General Discussion

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)

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

Fri Feb 24, 2012, 02:09 PM

Feb 2012

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please I want help understanding Obama's use of Super Pacs This campaign season. [View all] Justice wanted Feb 2012 OP

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Swede Feb 2012 #1

I don't think Obama likes them either. But it is a necessary evil. He can't compete southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #4

I am trying to work on him. Oh we voted in 2010 unfortunately PA got Corbertt. I just Justice wanted Feb 2012 #6

Oh Justice I'm with you on getting worse. It will no doubt about it. But it may work southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #7

Sad...but true joeglow3 Feb 2012 #10

Haven't you ever heard of trinkle down. Yep we'll get the crumbs if we are lucky. It is southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #26

Darn. You bet me to it. n/t wandy Feb 2012 #11

I wonder what the odds were on this exact line being the first response? MrCoffee Feb 2012 #21

if the other side has a gazillion dollars coming in and you have a half a gazillion, you lose. spanone Feb 2012 #2

You have to sell out to become president and now it is much worse than before. mucifer Feb 2012 #3

The answer to your question is contained in your post. Big Blue Marble Feb 2012 #5

This wasn't an issue in 2008. Ruby the Liberal Feb 2012 #8

His opposition to Citizens United is not contrary to acquiescing to the notion of a fair fight. AtomicKitten Feb 2012 #9

The repubs will use them. Do you want Obama in the battle with 1 arm tied behind back? librechik Feb 2012 #12

There were NO "super PACs" in 2008. TheWraith Feb 2012 #13

"You got to get in to get out..." Peter Gabriel/Genesis Ship of Fools Feb 2012 #14

I honestly don't want to cause trouble I want to understand this decision because the idea Justice wanted Feb 2012 #15

Sorry- I wasn't aiming my thoughts at you ... Ship of Fools Feb 2012 #18

I do see the reasoning behind having to do it this election. Justice wanted Feb 2012 #16

Can't bring a knife to a gun fight? Thrill Feb 2012 #17

What concerns me is... SomethingFishy Feb 2012 #19

That is a huge concern of mine as well. Is it because they honestly believe this will end Justice wanted Feb 2012 #20

"They do it, so we do it" is a piss poor excuse for corruption. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #22

true, but so is DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #23

Taking payoffs from the corporations prevents people from getting killed? Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #25

If you mean forming super pacs, it does DonCoquixote Feb 2012 #28

The "corporate masters" remain the masters no matter who they pay off. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2012 #29

You seem to be basing your rationale on the fact that he raised so much last time. BzaDem Feb 2012 #24

That is well and good but the interests of wealth and corporations will always have TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #32

Just another politician being bought and sold on the open market, MadHound Feb 2012 #27

He is running to stop rick Santorum BrentWil Feb 2012 #30

IF bluestate10 Feb 2012 #31