Obama campaign to support super PAC fundraising, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 7-2-2012 @ 09:40 AM by xuenchen

Obama's re-election campaign announced that they will be sending administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action. Weak fubdraising was cited as one reason.

Priorities USA Action is a super-pac that supports the POTUS.

However, Mr Obama, Michelle, VP Biden and Wife Jill will NOT be appearing in person (yet).

Obama has been an outspoken critic of current campaign financing laws, in particular a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the creation of super PACs. Until now he has kept his distance from Priorities USA Action.

But in the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to change its position, and announced the new stance to members of its national finance committee Monday evening.

Two Obama campaign aides confirmed that senior campaign and administration officials who participate at fundraising events for the president's campaign will also appear at events for Priorities USA Action, the PAC supporting Obama.

CNN Report

Messina was careful to point out the president's opposition to a Supreme Court ruling that sparked the onset of super PACs, noting the administration was still looking for ways to put limits on campaign spending.

"The President opposed the Citizens United decision," Messina wrote. "He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view.

This seems to be a defensive move to counter Republican campaigns

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 09:42 AM by sonnny1

Didnt see that coming.......

What a surprise!

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 09:45 AM by FlyersFan

Another story -

Super PAC Man

President Obama once called 'super' political action committees — which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections — a 'threat to our democracy.' Now, his re-election campaign is asking its wealthiest fund-raisers to start helping him cash in.

What a surprise. NOT!
Reminds me of his 'no lobbiest will find a job in my administration' - and now it's full of them.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 09:50 AM by sonnny1

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Another story -

Super PAC Man

President Obama once called 'super' political action committees — which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections — a 'threat to our democracy.' Now, his re-election campaign is asking its wealthiest fund-raisers to start helping him cash in.

What a surprise. NOT!
Reminds me of his 'no lobbiest will find a job in my administration' - and now it's full of them.

Honestly,ANYTHING this man says,is suspect.

Im waiting on the comprehensive Job Package,to get this country back to work.........

Or the Perpetual campaigning since he took office. He never did stop.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 09:56 AM by sealing

Um.. He has to. Did you see what Romney has brought
in from his millionaire donors? Only 9% of Romneys
money came from individuals paying less than 100k
as opposed to Obama's 47% from real individuals.

Oh and Romney's Karl Rove run Supa- dupa PAC
has already generated much more money than the presidents.
How come y'all don't bring that up when you talk about
super PAC's ?

edit on 7-2-2012 by sealing because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 11:58 AM by negativenihil

Why shouldn't he arm himself with the same tools the opposition has and will continue to leverage?

This is what Citizen's United was created for! Just imagine - all the Hollywood elite, all us ivory tower educated liberals forming corporations for the expressed purpose of funneling money into pro-Obama ads! Without *any* limits!

It's a beautiful thing.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 04:13 PM by WTFover

Originally posted by sealing

How come y'all don't bring that up when you talk about
super PAC's ?

Um... Because the point is he said he was opposed to them, but now embraces them. Why didn't you talk about that?

The fact remains, none of this would matter if the voters would actually educate themselves on the issues and candidates, rather than rely solely on the media and advertising, which these PACs fund.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 06:15 PM by KeliOnyx

This isn't a big deal to me. You can be against this but the reality is if you don't accept the reality that your gonna have to do it to be competitive you lose it is that simple. Would it be great to see him not use it? Yeah it would be wonderful if he took the moral high ground, but the reality is he can't afford to. The only real problem I have with this is he isn't pushing an agenda to get private money out of our electoral system altogether. It is a disaster and making things worse.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 06:21 PM by Blackmarketeer

What choice does he have? The SCOTUS and the 'conservatives' (I use that term very loosely with regard to the GOP) have created the SuperPAC monster, now all political parties will HAVE to embrace to have any shot in the general election. Koch brothers have just convened a 'secret meeting' with plans to funnel 100 million to defeating Obama, and that is just a tiny amount in the expected 11 billion being spent by SuperPACs to eradicate any shred of democracy this country had left.

Hey the right-wingers on the SCOTUS made this bed, now let them lie in it.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 06:44 PM by OutKast Searcher

You can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

If it is going to be allowed, then exploit it for all it's worth.

reply posted on 7-2-2012 @ 07:23 PM by sonnny1

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by sealing

How come y'all don't bring that up when you talk about
super PAC's ?

Um... Because the point is he said he was opposed to them, but now embraces them. Why didn't you talk about that?

The fact remains, none of this would matter if the voters would actually educate themselves on the issues and candidates, rather than rely solely on the media and advertising, which these PACs fund.

100%
Dead on.

reply posted on 8-2-2012 @ 05:55 PM by spinalremain

Using them does not mean he agrees with them or the way the system is currently set up after the Citizens United ruling.

The bottom line is that he would be an absolute fool not to use what's available. What we need is seldom what we want. Just sayin.

Pages: ^^TOP^^