Robert Reich - "Obama Has Handed The Election Over To The Super Rich"

[DaTruth]

The sad truth is Obama has never really occupied the high ground. 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 but he, Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden will encourage support of the super PAC.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-s...per-pac-2012-2

[Riot]

It really sucks to have a Democrat beat the Repubs at their own game, using their rules.

"Making a mockery" - that wasn't started by Obama.

Jon Huntsman's superPac was run by his father.

"The Mitt Romney-supporting Super PAC, Restore Our Future, is one of the best funded and active groups; thus far, it has spent over $18 million this election cycle. Largely, it has received donations from wealthy interests and former associates of the candidate; it has received 12 separate $1 million donations, including multiple seven figure deposits from employees of Bain Capital, the financial firm Romney founded. Romney, for his part, encouraged the creation of the Super PAC and attended more than one donor event."

Rick Santorum appears on stage with his SuperPac billionaire Foster Friess at his right shoulder. "Foster Friess, the primary funder for the pro-Santorum Super PAC "Red, White and Blue Fund," travels with the inner circle of the campaign; he has given suggestions to advisers about media strategy; and on Friday, he will introduce the presidential hopeful at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The relationship between Friess and the campaign he supports is one of the clearest examples of how candidates are pushing the limits of the only rule governing their relationship with Super PACs -- no coordination."

"Santorum is not the only candidate pushing the limits. Newt Gingrich met with his Super PAC funder Sheldon Adelson in Las Vegas ahead of the Nevada caucus earlier this month. Mitt Romney has appeared at fundraisers for "Restore Our Future," the Super PAC supporting his candidacy."

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-s...per-pac-2012-2

i encourage you to continue reading robert reich. he makes a lot of sense.

in the meantime, don't expect democrats to take it in the nuts like 2010 when their campaign strategy of whining about citizen's united proved ineffective vs. billions in dollars of anonymous money.

it's the law. democrats aren't going to handicap themselves another election cycle by playing under a different set of rules.

[Riot]

"Stop Colbert" SuperPac ad by Nancy Pelosi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lLH0fT3mbe0

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Stop Colbert" SuperPac ad by Nancy Pelosi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=lLH0fT3mbe0

"In a first step to reform the money in politics, House Democrats are reintroducing the DISCLOSE Act today to get unlimited, secret donations out of politics. The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United opened the floodgates to unrestricted special interest campaign donations in American elections—permitting corporations to spend unlimited funds, directly or through third parties and Political Action Committees organized for those purposes, to influence Federal elections and opened the door for the emergence of Super PACs.

Learn more at www.facebook.com/StopColbert"

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i encourage you to continue reading robert reich. he makes a lot of sense.

Reich makes for some interesting reading. I seldom agree with many of his positions, but I give the guy credit for being generally consistent and intellectually honest.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i encourage you to continue reading robert reich. he makes a lot of sense.

in the meantime, don't expect democrats to take it in the nuts like 2010 when their campaign strategy of whining about citizen's united proved ineffective vs. billions in dollars of anonymous money.

it's the law. democrats aren't going to handicap themselves another election cycle by playing under a different set of rules.

i don't think this is reichs point; i think it was that perhaps obama and co could have done something about superpacs, rather than just shrug their shoulders, tie on their bibs, and sit down to the feast.

You forget that hig is still entrenched in the false left-right paradigm. He's basically a power bottom for the democratic party. He likes it raw dog.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think this is reichs point; i think it was that perhaps obama and co could have done something about superpacs, rather than just shrug their shoulders, tie on their bibs, and sit down to the feast.

"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."


Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1m0OicAo2

i think reich was asking the president's campaign to "set an example" and that american's would swarm to him with small donations.

that's unbelievably optimistic and ultimately the campaign made the calculation that they wouldn't risk a second term on it. they'd play by the rules everyone else is playing by.

obama's state of the union address right after the ruling (the one that had sam alito shaking his head in disagreement) called for congress to pass new rules requiring disclosure. no surprise that following their sweep in 2010 republicans weren't terribly interested.

since the administration can't unilaterally change the rules by themselves i'm not sure what else they were supposed to do. they could be virtuous losers or they could play the game to win.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

"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."


Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1m0OicAo2

i think reich was asking the president's campaign to "set an example" and that american's would swarm to him with small donations.

that's unbelievably optimistic and ultimately the campaign made the calculation that they wouldn't risk a second term on it. they'd play by the rules everyone else is playing by.

obama's state of the union address right after the ruling (the one that had sam alito shaking his head in disagreement) called for congress to pass new rules requiring disclosure. no surprise that following their sweep in 2010 republicans weren't terribly interested.

since the administration can't unilaterally change the rules by themselves i'm not sure what else they were supposed to do. they could be virtuous losers or they could play the game to win.

It isnt a game, if you believe that something is a very specific and dangerous threat to our way of life and system of government (and say so) then you should hold your moral ground or done something about it when you had the chance. Not sell out and get on board because everyone has more cash than you do. BS.

[Riot]

In 2010, after Citizen's United, the House passed the DISCLOSE Act in response. Senate Republicans blocked it's passage.

Yesterday Pelosi announced the Dems are going to re-present it. Let's see what Republican Leader Boehner does with it.

I missed the calls of hypocrite regarding Mitt Romney, last year, saying the very same things Obama did, then supporting his nice SuperPac.

And anger against the GOP for blocking the Dem attempts to reverse some of Citizens United.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

It isnt a game, if you believe that something is a very specific and dangerous threat to our way of life and system of government (and say so) then you should hold your moral ground or done something about it when you had the chance. Not sell out and get on board because everyone has more cash than you do. BS.

someone who is in favor of gun control deserves what they get if they bring just a knife to a fight where they know everyone else carries a gun.

citizen's united was a bad decision and congress has done nothing to ameliorate it's shortcomings.

and now everyone's going to play by the same rules because no one is actually stupid enough to go first on roshambo twice.

it's unfortunate but inevitable.