Robert Reich: The Sad Spectacle of Obama’s Super PAC

[Karmadillo]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/08-3

Published on Wednesday, February 8, 2012 by Robert Reich
The Sad Spectacle of Obama’s Super PAC
by Robert Reich

<edit>

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.

more...

[1ProudAtheist]

1. Unforthunately

We cannot afford to lose an election just to make a point.

[flamingdem]

15. yes indeed

no pussyfooting around at this point with the Koch Bros. drooling

[bowens43]

2. Complete bullsh*t

The president would be a fool to other then he has done.

[ProSense]

3. Best

response to Reich's piece was in this Daily Kos diary. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/08/1062788/-Fmr-Labor-Sec-Obama-Has-Handed-The-Election-Over-To-The-Super-Rich

Phyrric Moral Victory

So Obama takes the moral high ground and eschews the use of SuperPAC money. The tsunami of right wing largesse waiting to be unleashed against him will make the circus that is the Republican primary look like an April shower.

They will crucify him, and he will lose. Then what?

The Corporatist Party (formerly known as the Republican party) controls both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. To keep "The Base" mollified, conservative social legislation that would warm the cockles of of the Taliban's hearts.

For the paymasters, tax and budget provisions that will take the US back to medieval times insofar as the working and middle classes are concerned (you do remember that there is such a thing as the "working class don't you)?

Your poor bleeding liberal hearts will not have time to bleed for the oppressed workers at Foxconn plants in China, for you will either be them or envying them for having jobs.

Robert Reich can take the moral high ground as he's not in the fight. He doesn't need to win. He can pontificate from atop the ivory tower.

This election is going to be old-school Chicago-style politics. That's not something to run from. If one is going to go up against thieves, liars, and crooks then one needs to leave one's copy of the Marquess of Queensbury Rules at home and bust out the brass knuckles and bicycle chains.

We win the White House, The House, and the Senate. We appoint some Supreme Court justices without ideological bias. Then, we repeal Citizen's United with legislation that won't be overturned on appeal. Then we enact campaign finance law with teeth.

We can fight from the back benches. We just can't win much from there.

So, quit whining and get ready to bust some heads because this one's going to be brutal and dirty.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1062788/44891461#c18

[JNelson6563]

18. thanks for posting that here!

Excellent piece.

[lonestarnot]

43. K & R!

[AtomicKitten]

50. !

[vaberella]

54. Brilliant post. The people who support the OP are nuts.

We need to win and win big.

[TheWraith]

4. "But would refusing to be corrupted this way really amount to unilateral disarmament?" Yes. Duh.

You don't take a knife to a gunfight because you feel a knife is morally superior.

[Obama3_16]

5. I trust Robert Reich

loves the sound of his own voice. Bleh. Obama is just doing the straight version of making a mockery of superPACs in a different way than Colbert has totally lampooned them.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Yeah, um, right

[warrior1]

7. fighting fire with fire

If it keeps Obama in the WH. DO it.

[Kahuna]

8. Kahuna: The sad saga of Robert Reich's continuous whining...

Does anything make him happy?

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. "Does anything make him happy?" Not unless there's a Clinton in the WH.

[Kahuna]

52. Exactly! He's a sad little PUMA.

[just1voice]

69. I hear ad hominem attacks on internet message boards make him happy, LOL

Because making him happy is such an important issue, LOL.

[bvar22]

9. Did President Obama have to officially endorse the Super Pac?

It is my understanding that the Super PACS operate independent of Party and Politician by LAW.

Couldn't President Obama have condemned the Super PACS,
distanced himself from them and their corruption of our government,
claim the Moral High Ground,
and still enjoy all the benefits, but from a distance?

Why did he have to give them his official approval?
By doing this, he has endorsed and enshrined and a New Normal in America.

God help us all.


"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

[Kahuna]

10. Obama didn't endorse the "new normal" as you call it. SCOTUS

did that with their Citizens United ruling. Accordingly, the president is playing by the new rules.

[renie408]

11. Dramatic much? Robert Reich's fortune telling ability aside, refusing to take PAC money when

the other side has billionaires attending secret meetings and pledging $100 million dollars to defeat you would be plain stupid.

And Barack Obama might be a lot of things, but stupid ain't one of them.

[Whisp]

28. that's what I don't get about the whiners.

this is a fight for lives - why do the rob reichs and ilk want Obama to play dead and give up and fucking lose?

insanity. geeeezus, the insanity!

[vaberella]

55. I don't think he wants Obama to be President. n/t

[Kahuna]

58. BINGO!! nt

[bvar22]

67. And you are obviously very confused,

...and your confusion has reduced you to making shameful, false allegations against an extremely loyal, long term
Democratic Party Activist.
Shameful!

I have voted Straight Party Democratic tickets for over 44 years,
and wore out many pairs of "comfortable shoes" canvassing and campaigning FOR Democrats.
Do you remember the story about the cat that was killed in Arkansas,
and "Liberal" written on the side of its dead body?

THAT is where I LIVE,
and I'm NOT afraid to fly my Democratic Party colors!

What I WANT is for the Democratic party to return to the traditional Democratic Party Working Class Values of FDR and LBJ.
What I SEE if the Party I love lurching ever more to the Big Business RIGHT,
and I'm NOT happy about that, nor do I believe that is the road to success.
What I "questioned" in my post is whether this additional step to The Right of endorsing and approving of MORE BIG MONEY influence in the Democratic party was necessary.
It looks as if President Obama could have kept his distance without sacrificing much.

If you are capable of discussing issues,
then I welcome your input.
If all you are capable of is making unfounded and false attacks on loyal Democrats,
then I have no use for your worthless opinion.

--bvar22



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Whisp]

68. loyal to what? I am supposing you are talking about Reich

if he is such a loyal democrat then why is he suggesting such boneheadery that could lose the Democratic Presidency?

I know he is loyal to the Clintons, maybe thats where it comes from.

[vaberella]

71. Actually I think you're the one confused.

You're bio means nothing to me. I was speaking about Robert Reich. Not you. Look at the post I was responding too.

[Dragonfli]

61. I wonder which moneyed interests will get to be highest bidder?

And how much appointments of company allies to key posts might cost a potential high end Super PAC investor, A bank might be able to afford some face time and a favorite name on some available short list.

I want Mittens and President Obama to wear patches on their blazers so we know which Corporations we are voting for.

[msongs]

12. great! we can spend our money on liberal/progressive candidates lower down ballot instead of O nt

[SidDithers]

17. You were going to do that anyway, weren't you?...

So what's changed?

Sid

[Whisp]

29. *snort

[spanone]

13. the koch brothers will spend their fortunes to destroy Obama, he'd be a fool not to have an s/pac

[bluestate10]

14. Reich needs to get a clue.

Obama and no democrat will win if they unilaterally disarm. I promise you NO change will happen if republicans take Congress and the White House. Reich is floating through LA-LA land.

[SidDithers]

16. Easy for Reich to write that...

He's not running against the GOP money machine.

Sid

[JNelson6563]

20. Yep, and if the winger won the WH

It wouldn't be his right to a safe, legal abortion that would be threatened would it? I doubt any of his kids would get sucked into the wars any WH winger would get us into. And he sure as hell wouldn't have to worry about making his rent or feeding his family if a winger ran the economy back into the ground. Yes, Mr. Reich, you enjoy our safe distance up there in your ivory tower!

Julie

[JoePhilly]

19. Yes ... Obama should disarm himself so that after GOP Super PACs win the election ...

Some on the left can say ... "See, now isn't that better. Sure, we're at war with Iran and North Korea and Canada, but Obama did not allow a super pac to mess things up."

And then, when the GOP President appoints 3 more Alitos to the SC... and corporations go from simply being people, to being able to actually become candidates ... and we get "President Monsanto" in 2016 ... we can all rejoice!!!!

geeeze.

[grantcart]

21. fuck the 'bring a knife to a gun fight' crowd

The only way to get the other side to act differently on money in campaigning is to 'drink their milkshake' 'eat their lunch' then take their 'pie eat it and have it too' on the way to a 40 state victory.

[SidDithers]

23. Damn right...

and now I'm strangely hungry

Sid

[grantcart]

70. lol

[renie408]

24. +1!!

[Obama3_16]

25. 45 state victory

[ProSense]

32. There is

too much finger wagging while ignoring the real life implications of idealism. There is also the word "principled," which doesn't refer to a smart move, just one consistent with one's stated beliefs. It can be and has been used to characterize some Republicans.

Not all principled stances lead to good outcomes simply because the person taking the stand is a progressive.

Russ Feingold issued a similar condemnation about the decision, but think about this:

Feingold stood on principle and voted for John Roberts.

John Roberts delivered the Citizens United decision that struck down McCain-Feingold.

Feingold loses his Senate seat because he's outspent and refuses to fight fire with fire.

This is not the path to progress.

I prefer that President Obama employ common sense in this situation.

[boxman15]

42. x10000000000

[uponit7771]

37. Amen!!

[Kahuna]

53. HOLLER!

[TwilightGardener]

22. Sorry guy, Presidential elections are life and death decisions anymore.

The Super PAC thing might be a setback, but if we lose the WH for four or eight years, it won't be a setback, it will be a disaster.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. "They do it, so we do it" is a piss poor excuse for corruption.

[uponit7771]

38. I agree, the oposite is a piss poor excuse to lose to the bastards who are in the GOP now

[rudycantfail]

27. Two corporate parties

in power trying to out-whore each other for corporate money. That is what has become of America. But don't acknowledge it. Instead, save your bitterness for the liberals who have been fighting this all along.

[Whisp]

30. I think what has become of America is

the dumbfucks have been overpopulating.

[rudycantfail]

31. I want you to feel free

to back up my points so effectively in the future. Thank you.

[alarimer]

35. This is why I am sitting this one out

Both parties suck. I hate them all, nearly equally.

[hay rick]

33. Obama wants to have it both ways.

He wants to condemn Citizens United but he also wants all the Super-PAC money he can get. His defenders claim he has to take the money so he isn't stuck with a knife at the gunfight.

The problem is, after all the speeches are made and the votes counted, Obama can't serve two masters on most issues. Super-PAC money will come with strings attached.

[uponit7771]

40. Obama WANTED all the SP money? Link and quote? thx

[hay rick]

46. WANTED...reluctantly agreed...the bottom line is the same.

One article here:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/politics/with-a-signal-to-donors-obama-yields-on-super-pacs.html?_r=1&hp

From the article:

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.

[Major Hogwash]

65. You know who you can thank for this new stratagem, don't you?

Bill Daley.
The one who stepped down from the White House staff to help co-chair the re-election campaign.

Daley doesn't use words to try and talk other people on the other side from swinging bats at him, he picks up his own bat and swings back!

[Karmadillo]

34. Are Super PACs still a threat to democracy?

[SidDithers]

39. Why are you responding to yourself?...nt

Sid

[Karmadillo]

45. Why are you responding to me?

[Dragonfli]

62. No, they are a great Democratic weapon now! They are good now, Obama said so.

Everything with this party is a 180 to whatever the fuck the Republicans did last year, that is why each year the corporations consolidate more power and we appear to lose more rights.

[ShadowLiberal]

36. Complete balony, Obama had to adapt to the new political reality

GOP Super PACs have already pleged to spend at least $300 million dollars to defeat Obama. Obama is accepting a political reality, playing by the new rules under the system, rather than get overrun by a flood of Super PAC money from his opponents.

The fact that most of the media refuses to report this basic fact is driving me crazy.

[rudycantfail]

44. The devil made me do it.

[boxman15]

41. Reich is wrong here.

"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."

I can guarantee this would not have happened. The average American does not give a rat's ass about politics, let alone campaign finance. Nobody would rally to Obama for rejecting a super PAC. Those who were going to give to Obama still will.

Obama would get blown out of the water without one, and Citizens United would be set in stone for at least a generation.

[rudycantfail]

47. It's just too difficult a task

for someone like Obama to make the connection between the unlimited corporate cash takeover of our government and what the future of America will look like.

"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."

[URL=][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Mr. President, use your army.

[Swede]

48. Reich wants Obama to prove a point,but lose an election?

No thanks.

[Dragonfli]

49. Will he get a LOGO jacket from pack supporters like in NASCAR?

That way we will know what he will sign before the bills come up, If the banking patch is the biggest one on the jacket, they will sure as hell not have to worry about President Obama's Justice Dept. for instance.

The real fight now is between corporations, Exxon for president or Goldman Sachs?

This is what you really all want here on this board?
This is a Good thing?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. This strikes me as faith-based rather than evidence-based.

Politicians of all stripes always promise to "take back the government"; since the phrase doesn't actually mean anything, it doesn't produce all that much support.

[mmonk]

57. How dare he

speak the truth? The everybody does it syndrome makes it harder to get rid of. They "have to" take super pac money will always be the thinking.

[renie408]

59. What good does it do to stand on principle when the other guy is standing on...

the Koch brothers wallet?

[MadHound]

60. Reich is right,

And as we see, the consolidation of government power continues under our two party/same corporate master system of government.

[KharmaTrain]

63. Vox Populi...The "People" Don't Mind The Money...

How often do people discuss campaign finance reform in a serious vein? The last time in my memory was in 1975 in the fallout of Watergate and that was just a speedbump on a superhighway of elections ruled by money. Not only don't the candidates want to disarm (and I'd bet Mr. Reich, no matter how I respect his principals and expertise, would take any and all money if it was his career/office on the line or be another Feingold...retired) the electorate appears not to either. Most times the candidate who spends the most...floods the "public" airwaves the most wins. Over the years campaigning has gone from touting your own candidate's strengths to a battle of attrition to destroy your opponent in as many 30 second bites as you can. This is the political status quo 2012 and other than those of us on this side of the political sandbox a vast majority of Americans either could care less about Citizens United or favored it. We are where we are...not where Mr. Reich wishes we were and as long as people don't care how much money is thrown into elections by rewarding those who spend the most with power we'll see even more money on the line in the future.

[kentuck]

64. In his heart, he believes in the power of money

over people and ideas.

[FSogol]

66. Unrec. You want Obama to enter the race with one leg tied behind his back?

How many times are you guys going to post this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002287491#
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002286937

Copy and Paste!
Copy and Paste!