iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Priorities USA, Outside Fundraising Group, Launched By Democrats

Priorities Usa

BETH FOUHY   04/29/11 04:22 PM ET   AP

NEW YORK — Democratic strategists close to President Barack Obama have launched an outside fundraising group to support his re-election, financed in part by the kind of large, undisclosed contributions the president has criticized.

Former White House aides Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney said Friday that the group, called Priorities USA, will battle the "extremist, right-wing" efforts of Republican-leaning independent groups who spent millions to defeat Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. The group's goal is to raise $100 million for what is certain to be the most expensive election in history.

American Crossroads, founded by former President George W. Bush political adviser Karl Rove, and Americans For Prosperity, founded by billionaire oil brothers David and Charles Koch, spent heavily in last year's elections and have pledged to invest millions in 2012 to defeat Obama.

After the Supreme Court cleared the way last year for independent groups to raise and spend money to influence elections, many Democrats, including Obama, spoke out against such practices, suggesting it allowed large special interests to hijack the electoral process. But in an interview, Burton said Democrats could no longer stand by and allow GOP-leaning groups to hold an unfair advantage.

"It has everything to do with Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers. As long as they play by one set of rules, we're not going to be boxed in by a double standard," Burton said.

The group is expected to produce and air television ads that could begin airing as early as the coming weeks. Geoff Garin, a leading Democratic pollster who was a senior strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008, will help with survey research.

The group has received promises of fundraising help from prominent Democrats, including Ellen Malcolm, the founder of EMILY'S List which supports female candidates who back abortion rights. The Service Employees International Union and Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg also have pledged to contribute but Burton declined to say how much they would give.

Priorities USA will operate two funds: one that can work full time to influence elections and must disclose all its donors, and another focused on both issue advocacy and political activity that can keep its contributors secret.

Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, said Priorities USA was evidence of the president's "brazen hypocrisy."

"Obama, in encouraging his own operatives to start groups exactly like the ones he demagogued last year, shows how cynical this president can be when it comes to perpetuating his own power," Collegio said in a statement. He also distributed comments Obama made at a fundraising event in Philadelphia last fall in which the president said, "the American people deserve to know who's trying to sway their elections."

Priorities USA is one of several Democratic fundraising groups being created for the 2012 campaign in addition to the $1 billion Obama is expected to raise for his re-election. Democratic officials confirmed Friday that Matthew Barzun, a media executive and 2008 Obama campaign bundler now serving as ambassador to Sweden, would be Obama's 2012 campaign finance chairman.

Others Democratic groups include PACs aimed specifically at raising money for House and Senate races; Protect Your Care, promoting the new Obama-backed health care law; and an umbrella group called American Bridge that will help all the Democratic groups with opposition research. None is legally allowed to coordinate with any individual candidate or party campaign committee.

Asked Friday about Priorities USA, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said "these are not people working for our administration" and the White House cannot control the activity of outside groups.

"The president's position on disclosure remains the same," Carney said.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
NEW YORK — Democratic strategists close to President Barack Obama have launched an outside fundraising group to support his re-election, financed in part by the kind of large, undisclosed contri...
NEW YORK — Democratic strategists close to President Barack Obama have launched an outside fundraising group to support his re-election, financed in part by the kind of large, undisclosed contri...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,949
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (52 total)
01:41 PM on 05/03/2011
Why does a story about Dems forming a fundraising group have a picture of Bush's brain??? Couldn't we have a pleasant picture instead of one that causes dryheaves???
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MalleusMaleficarum
Global nomad.
12:36 PM on 05/01/2011
What a relief! Imagine going into another election cycle while Republicans outspend Democrats by $1 or 2 billion. The White House would turn red, the Senate would be Republican and the House would be Republican red wall-to-wall.
12:31 PM on 05/01/2011
It's naive to NOT have this kind of organization. Nothing hypocritical about it. Until there's a way to put a stop to it, we need to man up and get our organizations running.
gclafontaine
Sand is a small price to pay for sandlessness.
12:09 PM on 05/01/2011
If the Democrats just take the high road on this one, they will be buried. The problem here is the Supreme Court's decision. Until it is reversed, fighting dirty is the only way.
nothingchanges
too soon old, too late smart
10:55 AM on 05/01/2011
To a large extent the American people deserve the greatest part of the blame. We have been so conditioned to advertising, that we "buy" whatever is sold most effectively to us. We vote based on the latest (or most) television commercials just before the polls.

An honest government shouldn't need millions or billions of dollars to finance an election.

I see no reason why congress can't put a cap on campaign spending. but they won't. As long as they think they personally will benefit (raise the most money) then money becomes the constituency of choice, and the rest of us are only sheep to be herded into taking actions that we've been "trained" to do.

Politicians are people first, and public servants (can't believe I wrote that) a distant second. They work for those that pay them the most, and that ain't us.

"We have the best government money can buy". Too bad only 1% of us can afford a bidders card.
photo
cheo
better a bleeding heart than none at all
05:53 AM on 05/01/2011
"Obama [...] shows how cynical [he] can be when it comes to perpetuating his own power" [Collegio] also distributed comments Obama made at a fundraising event in Philadelphia last fall in which the president said, "the American people deserve to know who's trying to sway their elections.""

Could the Rightwing be any more hypocritical?
Of course the American people deserve to know. But apparently the only party which is going to held to that standard is the Democratic Party.

The Republicans on the other hand can raise all kinds of money and not disclose where it came from. Why? because they never SAID they wouldn't???

If you Repugs have a problem with us playing in the same game you are, go talk to your 5 favorite guys on SCOTUS and shaddup.
07:15 AM on 05/01/2011
What's so funny about your post is that you actually think Citizens United has anything to do with the ability to create these groups. FAIL
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Safire
Fired Up for Hillary 2016!
02:32 PM on 05/01/2011
What's funny about your post is that you would have us believe they do not!

Your posting FAIL just demonstrates that you thought you had an uneven playing field going into 2012, and now you do not!

You guys have always counted on the weakness of the Dems. Oh well, wrong again!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalDemIda
Pragmatic Progressive, Democrat
01:16 AM on 05/01/2011
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. This is now the law of the land, thanks to Bush's pro-corporate "justices" who enjoy lifetime seats on the highest court of the land.

Well, if this is what they want, this is what they'll get.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
10:00 AM on 05/01/2011
Great, but I am sure you will agree, obama can no longer whine and sob about such groups.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalDemIda
Pragmatic Progressive, Democrat
12:38 PM on 05/01/2011
Why? You don't believe he's entitled to his 1st Amendment rights, then?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Safire
Fired Up for Hillary 2016!
02:36 PM on 05/01/2011
He already said what he had to say. Accepted the reality, and moved on. I don't recall a stutter.

And even if he chose to speak on it again... So? You guys are the biggest whiners and babies, who are constantly screaming for someone to redress some ill and resign, while you stay put, after your many infractions. So yes, great! I agree.
11:17 PM on 04/30/2011
Obama's hypocrisy is staggering. Two weeks ago Obama issued a signing statement declaring that he will ignore the provisions of a bill he signed defunding some of his czars even though in in 2008 campaign he condemned Bush for issuing signing statements. Obama specifically stated they were not part of his executive powers, that they were unconstitutional (and he knew this because he "taught the Constitution for 10 years"), and promising that he was going to obey the Constitution and not use signing statements "as an end run around Congress."

Now he's stated his intention to accept campaign donations funneled through fundraising groups (Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action) that can legally have secret corporate donors even though he unequivocally condemned this practice by the GOP, identifying it as a threat to democracy. It's really unbelievable how cavalierly Obama chooses political expediency over his purported principles every time. And all of the spinning about "pragmatism" is hot air. This is not about "bringing a gun to a gun fight" because Citizens United makes it perfectly legal for Obama to take advantage of the corporate money too. He can bring the "gun" of corporate money to his campaign just as the GOP will. The real issue is TRANSPARENCY and disclosing where the money came from. Given Obama's record on transparency he clearly wants to keep the special interests backing him a secret as well. He's just pretending the GOP forced him into it. Just more lies & hypocrisy as usual.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bataan
11:57 PM on 04/30/2011
Wasp35,
Think of it like fighting a forest fire. Sometimes the fire fighters have to start fires to burn out the underbrush in order to control the main conflagration. No fire fighter wants to start fires but occasionally it required. This is what the Democrats are doing now...setting back blazes to control the money conflagration started Republican "pyromaniacs."
12:47 AM on 05/01/2011
Your analogy just proves you don't understand the issue at all. You (and most of the commenters on this thread) are erroneously assuming that this is about whether Obama does or does not accept hundreds of millions in donations from corporations pursuant to the Citizens United ruling. The fact that Obama and the Democratic Party will raise and spend hundreds of millions in corporate dollars has NEVER been in dispute, nor has the GOP ever criticized Obama raising/spending whatever he wants as long as it's legal. In the 2008 election cycle, Obama raised $770 million, dwarfing McCain's $322 million. Obama received MORE money from corporations than McCain and outspent him by at least $150 million. Obama is expected to raise/spend even more in 2012.

The issue is TRANSPARENCY and DISCLOSURE. Citizens United has opened the door for corporate donations to pass through fundraising organizations that don't have a legal obligation to disclose the identity of the donors. Obama unequivocally condemned the GOP for this practice, calling it a threat to democracy--not because the money came from corporations (he received MORE from corporations himself!), but because the donors could legally be kept SECRET. That's the issue. If Obama cared about transparency, he could accept the money AND disclose the source for every penny. He will not. He plans to take the money, keep HIS corporate backers secret (legal under Citizens United), but condemn the GOP for doing exactly the same thing. It's unbelievably hypocritical.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalDemIda
Pragmatic Progressive, Democrat
01:47 AM on 05/01/2011
You're replying to a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. It's upset the Democrats are fighting fire with fire because that takes away the GOP's advantage, Bataan.
photo
cheo
better a bleeding heart than none at all
05:57 AM on 05/01/2011
OK, Wasp. Let's play Monopoly. We set up the board, choose our pieces, roll the dice and play. I get the money. You don't get any.

How's the game going for you so far?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalDemIda
Pragmatic Progressive, Democrat
12:29 PM on 05/01/2011
Become a fan (317)
Unfan (317)
6 hours ago (6:05 AM)
Liberaldem­ida. Gold stars for a heroic effort; but you really are wasting your typing fingers.

F&F for an effing fine try.
==============================================

I know. But when tr0//s come here and attempt to delegitimize our President posing as "an ex supporter" (when we know they're NOT), and then to hold Pres. Obama to a higher standard than they do the GOP (poll taxing, like the Birthers/Afterbirthers constantly do by demanding he produce his LONG FORM BC), this gets my hackles up.

Thanks for support, and I'm happy I'm not the only one who sees WASP for what s/he really is.
11:17 PM on 04/30/2011
It is not hypocrisy. It is leveling the playing field.
12:01 AM on 05/01/2011
Anyone characterizing this as "leveling the playing field" is just exposing that they don't even understand what the issue is. This is not about the GOP outspending the Democrats in the 2012 election. The Democrats will most certainly outspend the GOP just as they did in 2008 (Obama received more corporate money than McCain, btw). The issue is TRANSPARENCY and DISCLOSURE.

The Citizens United ruling has opened the door for corporate donations to pass through fundraising organizations that don't have a legal obligation to disclose the identity of the donors. Obama unequivocally condemned the GOP for this practice, calling it a threat to democracy--not because the money came from corporations (he received MORE from corporations himself!), but because the corporate donors could legally be kept SECRET. That's the issue. If Obama cared about transparency and corporate influence in politics, he could accept the money AND disclose the source for every penny. He will not. He plans to take the money, keep HIS corporate backers secret (legal under Citizens United), but condemn the GOP for doing exactly the same thing. He'll accuse the GOP of being backed by "sinister" "shadowy" groups but call his own lack of transparency "just playing by the rules." It is an unbelievably hypocritical position to take, but that's Obama's specialty.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
LiberalDemIda
Pragmatic Progressive, Democrat
01:23 AM on 05/01/2011
Sorry. But with a moniker as WASP, you're not going to convince anyone your outrage has anything to do with transparency.

Next time, think before you choose your next moniker. Then you can post your faux outraged comments without people thinking you're against a black man for President.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
demsrsilly
Proud supporter of workplace freedom.
10:01 AM on 05/01/2011
Sorry, screaming about signing statements and then using them once he was POTUS, IS hypocritical.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:18 PM on 04/30/2011
thank the Republican activist on the supreme court lead by John Roberts, the gloves is off we will meet the REPULSICANS in the Gutter where they reside, and beat them into upward mobility and class..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
osofar
America once was exceptional, and could be again,
08:47 PM on 04/30/2011
What next, Obama picking Karl Rove as a campaign manager? Anything is possible for reelection!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rakimfan
10:54 PM on 04/30/2011
Imagine where American corporations would be had they not copied the management practices at GE under Drucker. You don't even have a candidate that could win and Karl can't save you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
osofar
America once was exceptional, and could be again,
08:45 PM on 04/30/2011
Not a day goes by without Obama doing an about face on his campaign promises. On group views him as a god, another group says you must hold your nose and vote for him because the Repubs are worse, and the people have no advocates for them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rakimfan
10:56 PM on 04/30/2011
Another fool! Please identify a Republican candidate with a clear concise strategy on how to get out of this mess the last Republican got us into.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
osofar
America once was exceptional, and could be again,
08:46 PM on 05/01/2011
Read my post again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
osofar
America once was exceptional, and could be again,
08:43 PM on 04/30/2011
Two political parties...striving to please their rich masters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tommy b
08:39 PM on 04/30/2011
Typical response from Rep If its OK for them Its not Ok for Dems Thats the real hypocrisy If it is now been authorized by the supreme court why should the dems not use everything available.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:27 PM on 04/30/2011
Of course it is brazen hypocrisy. The Progressives only true values are that which will get and hold power. If they thought that being pro-life would help them get and keep power, they would be all over it like white on rice.
photo
wonketteRAWKS
Hypocrisy is prevalent in BOTH parties!
08:26 PM on 04/30/2011
Agree with you to a point. There are some Progressives who side with Feingold on this matter. The only Progressives who don't are actually obots.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
interestedinthis
10:42 PM on 04/30/2011
This shows an utter lack of understanding about what progressive values are, as well as an inability to discern the difference in the two party affiliations. Progressives are all about power in the hands of the people, most importantly including the middle to lower classes. Conservatives favor a power elite who enriches itself off the milking of everyone below the upper class, where the end justifies the means (the means being heavily vested in deception and manipulation).
11:19 PM on 04/30/2011
This shows an utter lack of understanding about what conservative values are.