SuperPACs are bad, mmkay?
Posted by RB in Blog on February 7, 2012 1:01 pm / 2 comments
Leftists aren’t big fans of freedom of speech. In the political realm, that usually means where an individual, or corporation, or union, chooses to put their money to fund organizations that create and air ads conveying something they want to convey. That kind of freedom is dangerous to the Left. They can’t have people pooling their resources and doing things without some kind of control. It goes against the Left’s very nature. Unfortunately, a few too many Republicans – *cough* McCain *cough* – have bought into this idea that the government should put restrictions on political speech, but the primary drivers of this anti-free speech movement are Leftists.
Let’s be clear, though. The Left isn’t really anti-free speech. They’re anti-free speech for anyone they disagree with. They’re allowed to say and do whatever they want and don’t you dare try to tell them to shut up.
Naturally, this causes the Left to tie themselves in rhetorical knots. They’ll denounce SuperPACs and “secret money” – even though SuperPACs have to disclose donors – while setting up fraudulent organizations like Media Matters and ThinkProgress which actually have more secretive donor lists than the SuperPACs and enjoy tax exempt status that is reserved for non-partisan organizations. You see, it’s okay for them to spend unlimited money through networks of organizations promoting a “progressive” agenda, but if conservatives do it it’s “astroturf” and “shady.”
In what should be the biggest example of just how full of it Leftists are on this whole issue, the Obama campaign has now decided the evil Republicans have forced them to go against their “principles” and are encouraging Leftist donors to give to SuperPACs – specifically, one started by a former Obama White House staffer.
President Barack Obama’s campaign is asking top fundraisers to support a Democratic-leaning outside group that is backing the president’s re-election bid, reversing Obama’s opposition to “super” political action committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.
Obama’s campaign urged wealthy fundraisers in a Monday night conference call to support Priorities USA, a super PAC led by two former Obama aides that has struggled to compete with the tens of millions of dollars collected by Republican-backed outside groups.
Quick question: I thought SuperPACs weren’t allowed to coordinate with official campaigns? How is telling people to donate to specific SuperPACs not “coordination”? Anyone? Anyone?
Now, if we had a media which wasn’t completely vested in making sure their golden child was re-elected, this would be major news. I mean, this is the same guy who stood in front of the nation and literally scolded the Supreme Court about the Citizen’s United case which basically said it would be unconstitutional to limit organizations, like SuperPACs, from spending their money as they saw fit. The alleged Constitutional scholar (Obama) called this money a “threat to our democracy.” Now he and his minions are embracing it?
Of course, this hypocrisy is nothing new for Obama. He does it all the time. He did it back in 2008 with public campaign financing. The issue is that he is not held accountable for it. If this were a Republican, the media would be pounding him. Instead what we’ll get are reports filled with the administration’s excuses for why the horrible Republicans forced them to use the evil SuperPACs. They’ll all just laugh it off as silly stuff that happens during a campaign knowing full well they’d be all concerned and troubled about a Republican candidate who was so blatantly hypocritical.
Let’s look back at 2008 to see what then-candidate Obama had to say about these types of organizations, shall we?
The GOP should be demolishing Obama over this. The RNC is doing their part. They quickly came out with an ad highlighting the hypocrisy:
Again, the message here isn’t that SuperPACs are bad. We are free to speak our minds in this country. Either as individuals or as a group. No one is prevented from forming a SuperPAC. If you have something to say, say it. The technology to put together video and post it on YouTube is at everyone’s fingertips. The only rule is you can’t coordinate with official campaigns – unless you’re Obama’s campaign, obviously.
The issue is that Democrats are not held to the very same standards they set for everyone else. The Democrat media complex lets Obama and his buddies get away with this. This is what we face in the next few months.
Are we ready?
Share This Post
-
Five Things You Can Buy With Ed Markey’s Bounced Checks
16 May, 2013
-
Speaking Of Shady 501(c)(4) Non-Profits…
15 May, 2013
-
It’s Official: Obama Lied During Presidential Debate
10 May, 2013
-
Saudi Arabia Warned Us About Tamarlan Tsarnaev
1 May, 2013
-
Budget Cuts for Americans, Aid for Syrians
22 Apr, 2013
-
Becoming the Alternative Option
17 May, 2013
-
Why Did The DOJ Get AP’s Phone Records?
16 May, 2013
-
Five Things You Can Buy With Ed Markey’s Bounced Checks
16 May, 2013
-
Obama: A Photo Essay
15 May, 2013
-
Speaking Of Shady 501(c)(4) Non-Profits…
15 May, 2013
-
william: Nixon a republican was honorable he resigned other governors and senators resign...
-
Chuck: I'm just wondering why you didn't post my post. Someone please tell me how...
-
hammar: The world is built on lies. That is why these criminals are in charge. Obuma lie...
-
Les: Duh!...
-
Ralph: Name one president who hasn't lied and why is Obama being singled out. He lies l...

2 Comments
Tell me, how successful is a campaign that doesn’t use Super PACs these days? Buddy Roemer, a Republican candidate who refuses to work with super PACs or receive special interest money, receives no air time and is not even allowed into the debates. Citizens United is the WMD of campaign financing. Every country/candidate is scrambling to get his hands on some enriched uranium/unlimited money so that they can win the Arms Race.
But regardless of the details of Obama’s campaign or any other, “Citizens United” is fundamentally flawed, and that’s the issue you should be talking about. A real political analyst discusses universal truths, not trifling matters that will become irrelevant with time.
You say that liberals hate free speech because they demonize PACs and other multi-million dollar political machines. But isn’t free speech… free? How dare you put a price tag on a human’s right to speech; is my 5-figure income speech less free than Mitt Romney’s? Recent legislation makes that true in every practical sense.
Money is different from speech. Speech is an inherent American right, according to the Constitution. Money is, obviously, much different, and much harder for some to obtain than others. The more you try to equate speech and money, the more you restrict the rights of the 99%.
Also, in your articles, please cite credible sources.
Bentley,
Here’s the problem: This is an opinion piece. The writer stated his, and you are free to state yours in response. But when you start with the “that’s the issue you should be talking about” stuff, what exactly is that? That’s telling someone else what they need to discussing, that is not something you get to choose for anyone. In fact, maybe the writer thinks the Citizen United decision isn’t flawed? If that’s the case, why would the writer choose to write about that. Remember that whole “free speech” thing you were talking about? Exactly.
Second, can you show me where the author stated that they were a “political analyst?” I’ll wait.. HINT: They didn’t. Even if they had? Political Analysts are not forbidden from stating their own opinions.
And finally, as to your accusation of credible sources. Is the Associated Press not a credible source? If not, please explain to me as to why. I’m guessing you saw “Fox News” and decided based upon that. However, this was not written by Fox, it was an AP wire report.