Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Obama $uper PAC's it in

Apparently, asking the little people for lots of small donations this election season, is not yielding the change (i.e.billions) the Obama administration needs to fund his re-election campaign, so he will join the Super Pac bandwagon. Super PAC's = unlimited anonymous donations.

"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.
"This decision was not made overnight,” one campaign official said. “ The money raised and spent by Republican super PACs is very telling. We will not unilaterally disarm."
Really? Did they have to resort to using "war verbiage" for campaign funding for the Nobel Peace prize winning president?
The justification seems to be - the other guys are doing it. They point out it is consistent with the law, but that does not make it right.

"We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission."

Super PAC's, by law are not required to disclose, so if they are following the rules, nobody needs to know.  Mitt's campaign Super PAC has $30 million, Obama's non Super PAC has $4.4 million.
The opposition plans on raising/spending $300 million for Romney's campaign. (Note #2.4 billion was spent on the 2008 presidential election).

In an October 2010, Obama said (regarding Super PAC's), "You don’t know, it could be the oil industry, it could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don’t know because they don’t have to disclose. Now that’s not just a threat to Democrats, that’s a threat to our democracy."

Maybe that's the problem with trying to represent the democrats, that bunch is all pretty broke, trying to get by w ravaged 401K's, and live the reality of the so-called "jobless recovery".
Also President Obama has stepped on a lot of toes, if not outright throwing under the bus, many groups and issues, having failed to keep previous campaign promises.
We see the # Occupy Wall Street uprising, and in many cases, a violent strong arm Police state response, and hear no  directive or support from the president, as to toning down the violence.
It's very possible "playing it safe", and keeping hands off positions will backfire. The problem is, there are no other viable or better candidates.
Although Obama says he "understands" where the Occupy movement is coming from, Mitt
Romney calls the movement "dangerous". This Super PAC move really just makes president Obama more of the same. We may not have money to fund schools, health care, or the infrastructure needs of a (literally) crumbling nation, but we've got billions to spend on campaign elections. Less than 10% of Americans check off the tax form box to contribute a measly $3 bucks to presidential campaign funding. That says a lot, doesn't it?

 The other thing about Super PAC's is they are a handy way to make commercials using no holds barred nastiness, because also by law, the candidate can not participate in that aspect. This way a candidate can shrug and say they have nothing to do with those ads. Any ad they are involved with has  the "and I approve this message" disclaimer.

I resent the obscene amounts of money wasted on elections. $2.4 BILLION was spent in the 2008 presidential election alone. Now with Super PAC's-- there is no limit. 
With moneybags Mitt in the running, we may see that amount more than double. Super PAC's can spend super amounts of $. Even though presidential elections are held every 4 years, all the pre election hoopla drags on for 2 years, making it more costly, and irritating.

I hate presidential election years.

No comments: