In case you hadn't heard, the Obama administration officially announced that it would be supporting the Super PAC dedicated to Obama's re-election effort. As you may have also seen, several prominent newspaper editorial boards have pointed out the obvious hypocrisy given Obama's previously stated position of absolute opposition to uncapped and anonymous outside spending, which he very clearly declared during his State of the Union Address following the Citizens United SCotUS decision, as well as elsewhere.
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with endorsing outside money in general. Considering his grassroots fundraising is nowhere near what it was leading up to the 2008 election, and considering the GOP Super PACs have been killing their Democrat counterparts of late, it would have been silly of Obama not to stop handicapping himself. The big stinker, in my mind, is that the White House also plans to send current administration officials to speak at fundraising events for the Super PAC, which apparently only violates the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.
I'm sure realistic Dems like Joph and Smash have no problem with this about-face on outside money either, but I'm wondering what you idealistic types think, and whether or not it alters your opinions on 'ole Barry.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Super PACs
Super PACsFollow
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
A little annoying for him to speak out about it and turn around, but my opinion of him hasn't really changed. In that he is a politician, so I always expect hypocrisy and such. My bar for politicians is set pretty low.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Demea wrote:
The big stinker, in my mind, is that the White House also plans to send current administration officials to speak at fundraising events for the Super PAC
The administration said that the First Lady and Vice President won't attend these events. I'm not saying this as an excuse or justification or anything else besides a certain amusement at the thought of "Oh boy! Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack will be there! Let me break out the checkbook!"
Edit: The NY Times editorial says:
Quote:
He is also telling the country that simply getting re-elected is bigger than standing on principle.
In my mind, there's much larger principles at stake this election than the (legitimate) Super PAC debate and that refusing to compete financially on principle would be an incredibly stupid hill to die on.
Edited, Feb 8th 2012 10:41am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
It's nice to be idealistic, but foolish to lose because of something you can't change. SCotUS spoke; president doesn't agree; tough luck for him. The only way to reign in Super PACs is through a new SCotUS decision or a constitutional amendment. Obama might as well use all the tools he can to be re-elected; the GOP definitely will do so to try and sink him.
I'm anti-gun ownership and use. I'll happily speak out about their potential for misuse.
I hope to never ever have to use one, however, if I'm thrown into a duel with a guy with a gun, I'd use a gun too.
I hope to never ever have to use one, however, if I'm thrown into a duel with a guy with a gun, I'd use a gun too.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
If you can't beat em, join em; level the playing field; pick your cliche.
Waiting on the GOP mouthpieces to come with the wharrgarbl.
Waiting on the GOP mouthpieces to come with the wharrgarbl.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
It's hypocritical, sure, but unless the pubbies agree to some sort of Super-Pac truce he's gotta do it to compete.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Wasn't it a huge talking point for the republicans that Obama had $1 billion campaign budget?
Jimpadan wrote:
Wasn't it a huge talking point for the republicans that Obama had $1 billion campaign budget?
Also, Super PACs collect and spend money independently from the candidate, so this money will not be part of Obama's official campaign budget. This is why it's noteworthy that administration officials will be attending fundraising events for the Super PAC.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
It could reach one billion. I'm not sure that it will but Obama has had some impressive fundraising last year, collecting $247 million between himself and the DNC. I doubt he'll reach the same heights as in 2008 when his campaign literally didn't seem to know what to do with all the cash they had on hand (24 hour cable channel?) but he should hit some large numbers regardless. Still, he has some large donors who are bound to FEC limits. Allowing them the outlet of PAC donations will help make up for small donors less enthralled than they were in 2008.
I expect Obama will continue to go after small donors, asking people for $3 or $5 at a time if need be. Besides the populist message you get from saying $47 million came from individual donations under $200 (that's in regards to the above 2011 numbers) you develop a "Sunk costs" association with the donor. You just spent money on the guy so now you need to see him win so that money isn't "wasted".
I expect Obama will continue to go after small donors, asking people for $3 or $5 at a time if need be. Besides the populist message you get from saying $47 million came from individual donations under $200 (that's in regards to the above 2011 numbers) you develop a "Sunk costs" association with the donor. You just spent money on the guy so now you need to see him win so that money isn't "wasted".
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Demea wrote:
That was for his 2008 campaign. He's doing quite a bit worse this time around, but then again, the campaign won't really get into full swing until the GOP candidate is decided.
That $247 million number broke the off-year contribution record (previously held by GW Bush and the RNC - $237 mil in 2003).
Edited, Feb 9th 2012 11:25am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Pfft, that's jsut inflation.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Cost of living expenses, even.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Demea wrote:
Also, Super PACs collect and spend money independently from the candidate, so this money will not be part of Obama's official campaign budget. This is why it's noteworthy that administration officials will be attending fundraising events for the Super PAC.
Correct. The story isn't that he has them (not among republicans at least), but that his administration is so openly involved with them. The PACs have to be independent of the campaign itself (pesky campaign laws and whatnot). Basically, the official campaign can't be telling the pac how to spend its money. The assumption is that the pac is an independent group of citizens expressing their free speech. If there's any communication between the two, then it becomes the campaign utilizing the pacs money, and that's a no-no.
Having administration members attend events isn't technically a violation of the law, but it's really skirting the line. Some could argue that if an administration official gives any sort of speech in that situation, he's passing on instructions to the pac from Obama. Which is in violation of the law.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
When a candidate can "Speak to the superPac as an american" and that's fine, I don't think the line really exists at all.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Recent Visitors: 317
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (317)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Super PACs
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC