Six words that would astonish a Dem or GOPer after today:
“I will not support a SuperPAC.”
Now that President Obama has blessed his new SuperPAC, Priorities USA Action is another reminder of why our elections are broken, and a question of what the heck President Obama is thinking about. Is he that vulnerable, or is he going for the kill by re-taking Congress by carpet bombing us with media?
It’s no secret that these political action committees are nothing but vessels of media buys and flights. The entire purpose of these post-Citizens United organizations was to ensure a narrative bought with cash from anywhere, anyone, and without much transparency from the cheats who suddenly incorporate, donate, then dissolve. Now that both sides are in this, there’s really no difference anymore between the parties.
If you disagree, take a look at the winner of Tuesday night’s Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota nominations.
(Hint: It’s not Newt.)
With President Obama’s blessing of SuperPAC Priorities USA Action undercuts the very meaning of why Citizens United was so important to debate, at least from those who seemed to be on-the-level, and understood why money corrupts politics. The president’s acceptance allows Dems to justify a SuperPAC, even though the president’s coffers really don’t need one, even in the environment he’s currently facing.
From OpenSecrets in 2008, John McCain spent about $333 million for his campaign. President Obama?
Heck, the “O” herself couldn’t compete with that kind of money.
The Center of Responsive Politics noted in 2008 that we spent about $5.3 billion to elect the president and Congress. Haiti’s entire GDP was estimated at $6.5 pillion (*prior to the tragic earthquake).
And that’s just spending for federal elections. Adding state and local races, and we’re talking about a lot more money. Kick in a few SuperPACs and fake tea petition drives, and you can see how important those six words should be in this corporate political state.
For GOPers who want some ammo, here’s the DSCC. They claim they’re against Citizens United, but they will hug the heck out of Priorities USA for the money. And with the senate on the line, any and every direct avenue to connect the hypocrisy is important. It would make a good line-of-attack as well, but the arguments of hypocrisy aren’t effective when the GOP is the one complaining. Maybe if they find an indie conservative, there would be hope…
If you’re a real conservative, you might see the problem with this, instead of gleefully crowing about President Obama doing what your guys already did. The Citizens United decision presented a short-sighted victory, but a long-term headache if Priorities USA is given the green light.
While the GOP literally put out a pair of flip-flops for President Obama to wear, they’re not much better off with Mitt “Flipper” Romney and Newt “Dungeons and Dragons” Gingrich also using SuperPACs. The real problem is if the president’s PAC starts drawing so much money, it becomes a new kind of PAC…The O-PAC. And that’s a really big problem for the GOP if any hint of positive economic news stabilizes.
The O-PAC is currently small, but could soon evolve into a MOAB, a massive-ordinance air bomb of media. Heck, the Kochs were only able to pony up $60 million from their League of Extraordinarily Rich Gentlemen. If the O-PAC gets off the ground and the economy shifts back into positive territory this summer, Dems might get their fundraising mojo back, and we may see far more money than even the Kochs could pledge.
The president’s anti-PAC stance was a key character issue that brought a lot of independents to him. I expect the Dems to explain that they need to fight the GOP in Congressional races where the last two cycles were dominated by GOP-led groups (and Dems are often horrible at messaging). That explanation rings just as hollow as why Mitt Romney has shell corporations appearing on his SuperPAC donations.
Since our last presidential election spent more than the amount a country of 10,000,000 people produced in an entire year, it shouldn’t be a surprise that money is more important than actual political belief. And with the Citizens United decision, there is no cap on spending. That’s just begging for felonies as well.
But even if I disagree with someone’s stance, I respect it if they actually know the pros and cons, and it’s an “agree to disagree” moment. But SuperPACs aren’t about reason, they’re about money. They’re about buying ads that tell half-truths, and robocalling people with the most ridiculous nonsense. Whatever blurred line once remained between our dual-corporate party system will go with it.
Voting is futile. We need reform.