The Sad Spectacle of Obama's Super PAC

It has been said there is no high ground in American politics since any politician who claims it is likely to be gunned down by those firing from the trenches. That's how the Obama team justifies its decision to endorse a super PAC that can raise and spend unlimited sums for his campaign.

Baloney. Good ends don't justify corrupt means.

I understand the White House's concerns. Obama is a proven fundraiser -- he cobbled together an unprecedented $745 million for the 2008 election and has already raised $224 million for this one. But his aides figure Romney can raise almost as much, and they fear an additional $500 million or more will be funneled to Romney by a relative handful of rich individuals and corporations through right-wing super PACS like "American Crossroads."

The White House was surprised that super PACs outspent the GOP candidates themselves in several of the early primary contests, and noted how easily Romney's super PAC delivered Florida to him and pushed Newt Gingrich from first-place to fourth-place in Iowa.

Romney's friends on Wall Street and in the executive suites of the nation's biggest corporations have the deepest pockets in America. His super PAC got $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of last year, including million-dollar checks from hedge-fund moguls, industrialists and bankers.

How many billionaires does it take to buy a presidential election? "With so much at stake" wrote Obama campaign manager Jim Messina on the Obama campaign's blog, Obama couldn't "unilaterally disarm."

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.

One Obama adviser says Obama's decision to openly endorse his super PAC has had an immediate effect. "Our donors get it," the official said, adding that they now want to "go fight the other side."

Exactly. So now a relative handful of super-rich Democrats want to fight a relative handful of super-rich Republicans. And we call this a democracy.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

 

 

 

Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich

Comments

[Leighton Brady]

04:08 PM on 02/17/2012

He's right. And call me naive, or crazy, but he's the POTUS now- isn't his bully pulpit enough? This is the way things go. Money talks.

[chgotchr]

09:56 PM on 02/12/2012

I think that the decision that Obama made regarding the super PAC makes sense. I'm sorry, but being high minded and losing is in fact. . . losing. I don't want Obama to lose. I have problems with some of his policies (mostly having to do with education), but I would rather have Obama than a republican. If it takes a super PAC to get Obama reelected then we need the super PAC.

[Shelby596]

01:29 PM on 02/12/2012

First of all, Robert, OBAMA'S Super Pac?? OBAMA'S?? I don't know what kind of utopian wonderworld YOU live in, but Obama lives in the REAL world. HE didn't create Super Pacs, HE didn't make is the law of the land in Citizens United, the SCOTUS did and you want him to sit back and let Romney and his billionaire friends buy the election. In case you haven't heard, we are still in a down economy. I know I don't have the money to donate that I did in 2008. You would have Obama bring a pocket knife to a machine gun fight, which is just plain ST.UPID. Get over yourself and stand behind Obama, who knows all of this is wrong, he's just not an id.iot.

[journalisk]

01:09 PM on 02/12/2012

This IS the call to arms to small donors, since we ARE aware of the Citizen's United decision allowing Romney's rich friends to funnel money into his Superpac, this IS our "democratic" chance, the chance of the people to give money to the President's SuperPac. In ancient Athens, the Greeks refused to have elections, because they thought the richest person, or the one with the most famous name, would win. Then again, they just nominated a dictator whenever they had a time of need. I read that President Obama refused the campaign finance reform money because it sets a cap on the amount you're allowed to recieve, and he knew that he could raise more (and in fact, as you said, raised $745 million). Moreover, President Obama did speak out against the Citizen's United decision, and you can watch it yourself here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/26/president-obama-citizens-united-imagine-power-will-give-special-interests-over-polit ).

[nonethewyzzer]

06:51 AM on 02/11/2012

Every time I see an article about the President using SuperPac money, I think of that old Chinese proverb.

"Be careful what you wish for."

Republicans wanted SuperPAC's. They shoved Citizen's United down our throats. They got what they wanted. Now they're stuck with the consequences of their law being used in the fight against them. Deal with it.

If Democrats really desire for Barack Obama to stay in the White House for an additional four years, they should be glad that he's willing to use whatever legal means possible to do so. He's fighting for you! He's using legal means to give you what you want.

Get behind him. Please. Otherwise, we'll be stuck with Citizen's United and SuperPAC's forever.

[Delroy Brown]

03:49 AM on 02/11/2012

It's sad, but unless Obama endorses the use of Super Pac to fund his reelection bid, he stands absolutely no chance to be reelected. How could he respond to Fox News Propaganda who will be spreading more disinformation than the candidates themselves. Its hard to be elected without cash. You cant just leave it up to the American people to vet and fact check each candidate. Most are too busy and rely on the 30 secs soundbites when making a decision. It used to be the job of the media, who in days gone by would take a candidate to task for misrepresentation of facts and positions on issues. If people vote based experience and qualification John Huntsman would be the Republican nominee but he has already dropped out. Its all about big money . Romney leads the republican field even though he is not favored by his base by outspending them 5 to 1. The ruse of the GOP candidates is to run on cultural and religious issues. They don't believe or live by any of the creeds they espouse. When it comes to moral issues the religious fanatics always vote against their best interest. We do not have a Theocracy like they do in Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. But listening to the GOP candidates , its hard to tel the difference. Someone unfamiliar with our form of government could easily mistake these guys as candidates to lead the High Church..

[wmnorton]

09:19 AM on 02/10/2012

Obama does not want to bring a Japanese sword. even if it is a piece of art, to a gun fight.

[wmnorton]

09:14 AM on 02/10/2012

The most important part of the statement from the Obama folks is the comment about unilateral disarmament. Obama's campain sees the writing on the wall. And it says "We've spent 3 years lying about you and we have half a billion to do it big time for one more year." They've seen what Super Pac money has done to all of Mitts opponenets. Since Mitt has been willing to lie directly about Obama what will his Super Pac be willing to say?

[Chopin]

11:54 PM on 02/09/2012

If anyone wants to be "realistic" about 2012 presidential campaign and advocates "fight fire with fire" with "me too" approach going after superpac bigmoney, you're strategically behind the curve to start with, because in terms of fighting bigmoney with bigmoney to try dominate airwaves, you'd be fighting on traditional grounds of Republican strong suits -- money + dirt. People's general perception in this kind of money vs money, dirt vs dirt, nobody comes off clean, and people reach point of saturation, weariness and disgust. For independent and wavering discouraged uncommitted segment of voters, that's a sure turnoff and voter turnout suppression. On psychological and logistical sides, that translates into margin of defeat, in absence of obnoxious opposing candidate.

In terms of political + economic climate in midsummer to fall 2012, as many observers have remarked, dominant factor for President Obama will be unemployment anxiety level (and therefore credit or blame). It's unpredictable how that will evolve. Assuming it's not a serious downer, then the candidate that successfully differentiates himself and generates credible optimism wins (like Reagan's "shining city on ahill" against Carter's "malaise"). You notice that milieu of optimism does NOT depend on bigmoney and dirt. In fact, bigmoney and handtohand combat DETRACTS from that differentiation which pulls away from cockfights in the dirt.

Now, I submit in many (99%) people's minds, it's contradictory to grovel after bigmoney and simultaneously sound like credible optimistic populist of the people. Beside's Reagan's precedent, learn from Jerry Brown vs Meg Whitman 2010.

[Kari Janell Parfait]

05:09 PM on 02/09/2012

I want to know how I get the $10 donation I made at barackobama.com back. I made it right before news broke of him accepting PAC money. He obviously no longer needs my dinky little donation, so I would like a refund. I will not support any candidate who accepts PAC funds.

[Chopin]

12:39 AM on 02/10/2012

Hmmm ... you have a good point. You would probably have to hire an attorney to get your refund, because those slick operators, all of them, have graduated onto "SUPERpacs", so you would have to go to small claims court to sue for your refund based on their pac financing. Maybe you could become the new counterpart of the "Obama girl" of 2008. ;-)

[Shelby596]

01:33 PM on 02/12/2012

Yeah! I'm sure your donation alone would help him win against Romney, Murdoch and the Koch brothers!! Give me a break. You are equating Obama with them, which is so ridiculous I don't even know what to say to you. You would have him hold his head up high, say no to money that would help him even the playing field, beg for other $10 donations....... and lose. Well, I won't. I stand behind the President.

[Medicine13ear]

07:54 AM on 02/09/2012

I sympathize with President Obama because I find myself in a similar situation in choosing who I'll vote for in the Presidential election.

One candidate will be a disaster of apocalyptic proportions, while the Democratic option is, meh, not-lived-up-to-his-promise but not a certain disaster.

In this "democracy" we only have two viable choices, so do I make the only (less-principled) choice offered by the existing 2-party system: choosing President Meh again so Captain Apocalypto won't strap us to the hood of his station wagon as he chases the hounds of hell into fiery depths of utter destruction (and this is an especially pernicious he11 that doesn't permit coffee or station breaks to hose you off when you soil yourself)?

Or, do I make the (more-principled) choice of writing in a bold principled progressive candidate when this (more-principled) choice will most certainly assure the installation of a steaming bag of GOP in our highest office?

[AZreb]

08:12 AM on 02/11/2012

Have made up my mind and am going to have the courage of my convictions - will write in my choices for president and vice president. Since both parties are now so low in my estimation, there is little choice between the two of them - broken promises, lies, no real sense of leadership from either party.

Will also do more research on the candidates from the smaller parties - Green party, etc. - and see if there are those who might actually want to help our country and its people. This status quo is not helping us - no matter who you vote for, if they are members of the two major parties you will get more of the same.

[DRGClarke]

08:25 AM on 02/11/2012

while nobel it is a lost vote and every lost vote is a vote for Obama. Good Luck with that but you are not helping the country that way. The only way to get rid of a pest is to squash it. Goeff

[DRGClarke]

08:27 AM on 02/11/2012

Until they get rid of the man Obama will always try to use strong arm tactics super pacs or not. Of course he will get the gimie pig crowd. They vote for more free stuff. People better wake up. I pay for my cell phone and when I can't they would shut it off not give it to me for free.

[SweetSoulMusicMan]

07:46 AM on 02/09/2012

progressivives like you Robert are just as sickening as tea partiers....constantly complaining...in fact you do this president more harm than good...for three years you screamed at Obama to fight fight fight.....when he decides to fight back you convert yourselves into conservatives...or maybe its that well to do dems, just like republicans dont care about the plight of the working poor or middle class...maybe your goal is to insure a republican win so to secure your own position as a professional pundit whose job it is to inflame people with your constant crying and complaining...to you i say....JUST MOVE....GET OUT OF THE WAY OF PROGRESS

[CleanUp]

07:29 AM on 02/09/2012

Unfortunately, Obama had no choice but to back down the Super PAC for the short term (meaning this election cycle); given how the GOP has already behaved. But going forward, shortly after the 2012 elections are over, it is urgent for the general public to put pressure on politicians to force through laws mandating strict limitations on campaign donations (such as $250 per individual, corporation, etc....) and ban campaign contributions from outside the USA and non-US citizens. Strict regulations on campaign financing will do much to help candidates from rich and poor backgrounds have equal footing to get themselves heard.

[CleanUp]

07:40 AM on 02/09/2012

Oh yes, it would be appropriate to offer limited public financing to candidates for public office who are from lower income backgrounds. Just enough public financing to pay for various essentials to start a campaign such as rental of office gear, printing some campaign flyers and posters, first couple of TV advertising, and similar.

[calmly2]

09:45 AM on 02/09/2012

Trying to fan you...

[GetACluepeople]

07:21 AM on 02/09/2012

President Obama...to use a basketball metaphor just dunked on himself.

[Ano333]

06:45 AM on 02/09/2012

I lol at every progressive who still believed in Obama the second before he announced he would support his Super PAC...

[calmly2]

09:46 AM on 02/09/2012

Why? We still believe in him; nothing has changed, except that we are glad he is fighting f i r e with f i r e. It's about time!

[Shelby596]

01:38 PM on 02/12/2012

Laugh at yourself. I still believe in him. I know this is hard for you to understand, but nothing is as simple as you would like it to be.

[Daniel Giottonini]

05:39 PM on 02/14/2012

That's the same thing Bush's supporters were saying in 2004! We can be better than them if we hold true to our values instead of constantly changing them because we're afraid to hold this administration responsible.