something about it. If this was a signature issue for Obama — as he pretended it was — then he would have sent a draft to Congress.
What would that draft have looked like? I don’t know. I’m not a campaign finance lawyer, or a lawyer at all for that matter, but I presume it would have restricted as much as possible without running afoul of the SCOTUS decision the concerns Obama and others have mentioned.

The point of Obama promising not to accept lobbyist money wasn’t to end lobbyists. That’s absurd. The point was to diminish their influence peddling in a campaign cycle. It was to show the American people he was serious about changing, however subtle, the notion that it’s about pay for play and the powerful can get whatever they want by mere association with the most powerful.

Disclose act passed the House the summer of 2010 before the elections. But no I don’t think Congress will pass anything. I don’t think the voters exsit right now to get anything worthwhile done. But thats my point – you need the votes. Which means you need to win elections. That’s what I believe the end game is and should be, winning. I’m asking you what your end game is? 

Obama has leverage to do something about it? What leverage does Obama have to do something about a supreme court decision –  which best case scenario could be slightly fixed only by legislative action in Congress? Send a draft to Congress that said what? Ignore the Supreme Court. There are laws that could be passed to limit Pacs, but the court ruled constitutionally you can’t outlaw PACs. So the only draft would be something which increases discloure. You can legally, according to the court stop them from spending money.

The disclose act was a draft, it passed the house, died in the Senate. You want him to resend it? You honestly think John Boehner and house Republicans would pass it? Come on – real world time.

There’s a limit to what the president can do, being an election year limits it even more, not having the votes…basically makes it impossible to get anything done. I’m looking at this as a game of chess, not.. I don’t know a beauty pagent. Obama looking nice on his white steed of purity isn’t going to get a law passed – having the votes will. 

I don’t think using or not using a super Pac will be make or break Obama’s campaign –  I think they could raise the money and compete. But honestly I have NO clue, maybe they don’t see a way to make their money targets, maybe they feel it limits their ability to boost Democrats in places like MO (where Obama is likely to lose BUT Democrats would love to hold on the the Senate seat so having a non-Obama source of ads could be useful). In my view  those issues and goals are way more important, way more productive than this purity argument.  

I agree with you that the point is to influence Congress to pass a bill. But my point is twofold: Obama didn’t make campaign finance reform a priority, and his going back on SuperPACs won’t create some new impetus to handle reform after the elections. What I’m looking for is seriousness on the issue. That’s it.

I agree that whether he uses a SuperPAC or not won’t kill them, but it would send a message that he is standing behind the principle. That may sound stupid but different sets of principles are really the only difference between one party and another. They both have money and they both have access to the same information. It’s how they choose to use it.
Right, I said as much in my piece regarding the political fallout of this. It’ll be nil. Liberals will still support and Republicans will just call him a hypocrite.

This is news why exactly? Oh right, because Obama is actually a Kenyan Born Socialist Muslim GOD held far above the standards of the other Republican nominees who are simply HUGH-MONS.

Obama should easily be able to fight for his reelection without such need for campaigning, money, TV apearences, or political ads. He is GOD isn’t he??

 Interesting that the Romney’s campaign funds were from only 9% of small individual contributors, while Gingrich & Paul  have 47% from small individual contributors as does Obama.  Although the dollars help pay for campaigning, the contributors also shed an interesting aspect about voter support.