Obama Super Duper PAC

[Quantum Windbag]

Any bets about how long it takes the Democrats to condemn him for forming the Super PAC to end all Super PACS? My guess is that billion doller number he was thrwoing arond earlier is going to look like chicken feed.

By the way, who was it that said that Democrats don't know who to do this stuff?

The uncharted waters of Super PACs just became a bit murkier.

PresidentBarack Obama's Priorities USA Action, along with the Democratic Senate's Super PAC, Majority PAC, and the Democratic House Majority PAC are combining to form the country's first-ever joint fundraising Super PAC -- Unity 2012.

An FEC official told Whispers that there aren't any regulations prohibiting this kind of fundraising, but confirmed this is unprecedented; it's the first time any Super PAC has tried to form a committee of this magnitude.

FEC reports show that for the 2012 elections, the three Democratic committees have raised $10 million in total, but that's chump change compared to Romney's Super PAC, Restore Our Future, which has raised nearly $37 million so far. [Jack Abramoff Proposes Reforms for Corrupt Lobbying.]

"This joint effort is basically a convenience for donors who are looking to participate in more than one progressive organization," says Bill Burton, senior strategist for Priorities USA Action.

Obama's Super, Super PAC - chicagotribune.com

 

[Sallow]

Cool.

Scalia and the boys done gud agin!

 

[OtaniKitano]

The Super PACs are bad, bad news. They will neutralize our individual votes into nothing.

 

[LoneLaugher]

We don't always have to like that which must be done.

 

[Sallow]

The Super PACs are bad, bad news. They will neutralize our individual votes into nothing.

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

 

[occupied]

Maybe republicans will get so outraged that they will work on reform of PACs? Probably not. Any outrage from republicans is nothing but an act, they built this monster on purpose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Super PACs are bad, bad news. They will neutralize our individual votes into nothing.

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

 

[occupied]

The Super PACs are bad, bad news. They will neutralize our individual votes into nothing.

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

 

[Sallow]

The Super PACs are bad, bad news. They will neutralize our individual votes into nothing.

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

The fact I didn't know what?

That the rich had more access to the electorate and politicians? Yeah...they have and do.

But it's conservatives that have been solidifying that. I remember back to a time..probably before you were born..when if you made a political statement on any form of electronic media, the opposition were allowed to respond and for little or no cost.. That was over with Ronnie boy.

 

[Sallow]

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

It's hard to educate people that don't want to learn.

 

[Sallow]

Maybe republicans will get so outraged that they will work on reform of PACs? Probably not. Any outrage from republicans is nothing but an act, they built this monster on purpose.

Maybe they will outlaw elections all together.

After all..that's the overall goal.

 

[ladyliberal]

The Super PACs are bad, bad news. They will neutralize our individual votes into nothing.

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

I would say that QW is correct that prior to Citizens United wealthy individuals could pay for ads. However, McCain-Feingold, along with other campaign finance laws, restricted the ways in which they could do so in a number of relevant ways (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) so I would say that Sallow's statement that Citizens United gave wealthy individuals "more access" is perfectly correct as well.

I'm not sure why you characterize the new Democratic PAC as "the Super PAC to end all Super PACs". As your own link points out, Super PACs aligned with individual Republicans, not to mention American Crossroads, are substantially larger. Unless Democrats identify incredible new sources of fundraising I think Republican Super PACs will continue to outperform them, as they did in the 2010 elections (Election 2010 to Shatter Spending Records as Republicans Benefit from Late Cash Surge - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets).

I think the merger makes sense tactically. Since Obama is such a good fundraiser and Congressional Democrats often have a greater need for funds, it makes sense to have a fundraising organization which can raise funds on Obama's name while still contributing efficiently to Congressional elections.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course they are.

They give people with big bucks more access to both the electorate and politicians.

But conservatives are the ones that brought this about. They shouldn't be complaining when the other side is playing the game better.

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.

Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.

 

[occupied]

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.

Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.

Do the Koch brothers want to be personally sued for libel? Hell no. Do they care if some front group gets sued for libel? Hell no.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Truthfully, they do just the opposite. People with big bucks were never restricted in access to elections or politicians. Even before Citizens United people like the Koch brothers were perfectly free to take their own money and buy ads in support of, or attacking, any candidate.

The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes.

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.

Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.

"Speaks volumes" is a cop-out phrase that is often used by people who do not have a full grasp of the issues. It is a convenient way to put words into someone else's mouth without having to be specific. It is bullshit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.

Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.

"Speaks volumes" is a cop-out phrase that is often used by people who do not have a full grasp of the issues. It is a convenient way to put words into someone else's mouth without having to be specific. It is bullshit.

The fact is that rich individuals were always free to spend as much of their own money as they wanted at any point during an election cycle, with no restrictions. Yet, for some reason, rich people now have more power to run campaign ads, if I pay attention to the people on the other side. If you prefer that I call you a lair rather than point that your ignorance seems to be extremely focused along partisan lines I have no problem doing so. Just because I prefer to imply it rather than state it bluntly doesn't make me stupid.

Now the question is, why are you lying about the fact that rich people could always spend money on electioneering ads?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually there were restrictions including the one that was the only question before the court, no airtime buys 6 weeks before an election, but the court had to be activist and proclaim that any restrictions were unconstitutional.

Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.

Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.

Do the Koch brothers want to be personally sued for libel? Hell no. Do they care if some front group gets sued for libel? Hell no.

Why don't you look up how hard it is to prove libel during a political campaign sometime.

 

[occupied]

Those restrictions applied to corporations, not individuals.

Like I said, the fact that you guys don't know that speaks volumes.

Do the Koch brothers want to be personally sued for libel? Hell no. Do they care if some front group gets sued for libel? Hell no.

Why don't you look up how hard it is to prove libel during a political campaign sometime.

We'll see, there is certainly going to be a lot of it this year, when they use their wealth to buy a half hour the night before election on all compliant networks to air some SHOCKING!!! made up pack of lies perhaps you can still somehow persuade yourself that you are still with the good guys.

 

[ladyliberal]

The fact is that rich individuals were always free to spend as much of their own money as they wanted at any point during an election cycle, with no restrictions.

During the period between McCain-Feingold and Citizens United, wealthy individuals were indeed free to spend any amount of money, but not without any restriction whatsoever.

527 organizations enjoy any number of practical advantages over individuals. In any event, wealthy individuals did often find campaign spending through 527 organizations (see, eg, ELECTION 2004 / 2 Texans dig deep for boat vet ads / Pair from Dallas kick in $3 million for group's coffers 10/05/2004 | Archives | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle) preferable to directly creating ads and airing them. Thus, to restrict 527 organizations, as McCain-Feingold did, was also substantially to impose restrictions on wealthy individuals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do the Koch brothers want to be personally sued for libel? Hell no. Do they care if some front group gets sued for libel? Hell no.

Why don't you look up how hard it is to prove libel during a political campaign sometime.

We'll see, there is certainly going to be a lot of it this year, when they use their wealth to buy a half hour the night before election on all compliant networks to air some SHOCKING!!! made up pack of lies perhaps you can still somehow persuade yourself that you are still with the good guys.

Want to make a bet on that?