Mr. President, Take the Money!

President Barack Obama in principle is committed to supporting the growing movement to get money out of politics.

But the reality today is that the president has to play by the same set of rules that all the other candidates running to defeat him are adhering to as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After President Obama is reelected in November of this year, he will have both the opportunity and a mandate from the people to get money out of manipulating the electoral process.

We all know that it will take a Constitutional Amendment to publicly finance elections across the United States.

The long term goal is to get money out of politics through building a grassroots movement like Occupy the Dream, that is organizing and engaging in consciousness-raising in each state in support of the ratification of a Constitutional Amendment that members of the U.S. Congress are now debating.

2012 is an election year, and much of the political debate thus far is now being shaped and determined by the predominance of money, rather than by the issues that affect the overall quality of life for 250 million Americans.

We see every day how money is determining who ultimately will be the Republican nominee. The primary distinguishing characteristic between Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul is the amount of money that they are acquiring.

Therefore, President Obama made the right decision several days ago that he was not going to let those who want to take the nation backward outspend him for the attention and public mindset of millions of people who will be influenced by super PACs.

I am very clear. President Obama should not surrender. The president should take the super PAC money, win the election and then lead the charge as president to take money out of politics through his active support and leadership to pass the Constitutional Amendment. Let's get to work. Let's make this happen.

 

Follow Russell Simmons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/unclerush

Comments

[cintirich]

08:17 PM on 02/19/2012

When someone relies on situational ethics they typically had none to begin with.

[shankapotomus]

02:53 PM on 02/19/2012

Hasn't he always taken the money?

[Enroh Mot]

09:31 AM on 02/19/2012

Not much Democracy in a Corporatocracy led by the political Oligarchy for the benefit of the Plutocracy, supported by the Idiocracy.

[Vrano]

09:28 AM on 02/19/2012

Mr. Simmons,
All Obama did was show that even his principles are up for sale. His campaign warchest was already bursting at the seams, and he had more than enough to handle the eventual Republican candidate.

No, the Dems, Liberals, and Progressives are all in this system as well. Dangle enough carrots infront of anyone, they will eventually reach a point that they will set aside their principles to get them. Even the messiah Obama.

[this we will defend]

05:26 AM on 02/19/2012

if he could run on his record, he wouldn't need to buy his way into the presidency.

remember the truth has no agenda, and Mr Obama's agenda is daangerous!

[Khakis and Chucks]

04:31 AM on 02/19/2012

It is important that Obama adopt the superior Ideology of Mitt Romney in order to defeat the republicans.

[johngary66]

01:55 AM on 02/16/2012

“I’m Barack Obama, and I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.” [157] (Campaign commercial during the primaries)

OBAMA DID…
In June 2008, after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama gave up on his pledge to lead by example on the preservation of the public financing system, and his team proceeded to raise more money than any other political campaign in history. [155][156][157][158] Though the fundraising success was portrayed by the campaign as a grass-roots response to Obama’s candidacy, a vast portion came from corporations, mostly from Wall Street, the top corporate contributor being Goldman Sachs. [155][159] Subsequently, President Obama’s entire economic team has consisted of Wall Street insiders – most notably Tim Geithner, the former NY Fed Chair – and nearly all of them Goldman Sachs alumni: Treasury’s Chief of Staff Mark Patterson, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council Larry Summers (resigned in September 2010), their mentor and Obama advisor Robert Rubin, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, in addition to many other high-ranking members of the administration. Obama’s most recent cabinet appointment from the banking industry is the JPMorgan Chase executive William Daley, his new chief of staff. [160][161][162][163][164][165] Dean Baker, one of the first economists to foresee the crisis in the housing market, described this as equivalent to “having Osama bin Laden in charge of the war on terror.” [166]" obamatheconservative.com

[CactusTom]

08:59 AM on 02/15/2012

Of course the president would love to get money out of politics, but, you're right, in this case one must fight fire with fire. I think it was the Wall Street Journey that criticized Obama for not taking the high road and forsaken PAC money--like he was being hypocritical. That's about as silly as saying a man who's apposed to war should not protect his home and family from invaders with every means possible.

[mom72]

11:22 AM on 02/19/2012

agreed, and you gotta love the people who constantly call him out on his principles as if they would've stood behind him if he didn't go this route. The ones that are pissed at him the most are the ones who would've liked to see him defeated by giving the Republican candidate the upper hand in this game instead of playing fair on both sides.

In other words they wish the Supreme Court ruling on this only applied to the GOP and not the President.

[Sundialsvc4]

08:52 AM on 02/15/2012

I will not, and on behalf of my Country and the 312 million men and women and children who actually live here, accept that.

When I walk into that marble tomb and look at a not-so faded document enshrined there, I read (Article 2, Section 4) these words:

"All Civil Officers .. shall be removed from Office for .. High Crimes ... (including) Bribery."

There are, all told, less than 750 people in the top positions of power here, and a couple thousand more who make it their full-time job bribing them from their plush offices on "K"-street.

When I consider the ratio of, let's say, "1,750 of them" to, let's say, "312 million of us," I come up with a ratio so small that my calculator uses scientific notation: "5.60897435897436e-06." Considerably less, in other words, than 0.01%.

I do not find that proportion insurmountable. In fact, the "reciprocal" key on the calculator tells me that these people are out-numbered, 178,286 - to - one. I also do not find THAT to be insurmountable.

"As for me and my house," I value the United States of America far too much to permit it to be lost to bribery and to an utter and deliberate disregard for the two-pages of "supreme law" (sic) principles upon which it was so determinedly (and at least for a time, successfully) founded.

To quote the Allied reply to the Nazi: "N-U-T-S !!!"

[Countess]

08:48 AM on 02/15/2012

There was never any doubt that Obama would take the money because we must be honest enough to admit that even when John McCain offered to make a deal and severely limit the money in 2008 Obama refused and raised a fortune so we know he is quite comfortable like Romney with obscene amounts of money that are a large part of the corruption in politics. Romney and Obama will spend a fortune smearing each other and obscuring and ignoring completely the most important issue facing America which is the corruption of the entire political and economic system.

[cotter]

08:47 AM on 02/15/2012

Good luck with that. Taking the money out of politics is like taking the oxygen out of fire. It's all about the money, You owe them money on your way up the ladder; to the top, then they shake you, until you get down.

[littleteapot]

08:24 AM on 02/15/2012

There's nothing wrong with Obama accepting money from super PAC's. He already cuts deals with many special interests, so I doubt it will change his policies, and he should be able to use the tools available to campaign. There is something wrong with promising not to accept money from super PAC's and than doing it.

[Paul Is Right]

08:22 AM on 02/15/2012

One must have principles if one is to adhere to them.

[johngary66]

04:32 PM on 02/15/2012

I agree with the sentiment, but it certainly doesn't apply to Ron Paul. He has a racist background and he lies about it.

[smpj]

08:12 AM on 02/15/2012

The President started shedding his principles in 2008 when he had promised during the primaries to only take public money to run his general election campaign and then dropped the pledge as soon as it became in his best fiscal interest to do otherwise.

The only principle he'll ever embrace to the bitter end is his willingness to do ANYTHING he sees as necessary to win a second term. After that ALL bets are off.

[johngary66]

05:56 AM on 02/16/2012

Actually he started shedding his principals even earlier when he flip/flopped on Fisa. I was concerned before that because he was an expert at double speak. I had to hold my nose to vote for him. I should have gone with my gut and voted third party. I won't make that mistake again. I'm voting for Rocky Anderson in 2012.

[AliveInNYC]

08:11 AM on 02/15/2012

Thank you Mr. Simmons for using common sense. I'm amazed by the misguided criticism the President is getting on this issue.

He was right to criticize the Citizens United decision but like it or not, it is now the law of the land. There is absolutely no reason why people should expect him to follow one set of rules while the Republicans follow a different set of rules. He is doing what he has to do to comete.

Yes, we all want to see the influence of money removed from elections and hopefully after the election, both sides will try to work something out. For now, however, the President is doing what he has to do and I don't blame him at all.

[smpj]

08:38 AM on 02/15/2012

'Hopefull after the election', when ablsolutely nothing is done to aleviate the problem of too much money in electoral politics, you're not too disappointed.

[Sundialsvc4]

08:57 AM on 02/15/2012

Let me quote to you the =actual= "Supreme Law of the Land": (emphases mine)

Article 2, Section 4: "Disqualification"
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, B-R-I-B-E-R-Y, or other high C-R-I-M-E-S and Misdemeanors."

And, if you do not like what the document says and wish to change what it says, here is the one and only way to do so:

Article 5: "Amendment"
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution ..."

And finally (Article 6):
"This Constitution ... shall be THE SUPREME LAW of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby ..."

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ..."

THAT IS the Law of the Land; therefore, "Citizens United" most clearly is NOT.

[johngary66]

04:39 PM on 02/15/2012

Thank you. Obama took an oath of Office to defend the Constitution against all enemies. By following immediately upon taking office in Dubya's Neo-Con jack boots and affronting the Constitution with torture and other high crimes against the people, he broke his oath of office. Yes most if not all of Congress has done the same thing by failing to impeach both, but lets start with Obama and Bush. Go to Voters for Peace and sign their petition to Impeach Obama for violations of the Constitution.

[Khakis and Chucks]

04:32 AM on 02/19/2012

nice