Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 07:52 AM Feb 2012

We Will Not Play by Two Sets of Rules -- Obama Campaign Refuses To Unilaterally Disarm

from Jim Messina, Barack Obama for President Campaign Manager: http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules

February 6, 2012

In 2010, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case opened the door to a new wave of so-called Super PACs—non-candidate political committees that can receive and spend unlimited money from special interests. For the first time, these committees could accept money from corporations, not just wealthy individuals.

The decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.

It's a trend the President has fought against, coming into office with a mission to limit special-interest influence in Washington. He put in place the most sweeping ethics reforms in history to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists. And he's overseen the most open administration ever—reversing Bush-era policies designed to limit Freedom of Information Act requests and disclosing White House visitor records so that Americans can see how their government works.

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

Last week, filings showed that the Super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney's campaign raised $30 million in 2011 from fewer than 200 contributors, most of them from the financial sector. Governor Romney personally helped raise money for this group, which is run by some of his closest allies.

Meanwhile, other Super PACs established for the sole purpose of defeating the President—along with "nonprofits" that also aren't required to disclose the sources of their funding—have raised more than $50 million. In the aggregate, these groups are expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President.

With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

What this change means practically: Senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won't be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA. I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President's campaign.

But here's what this doesn't change: the fact that ordinary people stepping up to take control of the political process is essential to our strategy.

This decision will help fill a hole on our side. But it's only one part of the overall effort.

Supporting Priorities USA means that our side will not concede the battles on the air in the months to come, but we continue to believe that this election will be won on the ground. Super PACs haven't opened offices. They haven't hired organizers. They haven't registered voters. They haven't knocked on doors or made the kind of personal contact with voters that we know is the single most effective way to persuade people and turn them out on Election Day.

And this is where we have the advantage. It will be up to us—the grassroots organization, funded by an average donation of $55—to win this election.

It's a point of pride that 98 percent of all our donations are $250 or less. Mitt Romney won't reveal that number about his own campaign, but filings show that just 9 percent of the Romney campaign's money in the fourth quarter of last year came from people giving less than $200.

Americans across the country are supporting the most extensive neighbor-to-neighbor, grassroots organization in history.

It's my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won't be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans.


read: http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/we-will-not-play-by-two-sets-of-rules


38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We Will Not Play by Two Sets of Rules -- Obama Campaign Refuses To Unilaterally Disarm (Original Post) bigtree Feb 2012 OP
Then he can't say he is against it. mmonk Feb 2012 #1
of course he can bigtree Feb 2012 #2
The thing about a game changing decision is that it changes the game. Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #5
+1,000 ! n/t Surya Gayatri Feb 2012 #8
When they change the game DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #16
And why not? As he said in his SOTU Surya Gayatri Feb 2012 #7
Because he's also saying "everybody does it". mmonk Feb 2012 #10
Under the "New Rules" everybody has to Surya Gayatri Feb 2012 #13
Do as I say, not as I do? mmonk Feb 2012 #15
Why would you? Congress has the same appoval rating Rex Feb 2012 #36
He can be against it, but practical enough to know a necessity when he sees one. n/t renie408 Feb 2012 #12
He did the same thing in his campaign. Nothing new or surprising. nt Bonobo Feb 2012 #3
glad there's no surprise here from the Democratic campaign bigtree Feb 2012 #4
Good decision... SidDithers Feb 2012 #6
Still won't be a level playing field NNN0LHI Feb 2012 #9
MSNBC is pushing GOP propaganda? n/t Inuca Feb 2012 #11
Yes, MSNBC is pushing GOP propaganda NNN0LHI Feb 2012 #14
As Rs go, Scarborough is not too terrible Inuca Feb 2012 #29
Your above post just proves that the propaganda works well NNN0LHI Feb 2012 #30
True. Rex Feb 2012 #37
Kinda like becoming a burglar because you've been burgled. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #17
sounds righteous bigtree Feb 2012 #18
The "political realities being ignored are that both political parties are corrupt. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #19
I'd remind you again of those political realities bigtree Feb 2012 #23
That fortifies my argument that both parties are corrupt. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #24
In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: bigtree Feb 2012 #25
I dig you but I think you have to admit lossing the war becomes kind of baked into the cake. TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #21
I don't think equating the money raised and spent with 'slavery' is correct bigtree Feb 2012 #22
Whatever you want it to be then. Jaywalking, embezelment, lying, watching TV TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #34
mpst everyone realizes that's a prescription for losing in this presidential election bigtree Feb 2012 #35
Losing what message and how is not publically endorsing a SuperPAC going to lose an election? TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #38
Timing Is Important... KharmaTrain Feb 2012 #20
Can't say I blame him. backscatter712 Feb 2012 #26
Yay! Big money can buy both parties now! WOO HOO! MNBrewer Feb 2012 #27
A wise decision indeed! Tarheel_Dem Feb 2012 #28
Last election he he swore off these groups and People gave him so much money I don't understand Justice wanted Feb 2012 #31
Pay to play government wins another round. mmonk Feb 2012 #32
I don't get it bigtree Feb 2012 #33

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
2. of course he can
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:16 AM
Feb 2012

. . . just as the opposition can change their position if they choose to do so.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
5. The thing about a game changing decision is that it changes the game.
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:29 AM
Feb 2012

You can be against the new rules, but unless you intend to lose or retire, you have to play by them.

DonCoquixote

(13,616 posts)
16. When they change the game
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 12:31 PM
Feb 2012

You can walk out in your old equipment, but do not be expected to be allowed on the field. Obama has many flaws, but at least he realizes this it is NOT noble for us to keep going down in flames while the GOP fixes the rules and wins by fixed rules.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
7. And why not? As he said in his SOTU
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:58 AM
Feb 2012

address, right in front of the Supremes, he's against it. But, he'll have to live with it until it's voided by Congress.

SG

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
13. Under the "New Rules" everybody has to
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:19 AM
Feb 2012

do it, or commit political hara kiri.

Once he's back in for a second term, along with a strengthened Dem Congress, I suspect one of his first priorities will be to void the SC decision through legislation.
SG

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
15. Do as I say, not as I do?
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:24 AM
Feb 2012

As far as voiding it, I hope so. I have little to zero faith in the Senate though.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
36. Why would you? Congress has the same appoval rating
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:36 PM
Feb 2012

as Ebola. If it is possible, I have even less faith then zero percent.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
4. glad there's no surprise here from the Democratic campaign
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:25 AM
Feb 2012

. . . as long as the opposition is taking full advantage of the Citizen's United ruling, there was a question as to how the Obama campaign would be equipped to respond throughout the country to the advertising from the right-wing outside groups and other wealthy benefactors like Gingrich's billionaire patron who says he intends to back Romney if his first horse falters.

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
6. Good decision...
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 08:57 AM
Feb 2012

Democrats could only stay away from SuperPacs if Republicans do too. And we know that's not going to happen.

This at least means Democrats will be fighting on a level playing field.

Sid

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
9. Still won't be a level playing field
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:02 AM
Feb 2012

GOP has FOX news, CNN, MSNBC, the print media and talk radio pushing their propaganda every single day.

Don

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
14. Yes, MSNBC is pushing GOP propaganda
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:21 AM
Feb 2012

Ever watched the former GOP politician Joe Scarborough doing his 3-hour Morning Joe shtick?

What do you think that is?

Don

Inuca

(8,945 posts)
29. As Rs go, Scarborough is not too terrible
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 09:26 AM
Feb 2012

on an average. And there are a few Ds on Fox (not "good enough" by our/my standards, but then I am sure Scarborough is not "good enough" for most on the right either), does it mean Fox "pushes democratic propaganda"? IMHO it's absurd to say that a network that promotes the likes of Rachel, Ed, Sharpton, O'Donnell is a GOP mouthpiece.

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
30. Your above post just proves that the propaganda works well
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:00 AM
Feb 2012

Just read what you wrote again.

You actually posted that you believe that "As Rs go, Scarborough is not too terrible on an average.", when in fact he is one of the worst. He is just good at what he does. That is what a good propagandist is capable of. He actually has you defending him on a Democratic political website.

Kind of unbelievable, isn't it?

Don

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
37. True.
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:38 PM
Feb 2012

You cannot allow the otherside to have a monster and you not have one. Sometimes you gotta fight Godzilla with Mothra. But to try and fight Godzilla with toothpicks and paper...not a pretty result.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
17. Kinda like becoming a burglar because you've been burgled.
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:02 PM
Feb 2012

"The do it, so we do it" is a piss poor excuse for corruption.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
18. sounds righteous
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 01:41 PM
Feb 2012

. . . but it's an utterly incomplete argument. It's not as if our party didn't try and change the law. We're still available to sign on to a change in the law. The other side? Not so much. So. Don't expect that we're just going to lay down and let the republican party just roll over us.

It's amazing that folks can promote such seemingly pure and unassailable morality and refuse to acknowledge the political realities which determine the state of the changes we want to see. There is no pure path to these elections because any change in the law doesn't have a chance in hell of passing before November. Lay down in the road right now and there won't even be a ghost of a chance of reform afterward.

But, hey, let's just squint our eyes and ignore the elephant in the room.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
19. The "political realities being ignored are that both political parties are corrupt.
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:28 PM
Feb 2012

The argument that "we" have to participate in the corruption to fight "their" corruption is facile, to say the least.

Perhaps, I should remind you that the Democrats have had power many times and failed to remove the money from politics...using the same excuses that are being used now.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
23. I'd remind you again of those political realities
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:43 PM
Feb 2012

. . . which haven't afforded meaningful and comprehensive campaign reform enough votes to pass the legislative gauntlet which still includes the obstructive cloture vote. And you know full well that some of those D's were functionally R's. Not to mention the fact that Kennedy and Byrd faded as fast as we got that 'majority'.

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
24. That fortifies my argument that both parties are corrupt.
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:09 PM
Feb 2012

I think that there is zero chance of getting the bribes...er...campaign contributions out of politics no matter which party is in power. Politics is just too lucrative a game for the politicians.

That said, participating in the fraud and then excusing themselves because the "other guys" do it reeks of pathetic hypocrisy and double-talk.

Has "Yes, we can!" been replaced by "Maybe, someday, but...in the meantime..we'll just go along and get our piece of the pie."

"Right here in this heart and home and fountain-head of law, this great factory where are forged those rules that create good order and compel virtue and honesty in the other communities of the land, rascality achieves its highest perfection." Mark Twain

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
25. In our country we have those three unspeakably precious things:
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 05:35 PM
Feb 2012

. . . freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either.

- Mark Twain

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
21. I dig you but I think you have to admit lossing the war becomes kind of baked into the cake.
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:47 PM
Feb 2012

We aren't dealing with folks willing to bite the hands to feed them by any stretch and you also end up only bringing a larger knife to a gunfight because there will always be more money in the hands of those that promote the interests of money.

Being "against slavery" but keeping slaves because you couldn't compete otherwise is good medicine better than just loving slavery? I reckon, but it spends about the same on the buisness end of the proposition.

I don't see much in the way of alternatives other than going with the small knife and hope people see what is going on through the bullshit but I don't see this as functional or productive either, not in an overarching way.

I guess we could tell the truth, which is democracy doesn't exist in this environment and before we can seriously deal with anything else that we must first fix this but that would get quite nasty and result in some unavoidable handbiting and outright questioning of the system.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
22. I don't think equating the money raised and spent with 'slavery' is correct
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 03:36 PM
Feb 2012

It should be obvious why that analogy fails.

It's not as if there aren't specifics to this argument that deserve to be addressed. Like, what in the world do you do about the republicans' unlimited, unaccountable spending? It would make more sense to oppose the President's decision if there was some sort of alternative to confront the spending made legal by the court ruling. What's the alternative?

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
34. Whatever you want it to be then. Jaywalking, embezelment, lying, watching TV
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 02:30 AM
Feb 2012

coloring, throwing darts. Whatever it is you aren't almost ever going to stop it by participating.

What to do?

1) Never endorse it, in fact, rebuke it as the cancer it is.

2) Use the significant resources on hand to buy the finite ad space to make the TeaPubliKlans own their bought status.

3) Take advantage of the benefits of the SuperPAC spending passively while using it and all SuperPACs as a punchingbag daily, weekly, and yearly.

There is no case for embracing the Super PAC on front street. How many more bucks does anyone think the endorsement will wring out? Do we really think that we have wealthy liberals sitting on their hands until given the thumbs up? Or that there are a bunch of "small people" that are maxed on their personal contribution cap and just can't figure out if they should put some more of their stockpiles of ca$h into Democratic and liberal PACS?

For insignificant impact, this muddies the water and implies the hell out of a consensus that too broad to effectively fight back on this.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
35. mpst everyone realizes that's a prescription for losing in this presidential election
Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:32 PM
Feb 2012

. . . you can characterize it anyway you want. It's still a good recipe for losing the message and the election.

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
38. Losing what message and how is not publically endorsing a SuperPAC going to lose an election?
Tue Feb 14, 2012, 01:43 AM
Feb 2012

What is the difference is resources that can be leveraged to common cause?

I already asked and you ignored what the benefit is and you responded with an "everyone" justification. Well, what extra resources were on the sidelines that will now spring to action?

Few "small people" are maxed out, those that do that have deeper to dig will get money to liberal PACS as will the high rollers, who in fact are free to contribute to "Obama's" (because the candidate cannot collaborate/direct) and he is free to preach about the system. A little hypocrisy? Absolutely, but if that is low as you go your head will be high.

My whole point is the message, we absolutely cannot be talking about the same one.

KharmaTrain

(31,706 posts)
20. Timing Is Important...
Tue Feb 7, 2012, 02:38 PM
Feb 2012

Right now the rushpublican SuperPacs are buying up as much teevee time in key states as they can. Much of this time...especially prime time...is booked months in advance. The timing now is big cause this will give the Pro-Obama Pacs a chance to get into the buying game themselves to counteract some of the big money Rover and the Kochs and others will be throwing around come September and October.

The old adage says you don't bring a rusty knife to a gun fight...and since Citizen's United has changed the game, the players must adapt.

Justice wanted

(2,657 posts)
31. Last election he he swore off these groups and People gave him so much money I don't understand
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:06 AM
Feb 2012

this turn around AND ALSO that same day he came out saying he was in favor of a Amendment that would overturn Citizens United. This seems VERY hypocritical.

If you are so much against Citizens untied than show it by running your campaign like last time or was it the fact that the Biggest contributor from last time-Goldman Sachs- isn't giving you the money like last time?

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
33. I don't get it
Wed Feb 8, 2012, 10:11 AM
Feb 2012

. . . is there some alternative that you're advocating to address the anonymous republican spending, which is at $24 million to date, on these attack ads against our party and President?

Laying down in the road and letting republicans run over our nominee on their way to the White House is about the worst strategy I can think of.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We Will Not Play by Two S...