Please I want help understanding Obama's use of Super Pacs This campaign season.

[Justice wanted]

I will be honest Sometimes I do criticize the Presidents in his policies. I get he can't keep every campaign promise. I will be voting for Obama this year unlike my husband who is refusing to vote AT ALL in his mind the Corporations have won. He feels Democrats and republicans are in Corporations back pocket and isn't going to play the "Game" anymore.


But the thing that is really bothering right at this moment is Obama going ahead with the use of Super Pacs and Maher just handing a super Pac a million dollars (For Obama).

In 2008 Obama raised more money than ever before and I honestly believe it was his turning down Super Pacs. So why now.

Can Citizens United be that much dangerous to a Presidential election this year?

I have been screaming about the citizens united vote because the danger it has for U.S. House and Senate races as well as State and even (some) Cities BUT does Obama need a Super Pac to win this election?

(I don't want to cause trouble I am honestly asking this question to understand this movement)

[Swede]

1. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Think swiftboaters to the nth power,with no response.

[southernyankeebelle]

4. I don't think Obama likes them either. But it is a necessary evil. He can't compete

with the hate that is going to come his way. If I had a million dollars I would give to his pac. Mahar was right last night when he said it was important to give to the pac because half of this country is crazy so it is up to the other half to vote for sanity. You husband better think twice. If the republicans win than we all can kiss our entitlments away. It is us that will lose. You need to tell your husband that. Vote for your childrens future if not for yours. I already voted early voting in my state. I dragged my daughter-in-law and my husband voted. Keep working on him. Tell him not voting got us republican teabaggers in 2010. We will get more of that. Evey vote counts.

[Justice wanted]

6. I am trying to work on him. Oh we voted in 2010 unfortunately PA got Corbertt. I just

I just have a bad feeling using super Pacs. It's like I'm going to use the cheater's way to win than I'll disband it when I get there.

Maybe I can't image it get any worse than what it is now because I see it as so bad it can't get any worse... maybe I'm seeing things with rosey glasses.

[southernyankeebelle]

7. Oh Justice I'm with you on getting worse. It will no doubt about it. But it may work

in the president's favor. People don't like piling on.

[joeglow3]

10. Sad...but true

Regardless of who gets elected (Obama or Romney), the Corporations will be eating ribeyes. The question is who gets the leftover grissle and fat? Us, or the rich. The sad reality is that every election is about who gets the leftovers, as the guests at the table are already seated and eating.

[southernyankeebelle]

26. Haven't you ever heard of trinkle down. Yep we'll get the crumbs if we are lucky. It is

just picking the one who is going to do the least harm. They don't give a damn about us really.

[wandy]

11. Darn. You bet me to it. n/t

[MrCoffee]

21. I wonder what the odds were on this exact line being the first response?

Gotta be high.

[spanone]

2. if the other side has a gazillion dollars coming in and you have a half a gazillion, you lose.

[mucifer]

3. You have to sell out to become president and now it is much worse than before.

We can all wish we had publicly funded elections. But, we don't and ya gotta vote for the guy who has better policies.

[Big Blue Marble]

5. The answer to your question is contained in your post.

The corporations have won.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. This wasn't an issue in 2008.

Citizens United wasn't decided until 2010.

He doesn't have a choice in the matter.

On edit - your husband is right. This SCOTUS decision has made a mockery out of the whole process. At the end of the day though, votes DO count, so I would encourage him to rethink not voting to reelect, but it IS going to be a mess getting to November.

[AtomicKitten]

9. His opposition to Citizens United is not contrary to acquiescing to the notion of a fair fight.

[librechik]

12. The repubs will use them. Do you want Obama in the battle with 1 arm tied behind back?

not the time to address this travesty--we need a better SCOTUS--hope Justice Ginzburg resigns before November

[TheWraith]

13. There were NO "super PACs" in 2008.

Let's make that clear, because a lot of people seem to think that Obama refused to use super-PACs last time and he is now. That's not true. There were no super-PACs yet at that point. Nor did he refuse to allow ads to be run by regular PACs. What he did was say no CONTRIBUTIONS from PACs or registered lobbyists to his campaign, or after he was nominated to the DNC. However, that didn't stop PACs like MoveOn from running ads, which is basically what super-PACs do, just with more money.

As for the other merits of it, I've said it before and I'll say it again: you don't bring a knife to a gun fight. We may not like current campaign spending laws, but unilateral disarmament isn't going to change them in the least, and may actually harm that cause since it gives the Republicans a leg up in every election.

[Ship of Fools]

14. "You got to get in to get out..." Peter Gabriel/Genesis

The amount of shit the prez has had to clean up is mind-numbing to me.
And no, this isn't about walking & chewing gum at the same time. It's
about TIMING and building consensus.

I'm sure this will be flamed (per usual), but it is, after all,
just one woman's opinion.

[Justice wanted]

15. I honestly don't want to cause trouble I want to understand this decision because the idea

of having to "go with the system to beat/destroy the system" is hard to swallow considering Obama rasied so much money in 2008.

Yes there where super pacs and 527s in 2008 Obama just decided not to in a sense use them.

That's all I'm asking. It seems he raised so much money just by individuals giving to his campaign that it makes me ask why can't it be done again?

[Ship of Fools]

18. Sorry- I wasn't aiming my thoughts at you ...

The way I see it, though, is that he knows he's upset his base. I think
his group figures, probably correctly, that they won't be able to raise the
same money/excitement. He's up against Koch Brothers, Rove, et. al...
The other thing is that he doesn't seem to be
attracting big-time money, at this point, anyway.
Maybe all of this will change at crunch time--
I know I'll be looking under the sofa cushions to contribute what I can
when it comes down to Obama vs. Any of the Clowns in the Car.

[Justice wanted]

16. I do see the reasoning behind having to do it this election.

[Thrill]

17. Can't bring a knife to a gun fight?

Thats probably why.

[SomethingFishy]

19. What concerns me is...

What do people who donate that kind of money expect in return?

Mahr seems to not want anything except for Republicans to lose, and who can blame him. However I think he's more the exception than the rule.

Oh and I do find it funny that so many DU'ers rag on Mahr and now he's coughed up a million bucks for Obama.

[Justice wanted]

20. That is a huge concern of mine as well. Is it because they honestly believe this will end

citizens united OR is there a different motive?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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

[DonCoquixote]

23. true, but so is

"We can't get our hands dirty" when you see people getting killed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Taking payoffs from the corporations prevents people from getting killed?

I don't think sooo.

[DonCoquixote]

28. If you mean forming super pacs, it does

Because if we simply avoided using them, then every election is doomed from the start as the Corporate masters can drown any opponent in the pool of money. I would like to think the masses would be smart enough not to be tenderized by television, but I a not going to risk the loves of those that a GOP victory would kill (as many iraqis could tell you, if they were still alive.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. The "corporate masters" remain the masters no matter who they pay off.

And, the lost war in Afghanistan, and the drone wars all over the place, are being waged and killing people, by their servants..no matter which party.

[BzaDem]

24. You seem to be basing your rationale on the fact that he raised so much last time.

But what if what he raised last time is clearly insufficient to win the Presidency in the post Citizens United world?

Newt Gingrich's biggest donor said that he might give 100 million. And this is just among the people that disclose this. Given the lack of good disclosure laws and lack of enforcement of existing disclosure laws, we could have some people give hundreds of millions to the Republican without blinking an eye. A few people could easily match the Obama's 2008 total.

Let's assume this is true; that what is required to even compete (let alone win) is far more than Obama (or any Democrat) could raise without Super-pacs.

Would you then be as concerned?

You say you are concerned about the logic that one must use the system to overturn the system. But what if that is literally, objectively true? Citizens United is not going anywhere until Democrats get a majority on the Supreme Court, and that isn't going to happen without Democrats winning the Presidency.

This is a classic case of a zero sum situation, where allowing only one side to break the rules would be massively unfair. Another might be self-defense; one could despise violence and yet realize violence might be necessary if you are being attacked.

In general, we have

Correct rule > no rule > selectively applied rule.

[TheKentuckian]

32. That is well and good but the interests of wealth and corporations will always have

an advantage and a huge one over those for the poor and working folks.

We cannot come within shouting distance. For every Soros there are a thousand Koch's.

We can only bring a knife to a gunfight and over time the desires of "our" wealthy will drown out the "small people" but still never be able to go to toe with"their" wealthy.

This is a losing battle, even if Obama walks away with a grand slam home run. What returns can anyone even optimistically hope for here?

[MadHound]

27. Just another politician being bought and sold on the open market,

It has been going on for decades, it is just more open now.

Oh, and continuing to follow the same path is not going to lead to change.

[BrentWil]

30. He is running to stop rick Santorum

If it is within the rules, I don't care what he does. The rules are what the rules are. It is stupid to tie one hand behind your back.

[bluestate10]

31. IF

Someone was coming for you with a loaded gun and corrosively bad intentions and you were trapped in a alley with no where to go, would you pick up the loaded gun sitting on the trashcan beside you, or would you allow the malcontent to slaughter you like a lamb? Enough fucking said.