President Obama's Super PAC Flip-Flop (VIDEO)

President Barack Obama's campaign has decided to fight fire with fire -- a decision that may just burn a hole in our democracy. Ask the president himself.

Obama, an immediate critic of the Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision that allows a sea of corporate and special interest money in political campaigns, toured the nation in 2010, warning Americans about the dangers that unfettered cash donations posed to discourse and representative government. At the time, Republicans were taking in the vast majority of the money, primarily through super PACs, which could support individual candidates.

Fast-forward to earlier this month, and Obama is now encouraging his own supporters to donate to a super PAC that supports his re-election. It's a major reversal, and given his GOP rivals' huge super PAC fundraising, perhaps an obvious one for someone seeking an even playing field. But it also represents something beyond a flip-flop. It sanctions special interest influence at the highest levels of government.

Neither Obama and his wife Michelle, nor Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill, will attend the super PAC fundraising events, but campaign staff and some cabinet members will.

Watch the video above as Obama rails against the campaign finance system -- and then abruptly changes course when it comes time for re-election.

CORRECTION: This video has been updated to correct the dates of two video clips.

Comments

[artyman72]

03:18 PM on 02/24/2012

This flip flop is just another example of Obama's incompetence and hypocrisy. The Dems had their days with bashing Bush and now they embrace a guy that, unless he has a teleprompter in front of him, can't put two cogent thoughts together. Is anyone truly surpised that a classic politican (i.e snake oil salesman) would take the Pac money and run, EVEN after wagging his finger at the Supreme Court for foolishly allowing Citizen's United? For more Obama gems check this out.....this guy makes George Bush look like Einstein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X2dM&feature=related

[Hunter Stuart]

11:48 AM on 02/24/2012

Lot of people have been saying "you can't bring a knife to a gun fight," and I think there is something to be said for that argument. However, it is our job--not just the job of journalists, but of citizens of this country--to hold our politicians accountable for their words and their actions.

The thing with this was, he so passionately and forcefully spoke out against the Super PACs and then explicitly reneged on that. So regardless of whether he 'needs' the money or not, there needs to be a conversation about how his words differ from his actions. Especially with a president like Obama, whose eloquent words captivated an entire generation, got lifelong Republicans to vote for him, etc etc. Beware the power of poetry!!

[maggiemi56]

12:05 PM on 02/24/2012

Well said...
F&F

[artyman72]

03:20 PM on 02/24/2012

Good God.......some logic on the boards........thank you.

[stumanchu35]

10:12 AM on 02/24/2012

High gas prices will sink obama.

[TEDDY LJ]

08:55 PM on 02/25/2012

Did he raise the price of gasoline. Man, this guy is powerful. Everyone knows he has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. He has no control. Gas prices will not hurt him at all.

[korbendal]

10:10 AM on 02/24/2012

guys.. I'm not a millionaire.. and I wish I had the $100 million that Sheldon guy wants to donate to Newt's SuperPAC..
I'm just a member of the middle-class, who like many who are still lucky to have a job in this economy, does his best to get whatever he can out of whatever remained of the American "Dream"...
I'm donating today to Obama's SuperPAC, because I want our country to lead the world by example and serve as a model for everyone else, instead of the other way around... instead of going back to the Middle/Dark Ages... The direction we are going now is NOT what our forefathers intended..
at least Ron Paul is "consistent", but unfortunately he'll never get the Republican nomination.. So unless he runs as 3rd party.. he's a lost cause...
With half of our country full of radicalized, blind followers, there's still a risk that Obama could lose, and we can't afford to allow that to happen...
Could anyone imagine a President Santorum??
Could anyone imagine another Republican president in the White House, who'll destroy our country for 4 more years, so we'll have another Democratic President to clean up the mess he left behind in 2016, and start this ridiculous process all over again?
Our country MUST move forward with civility, technologically, and intellectually..

[artyman72]

03:21 PM on 02/24/2012

No way Jose......liberals will be the death of this country as we have known it. here is a shining example of what I am talking about:

maxine waters admits to socialism

[3x]

01:17 PM on 02/25/2012

Wow, Maxine Waters. One out of 435. We're doomed.

[artyman72]

03:22 PM on 02/24/2012

Trying again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY

[mNypav]

09:42 AM on 02/24/2012

This isn't the first time Obama has flip flopped on campaign finance. No one cared back then, no one cares now

[artyman72]

03:26 PM on 02/24/2012

That is exactly what he is counting on......an electorate that is both apathetic and ignorant. Which is why his base will just breeze on past this.

[TEDDY LJ]

09:00 PM on 02/25/2012

The repubs has no advandage now. This is what they was hoping for Obama not to accept money from the PACS. You has to flip flop away comfronting these guys or get crashed. This will not be his last flip flop.

[dr ransom]

08:36 AM on 02/24/2012

I don't know what people expected him to do. This was a troubling decision, but a necessary one if we want any chance for the law's removal. Republicans would never do it.

Once again; sad, but necessary.

[artyman72]

03:26 PM on 02/24/2012

Please explain how Obama's taking money will potentially remove this law.

[TEDDY LJ]

09:06 PM on 02/25/2012

I will explain to you. You see, he will use the money to get re-elected. Done, the rest will go to the DNC to help get the Tbags out. Done, full control in the HOUSE and SENATE. A all Democrate Congress will crash this law. Oh, its going to look good in 2012. Its going to be a lot of people crying but AMERICA will be enjoying the changes thats going to be made. I love America, vote out the teapubs folk..

[KCY]

06:47 PM on 02/24/2012

After people see this election with the super pacs envolvement, no one will want to do away with them. There are a lot of Senators, Governors ect with the thought of someday running for president or some other elected position and they will want to use this same method. The time to do away with this was before anyone saw it in action. It's too late now

[3x]

11:04 AM on 02/25/2012

Yes, everyone will see that the world doesn't collapse into a smoking heap like all the posters on HuffPo are saying.

Speech is never bad for democracy.

[Grissom1001]

08:34 AM on 02/24/2012

Fight fire with fire. When it became legal regardless? He had the right to take advantage of it as his competition did. To NOT do so? would be utter stupidity.

[abby4ever]

09:50 AM on 02/24/2012

No.  To not have done so would have been what is called principled.  Haven't you ever heard of something being legal but not ethical?  Or legal but not wise?  Given the stand the president took on it,  it could be argued that it was unprincipled of him to take advantage of its legality.

[3x]

11:05 AM on 02/25/2012

It's perfectly ethical to express an opinion about a politician, and to buy ads to broadcast those opinions, and to acknowledge that.

[artyman72]

03:28 PM on 02/24/2012

Whoa........don't let the Occupy crowd see this post. Their heads will explode. After all, they are going after all the rich folks and Wall Street for exercising the LEGAL tax laws on the books. They spout some ridiculous claim about integrity and principle.

Go figure huh?

[AJ in ATL]

08:29 AM on 02/24/2012

I think Obama was left with little to no choice on this thanks to the morrons on the SCOTUS who allowed this to happen. Money will and is ruining our political system and until we have laws that levels the field a politician will have to play the game that they are given to play.

[artyman72]

03:29 PM on 02/24/2012

So at least we now know that Obama, you, and the rest of the minions that follow him are ok with hypocrisy and lack of principles AS LONG as it benefits your side?

[3x]

09:42 AM on 02/27/2012

Not me. I see nothing wrong with Super PACs or any other free speech, by anyone. I'm glad Obama is doing this - maybe now people will wake up and see there's nothing wrong with it.

[SnapShot11258]

08:25 AM on 02/24/2012

He didn't reverse a previous decision did he??? Imagine that... this man never lies.... (yea, right)

[Mydian01]

08:28 AM on 02/24/2012

u mad?

[Grissom1001]

08:35 AM on 02/24/2012

Lies? LOL Grow a brain. Once it became legal? why would he NOT use it?

[artyman72]

03:30 PM on 02/24/2012

Pathetic....truly pathetic

[TOCB]

08:13 AM on 02/24/2012

OT: I have to take issue with Obama's claim that there is no silver bullet to reduce gasoline prices. The biggest reason prices fluctuate like they do is Wall Street speculation. Candidate Obama even said so in his 2008 presidential campaign. What the SEC could do is outlaw speculation in oil and gas and let supply and demand determine the price. If Iran stop selling to France and Britian and these countries have to go someplace else to purchase oil that would effect supply and demand, EXCEPT, as in most suppy disruptions, Saudia Arabia steps up and promises to cover the shortage. Problem solved. No supply disruption, ie no reason for price increase. BTW in spite of Republican claims that Obama is being an obstacle to domestic drilling, the facts are we are producing more domestic hydrocarbons in the Obama administration than any year of the Bush administration.

[artyman72]

03:31 PM on 02/24/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY

This may answer some questions for you.........this is the liberals at work.

[TOCB]

04:14 PM on 02/24/2012

That doesn't make sense even to Maxine Waters. The government doesn't have to will or the know how to run most companies.

[Too Handsome]

08:08 AM on 02/24/2012

Great picture on the main page HP. The two faces of Obama....PRICELESS!!

[kcin]

07:54 AM on 02/24/2012

The article said, "President Barack Obama's campaign has decided to fight fire with fire -- a decision that may just burn a hole in our democracy. "

Seems like the responsibility for burning a hole in our democracy belongs with the Supreme Court, who overturned 100 years of case law to make this happen.

So Obama has two choices. Rollover and become a victim of the new rules, or to play by the same set of rules as his opponents.

I say you fight fire with fire.

[artyman72]

03:31 PM on 02/24/2012

And we say hypocrite.........

[3x]

11:07 AM on 02/25/2012

"who overturned 100 years of case law to make this happen."

Totally false.

The limits on donations from 100 years ago are all still in place. The law that Citizen's United overturned was from 2003, and it was a blatant violation of freedom of speech that had nothing to do with campaign finance.

[kcin]

11:54 AM on 02/26/2012

You are either uninformed, or are intentionally trying to obscure the effect of Citizen's United.

Yes, Citizen's United overturned a 2003 law on campaign restrictions.

But the effect of this ruling also changed case law established by:

- Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990).

- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977).

- Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534 (1934).

- and perhaps others

This effect of this ruling was to impact our existing campaign finance laws. By ruling that corporations were indistinguishable from people and their political expenditures were protected by the First Amendment, it opened the door to create corporations solely for this purpose.

In short, Super PACs could not exist prior to this ruling. THAT was the bigger deal about this ruling.

THAT is also the established case law that our Republican dominated activist Supreme Court overturned.

[kcin]

02:06 PM on 02/28/2012

Your last post said, "The other cases you say were overturned aren't really relevant to this discussion."

Then you have forgotten your own post. My original post said, "the Supreme Court, who overturned 100 years of case law to make this happen." You challenged this and I gave you a partial list of cases impacted by the ruling. Now you are saying it's irrelevant.

You most recently said, "But so what? The larger point, which is what everyone else here is discussing, it the issue of independent expenditures."

Then maybe you need to respond to those posts, not mine.

You went on to say, "The claims that CU overturned 100 years of law or washed away all donation limits is false. It's a wild overstatement designed to appeal to emotion."

Your thought process is more than self-serving. The article I responded said that Obama's decision "may burn a hole in our democracy" (obviously designed to appeal to emotion).

My original post took issue with this malicious appeal to emotion. I said the responsibility belonged to the Supreme Court and its Citizens United ruling, not Obama's decision to play by the same rules as his opposition.

So, apparently you find claims that Obama is burning a hole in our democracy to be fair and balanced, but any claim that Citizens United created a fundamental change in our campaign financing is just "a wild overstatement designed to appeal to emotion."

Take a hike.

[returnofthejedi]

07:28 AM on 02/24/2012

For Realz Obama is not a perfect Man. Which one of us are? However the Public has been given both views and neither is exactly what the people want. There is no denying that one is far better than the other. It seems that you think that since Obama didn't wave a magic wand that we all should run right back to the snakes that sabotaged the economy to begin with. That is the very definition of being regressive. As the song says, YOU can't always get what you want. I'll take what I can get!

[torii]

07:54 AM on 02/24/2012

Surely you have looked at Obama's record, haven't you? What has been accomplished? He blames everyone for his shortcomings. He tries desperately to blame Bush but the fact remains that the Dems controlled the House and the Senate during the last two years of the Bush administration--so how much can you blame the Republicans? dunno--but at least as the song you referenced should spark your brain--we can't accept what we get--Obama sat in a classroom and then worked as a community organizer- this country deserves an experienced leader and this postion is far above Obama's pay grade.

[Snarkadelic]

08:56 AM on 02/24/2012

Pelosi and Reid gave Bush everything he wanted. And what Bush couldn't get from them, he overstepped them with signing statements. You sound like another one that FOX uses as a to!let to dump their cr@p in.

[chasjones]

10:34 AM on 02/24/2012

General Motors is the #1 auto mfr in the world, Osama bin Laden is dead, unemployment down 0.9% from Jan 2009 (when he took office). Yeah, I know his record, it is you who refuses to give credit to him. Of course you know HR Bill #1 for the current congress, given the state of the union in Jan 2009, was an anti-abortion bill, not an economic/jobs bill. We know that repugnicans want to dictate our private lives more than they care about the nation. That is the danger, that your social agenda is more important than the HEALTH of the country. I guess after abortion and birth control are outlawed you might get around to creating a few jobs, but supply side economics have already been demonstrated to NOT work. (Do you know Reagan RAISED taxes 7 out of 8 years of his presidency?)

[abby4ever]

08:54 AM on 02/24/2012

jedi:  I'm a fan of yours and it's because I am that your post disappoints me.  On your Nobody Is Perfect argument, we'd have to excuse not only everything the president might do from here on out that seems a little shady,  we'd have to excuse everything shady that the Repubs might do from here on out.  Your argument is too broad: it covers the human race!  (You could fix this by saying the Repubs aren't human, but....LOL.)  

Secondly,  your dragging in who is to initially blame for the economy, is a red herring.  This isn't about the economy or who got it into the state it's in. It's about a president suddenly deciding, when he needs money, that a way to get it that he once strongly criticized,  is ok after all.   Had he done this flip-flop at a time when money is not an issue, we wouldn't be discussing this because there would even be an article here.  

You have to answer the charge, and the charge, not stated formally but swimming this way and that all through the article, is that this president has gone back on his previous strong objection to superPAC funding, for mercenary reasons. 

Lastly, it is most definitely not about this: "...the Public has been given both views and neither is exactly what the people want."  What has that got to do with it?  It's not about which way is best or most popular, any more than it's about who ditched the economy.

Let's be honest: this is not his best moment.  

abby

[JTCan]

09:30 AM on 02/24/2012

Millions are already flooding into the GOP pacs by a very few billionaires. Do you think that will stop when they have finally decided on ONE? All their billions will be combined to fight the President they hate. President Obama had no choice but to do this if there is to be a even close to a level field. At least he explains his reasons after careful thought unlike the compulsive flip-floppers he is running against.

[TKI]

06:18 AM on 02/24/2012

Flip-flop would be if you had said you would not use super PAC...sorry to disappoint you folks, but the President's stance has not changed.

[For Realz]

04:01 AM on 02/24/2012

Powerful Republican Politicians, Big Oil, Wall Street, Banks, The Fed, Democrats,
All want Obama reelected. Obama has given more money and power to them all by his signings. NDAA 2012 (Expanding the patriot act in power and permance) is something the Republicans would not have been able to get by the people. But Obama did. Big oil making record profits selling the American people's property (oil, gasoline and desiel) to the global highest bidder as our deliveries to stations are bottlenecked and competeing with the highest bidders. The Fed remains unmonitored and owned by the largest banks where trillions (over 16 trillion in the bailout) were back door funneled to Wall Street and Banks. All positioning for the downfall of Europe's EZ deflating the euro, artifically inflating the dollar. We are looking at a windfall of profits for the top, to be paid for on the backs of the American workers. Over 49.5% of the nation is on some type of Govt assistance (highest in our history), and that is advantageous for Obama, because they will vote for their best interest. The Republican Establishment has backed off and disuaded Quality Repbulican Candidates from running, so that no matter how bad the optics and reality of the nation financially, Obama will win. He does more for the Republicans then they could have ever done for themselves, and the progressives/liberals will stay quiet as he reduces the peoples power and civil rights.

[For Realz]

04:35 AM on 02/24/2012

And isn't Obama proposing to cut the corporate tax for US corporations from 35% to 28% as the Paul Ryan, and republican candidates economic plans propose?
Will he shut down the loopholes that Romney proposes too, in this cut?
Will he take more Republican ideas to strengthen our economy? It would be wise. When the EZ downgrades the US will be the most attractive place for commerce and business if we structure just RIGHT. Obama's right moves will help him be re-elected with ease.... like Clinton's step right for his second term.

[Snarkadelic]

09:00 AM on 02/24/2012

Actually, they're ALL controlled by 2ion1st extremist pup.pet masters, on both sides of the aisle.

[torii]

08:00 AM on 02/24/2012

WOW!!! Super Post!