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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why Obama’s Super PAC Decision Is The Best Way To Fight Citizens United [View all]
Why Obamas Super PAC Decision Is The Best Way To Fight Citizens UnitedLast night, the Obama campaign announced that it would not unilaterally disarm in the face of the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision unleashing a flood of unlimited corporate campaign spending and paving the way for unaccountable Super PACs. In an email to supporters, the campaign emphasized that President Obama opposes Citizens United and supports strong action by constitutional amendment, if necessary to roll back its license for wealth individuals and corporations to buy elections.
In a perfect world, the presidents campaign would never make this announcement, and Obamas supporters should not be naïve about what this means. When casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife spend $10 million in an attempt to buy Newt Gingrich the presidency, it is impossible to imagine that Adelson isnt also buying himself special access to the president in a Gingrich Administration. Likewise, when big oil companies pump $1.2 million into Mitt Romneys Super PAC, it is impossible to imagine that they dont expect some quid for their pro quo. President Obama is somewhat immunized from this kind of influence buying because, as a second term president, he wont need to worry about needing his big donors again to get reelected. But, at the very least, every policy a second term Obama supports that benefits a big dollar supporter will now open him up to allegations of corruption.
(snip)
By 2017, when the winner of Novembers election will step down, three sitting justices will turn 80. Justice Ginsburg, one of the four dissenters in Citizens United is both the oldest justice and a cancer survivor. If a President Romney has the opportunity to replace just her, it could entrench Citizens United for a generation or more. Conversely, if President Obama can replace just one member of the majority in that case, he could eradicate this blight upon the Constitution and ensure that no future president needs to base his campaign strategy on how hard the likes of Sheldon Adelson is breathing down the back of their neck.
So President Obama didnt just make the right decision, he made the right decision for people who believe that American democracy cannot be sold to the highest bidder. His decision to play upon the uneven field the Supreme Court laid for him is also Americas best chance to ensure that no candidate will play this same rigged game again. None of this will take away the cloud his decision will raise over a potential second term, but the blame for that cloud rests firmly in the laps of five Supreme Court justices.
Link: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/07/420245/why-obamas-super-pac-decision-is-the-best-way-to-fight-emcitizens-unitedem/
20 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Obama’s Super PAC Decision Is The Best Way To Fight Citizens United [View all]
WilliamPitt
Feb 2012
OP
President Obama will only be able to keep the SCOTUS status quo in his second term.
onehandle
Feb 2012
#2
Exactly. There's a big difference between principle and unilateral disarmament.
TheWraith
Feb 2012
#7
Beat them at their own game and expose their shallowness. Then watch them WHINE.
FarLeftFist
Feb 2012
#4