Do you think it makes a difference that Obama has decided to take advantage of a superpac?
Obama has backed off his criticism of superpacs and is now willing to let one act on his behalf. Russ Feingold (of McCain Feingold) disapproves.
But two Republican superpacs vowed to raise half a billion dollars each. Could Obama responsibly stand by and watch his opponents outspend him two to one while he voluntarily refuses to support the superpacs on his side?
Even if Obama hadn’t changed his stance, would it matter? Would the superpacs have entered the race anyway? And what does it mean that his approval matters? I thought the superpacs were supposed to be separate from the candidates, with no communication between them?
Is it all fiction and posturing? Can you believe anyone in politics who says they are following the rules? Does anything with respect to how we fund politics matter? Or will it all go on as the big money wants it to go on, no matter what the Supreme Court says?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
10 Answers
I think the President’s campaign manager said it best: they can’t follow a different set of rules.
The Koch brothers have been apoplectic over the administration for three years now. They’ll spend every penny they can to get Obama out of the White House. It’s necessary for the President to fight back.
Even if you hate guns, you don’t take a knife to a gunfight.
I think sometimes, as in this case, it is consistent and correct to play to win within the rules, while also denouncing the rules.
For example, Obama said he would veto the law giving him power to arrest and detain people without any stated reason. He in fact did not veto it for whatever political reasons (which I really wonder what they are), but I even wrote him a suggestion that he use his new powers to arrest everyone who was behind the bill, so that their replacements could get rid of it (and the other nonsense such dubious legislators have ushered in).
How much in total, from last campaign and now, does Obama have in campaign funds?
Is it all fiction and posturing? Can you believe anyone in politics who says they are following the rules?
Your naivete is charming. But, everybody has to grow up sometime. You can not believe anybody in politics.
The character Kyle Reese, in The Terminator, might as well have been talking about your favorite politician when it comes to lying… “You still don’t get it, do you? That’s what he does! That’s ALL he does!”
@bkcunningham TONS I wish I remember the figure, but someone on CNN said Mitt Romney had tens of millions more than his republican primary competitors.
Then they said Obama had X amount, and that number BLEW Mitt’s number so far out of the water, it blew the water out of the water. Something like Obama’s 125 million to Romney’s 50 mil. But don’t quote me.
EDITED: FOUND IT Top left corner of the page will break it down for u.
@mrrich724 , That’s because, until now, no one was contributing to the PAC. If you combined Romney’s numbers with the PAC numbers you would find that the “support” money for Romney probably exceeds Obamas by a mile.
I was quite proud of Obama’s prior campaigne, when he raised most of the money from people giving under $100. I wish he had stuck to that, but he’s scared of losing the election, rather than his credibility.
@filmfann I heard Obama’s biggest donor was Goldman Sachs. . . I’d imagine that was a huge portion of the contribution right there. (GS is also the largest donor for Mitt Romney)
There are individual donors to some of the Republican super PACs that are planning on donating 100 million dollars. Remember, that is independent of the campaign itself. Without a Super PAC, Obama would have a hard time competing.
Answer this question