Bill Burton, former White House Press Secretary, and current head of Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, discusses the notion that even if a super PAC helps President Obama win re-election, the President will not work to achieve campaign finance reform to rid the political system of inhindered money in politics.
http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/bill-burton-defends-president-obama-stance-on-super-pac-funding-for-the-2012-campaign
Showing posts with label Super PAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Super PAC. Show all posts
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sucker PAC'ed
President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.
Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.
Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.
But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Mitt Romney Wins New Hampshire
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney won a decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary tonight. The numbers as of press time show Romney with about 36% of the vote, about 11% more than his closest rival, Ron Paul. While that is a large margin, and CNN was able to call the primary just after 8 pm eastern time for the former governor when the polls were officially closed, it was not necessarily a decisive one. The Huffington Post splashed as their headline tonight, “5 Years Campaigning, Less Than 40%?” Romney has ostensibly never quit his 2008 presidential bid in New Hampshire, keeping offices open, continuing to build support over the last 4 years, much like what Congressman Paul had done down in Iowa (yet it still couldn’t get him a win). Romney did win, but he was only able to garner roughly 36% of the primary voters. With a lasting campaign as he had had, one might have thought New Hampshire would be a runaway victory for Governor Romney.
In all likelihood, Romney will win the nomination. There really is nobody in the field who can match his campaign when it comes to spending and donations. Through his own resources and the capital of the Pro-Romney Super PACS, he can fend off any surge by the other candidates in the race. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, they all rose and fell without Romney needing to do much. They had no chance when it came to Iowa, or New Hampshire. They beat themselves. Newt Gingrich, however, was a different story. With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich saw a huge shift in support from likely voters. And with the holidays coming up, and the focus shifting off Iowa for a hot-minute, Gingrich looked poised to roll into the final week with a commanding lead. Sensing a shift in momentum, Romney (and his Super PACS) stepped in. They blanketed the airwaves with attack ads on the former House Speaker calling into question his integrity, his record, his marital strife. And it worked. Gingrich’s popularity plummeted and Romney went “all-in” in Iowa hoping to shut down this roulette wheel of Republican flavors-of-the-month. It didn’t quite work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum played well with Iowa voters with his social conservative issues and nearly pulled off an upset. Without a decisive victory, Romney would still have a large field of contenders to bat off in New Hampshire.
It’s a week later, and I don’t see that much has changed. Sure Romney won by more than 10% (with a field of five), but it’s not a knockout punch. Rick Perry, after tonight, should really drop out. But he was never focused on New Hampshire and has instead been looking to South Carolina’s primary on Jan. 21. But his showing was so bad tonight, and his campaign has been running on life-support for weeks, that he should just give up while still ahead. Of course, I probably could say the same thing about Jon Huntsman, but he never even bothered with Iowa. His focus was New Hampshire and it worked – to an extent. Huntsman will likely finish a strong 3rd in New Hampshire, but with no base whatsoever in South Carolina to speak of it’s difficult to say how he can press on from here. Huntsman really did need a 1st or 2nd place tonight to get the momentum he needed in the coming weeks. With only about 15-18% of the vote in New Hampshire, and a significant distance to catch Ron Paul, this does not bode well for his campaign in the coming weeks. But then this all comes back around to Romney and how poor his numbers were for the evening.
Without breaking the 40% margin, Romney has to be wondering what is missing from his campaign to draw in new voters. There must be some consternation on his part that the anti-Romney popularity has not yet finished weaving its way through the field of contenders. About 30% of voters this past weekend were still undecided going to the voting booth and Romney's final tally were fairly consistent with his polling numbers, meaning he still has not done what's needed to sway the undecided to his camp. If given a few more days, or another week, might Huntsman turned more support his way? We can't say for sure now. South Carolina might still have something to say for Jon Huntsman. It may have something to say for all the other candidates as well. Rick Santorum's social issues might play better in SC. Newt Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia. Ron Paul's libertarian base seems to be holding steady between 20-25% of republican voters. If New Hampshire is indicative of South Carolina in its population of undecided voters, we might not be any closer to solidifying a republican nominee for the White House in 11 more days. And the longer this strings along, the worse it will be for Romney.
In all likelihood, Romney will win the nomination. There really is nobody in the field who can match his campaign when it comes to spending and donations. Through his own resources and the capital of the Pro-Romney Super PACS, he can fend off any surge by the other candidates in the race. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, they all rose and fell without Romney needing to do much. They had no chance when it came to Iowa, or New Hampshire. They beat themselves. Newt Gingrich, however, was a different story. With less than a month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich saw a huge shift in support from likely voters. And with the holidays coming up, and the focus shifting off Iowa for a hot-minute, Gingrich looked poised to roll into the final week with a commanding lead. Sensing a shift in momentum, Romney (and his Super PACS) stepped in. They blanketed the airwaves with attack ads on the former House Speaker calling into question his integrity, his record, his marital strife. And it worked. Gingrich’s popularity plummeted and Romney went “all-in” in Iowa hoping to shut down this roulette wheel of Republican flavors-of-the-month. It didn’t quite work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum played well with Iowa voters with his social conservative issues and nearly pulled off an upset. Without a decisive victory, Romney would still have a large field of contenders to bat off in New Hampshire.
It’s a week later, and I don’t see that much has changed. Sure Romney won by more than 10% (with a field of five), but it’s not a knockout punch. Rick Perry, after tonight, should really drop out. But he was never focused on New Hampshire and has instead been looking to South Carolina’s primary on Jan. 21. But his showing was so bad tonight, and his campaign has been running on life-support for weeks, that he should just give up while still ahead. Of course, I probably could say the same thing about Jon Huntsman, but he never even bothered with Iowa. His focus was New Hampshire and it worked – to an extent. Huntsman will likely finish a strong 3rd in New Hampshire, but with no base whatsoever in South Carolina to speak of it’s difficult to say how he can press on from here. Huntsman really did need a 1st or 2nd place tonight to get the momentum he needed in the coming weeks. With only about 15-18% of the vote in New Hampshire, and a significant distance to catch Ron Paul, this does not bode well for his campaign in the coming weeks. But then this all comes back around to Romney and how poor his numbers were for the evening.
Without breaking the 40% margin, Romney has to be wondering what is missing from his campaign to draw in new voters. There must be some consternation on his part that the anti-Romney popularity has not yet finished weaving its way through the field of contenders. About 30% of voters this past weekend were still undecided going to the voting booth and Romney's final tally were fairly consistent with his polling numbers, meaning he still has not done what's needed to sway the undecided to his camp. If given a few more days, or another week, might Huntsman turned more support his way? We can't say for sure now. South Carolina might still have something to say for Jon Huntsman. It may have something to say for all the other candidates as well. Rick Santorum's social issues might play better in SC. Newt Gingrich is from neighboring Georgia. Ron Paul's libertarian base seems to be holding steady between 20-25% of republican voters. If New Hampshire is indicative of South Carolina in its population of undecided voters, we might not be any closer to solidifying a republican nominee for the White House in 11 more days. And the longer this strings along, the worse it will be for Romney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)