Super PACs And The 2012 Presidential Election
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-11/super-pacs-and-2012-presidential-election
Super PACs have been called the wild card in this years presidential election. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision on Citizens United these groups are allowed to accept unlimited donations and advocate for and against specific candidates. By November 2012 super PACs aligned with Governor Mitt Romney estimate they will have raised about $800 million dollars, about eight times what the pro-Obama super PAC hopes to bring in. Please join us for a conversation on super PACs and their role in the 2012 presidential race.
Guests
Jonathan Collegio
communications director, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS
Robert Draper
freelance writer, a correspondent for GQ and a contributor to The New York Times Magazine
Bill Burton
a founder and senior strategist for Priorities USA Action and
former deputy press secretary at the Obama White House
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Can you explain the premise that when you have an incumbent politician of any stripe that has caused so much consternation among the electorate and his fund raising is lower for the obvious reason that there is a major enthusiasm gap, that he is somehow at a disadvantage because of an inability to fund raise as much as the competition and not at a disadvantage because of poor governance.
If Obama has succeeded at anything it's at scaring the bejesus out of anyone who values fiscal responsibility, future prosperity for the country and freedom, so of course the opposition is highly motivated.
I am not so sure the gap in total funds raised in the end will be as wide as we are expected to believe anyway, it's very likely this show is nothing more than a plea for sympathy for a failing inadequate president in the name corporate demonization .
monte, you're such a cheerleader and apologist for capitalist greed.
The only thing that we have to learn from this election cycle is that corporations have finally been given the green light to purchase the country. John Roberts based his decision on health care knowing that come November if the election is close his court may be called on again to decide who the actual winner is. Kiss democracy and your cherished "freedom" good bye.
Welcome to corporate feudalism. I hope you will be happy living under it.
Millions in campaign contributions by billionaires who also hide their wealth off shore. Surprise ? Not hardly. T-Party flying the Confederate flag? No surprise either. The haters of "We the People" show their hatred of the United States by off-shoring our jobs and profits.
Who can`t see this train wreck coming?
"ROLLERBALL 2012" ........ A hit coming to a former nation near YOU.
The argument the wealthy make for eliminating the 'Estate Tax' is that they will be paying the tax twice. NOW the truth comes into the light,FINALLY ! The billionaires have hidden their wealth off shore in tax havens to evade taxes.(TAX CHEAT) They contribute millions to politicians to keep up the fraud,and millions more to Fox News to continue the pity party.
CITIZENS UNITED......The Best Government the Wealthy can buy !
Just so you all know you can use the same tactics that the rich use if you'd like, just buy dividend paying stocks, there are a large number of list showing consistent paying stocks at affordable prices. Then dump everything you can spare into them and get taxed at 15% on those earnings. If you incorporate you can make money overseas and leave the money there tax free(from the US government) until you repatriate the money. There you have the secrets quit whining.
And in the interest of full disclosure I started doing the dividend thing last year and have already upped my yearly income by almost 25 dollars so I'm living the dream.
We already had K-Street,where corporations store their Lobbyists,who bribe politicians and our governent. Now we got the K-RATS, Kennedy,Roberts,Aliti,Thomas,and Scalia.....Where the payoffs were made legal.
I want Democracy back. I want politicians knocking on my door asking my opinion. I don`t want to be forced to compete with buying politicians.
CITIZENS UNITED WILL DESTROY DEMOCRACY.
Everybody's talking like the Citizens United SCOTUS decision has changed everything, but politics was all about money long before that. Campaigns already cost millions before that, and campaigns were already mostly funded by law firms. Last election Obama far outraised McCain. If that determines who wins it's pretty sad. I (and millions of other people) really don't care anymore who wins. There is almost no difference in politics between Obama and Romney anyway.
I don't get the whole "bought the election" concept.
There are so many examples of candidates who spent many multiples of their opposition and still managed to lose. Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina come to mind recently.
Incumbents seem to have an inherent advantage when it comes to getting media coverage so I can see why challengers need to spend considerably more just to try to level the playing field.
Moreover, between remote controls and DVRs, it's pretty easy to avoid campaign commercials.
Finally, SuperPacs don't get to vote, only registered voters mostly. So let these people spend their millions, it helps the economy.
The setup to this show is interesting. A show about super-pacs and they show only Romney's face - as though Obama doesn't have super-pacs supporting him. The splash is about $2400 donations to Romney. Will anyone mention Obama's $40K A PLATE dinner at Clooney's?
"Corporations are people" this is what sends the left into a frenzy of temper tantrums. Corporations have always been something like a medieval witch hunt for the left and no amount of logic can change it.
Watch the videos of T-Party Congressmen lecture and scold voters at Town Hall meetings. Do WE tell them what to do? Are WE the boss ? Or do WE bow and grovel to our new Masters?
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"CITIZENS UNITED WILL DESTROY DEMOCRACY."
Patsy, you seem to have very strong feelings about this issue, so I'm sure you've thought it through and have well-reasoned opinions. So, could you please answer the following for me? It addresses the issue of whether SCOTUS could have decided this case differently - and how they might have decided differently and presents a hypothetical, the likes of which at least could easily become reality. You have to understand first of all the particulars of CU v FEC, that it was about the right of Citizens United to release "Hillary: the Movie" about Hillary Clinton during the primaries in 2008. Now given that ...
"In Citizens United v FEC, let's say the court decided the other way and prohibited its distribution. Now, it's 2012, Mitt Romney is running for President and Michael Moore wants to put out a movie dissing the Mormon faith. Can he do it? It never mentions Mitt Romney at all! That is the problem with an adverse decision in this case. It essentially sets a "sloppy" precedent whereby, CU is denied its speech, but who decides whether Moore can release his movie? or Oliver Stone his next movie? Who decides if, say a parody is too close to reality and shouldn't be shown? It becomes a sloppy mess, doesn't it?"
What do you say, Patsy?
As Stephen Colbert showed, the idea that SuperPACs don't coordinate with the candidates is a joke.
Bill Burton just lied
According to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site OpenSecrets.org, out the top 25 political contributors for the 2008 election cycle, nine were Wall Street banking or investment firms, including the now defunct firm Lehman Brothers. Employees at eight of those nine firms gave more money to Democratic candidates – nearly $17 million to Democratic candidates versus only $11 million to their Republican counterparts. That’s 60 percent for Democrats to only 40 percent for Republicans.
http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2008/10/wall-street-gives-more-money-to-dem...
I have been solicited by multiple Obama campaign emails, to donate to Obama's campaign, because of the enormous SUPER PAC donations.
While I support President Obama, and will surely vote for him, I resent and abhor the growing presentiment that the election must be bought in order to succeed.
I would far rather vote on the merits, not the money.
It is the money at this point that is destroying our country with corporate greed, and widening of the income gap.
We now have a medical system that the average person cannot afford. We have a legal system that the average person cannot afford.
The only hope we had was that the average person had the same power to vote as the wealthy. Super packs can make it certain the people we would want to vote for will never even get a chance. This is simply legalized corruption.
Up for auction:
United States of America.
Worlds biggest economy, no minimum reserves, anticipate a lively sale.
Start your bidding!!
So what's the difference between the Super PAC Priorities USA and Super PAC NPR?
You are absolutely right. Obama does scare the "bejesus" out of some people. Mainly the rich and the vulture capitalists who make millions preying off the poor and the middle class. That's why the super rich pour money into the Romney campaign -- they don't want things to change (that's why they are called conservatives). Right now their piece of the American Pie is bigger and faster growing than it has ever been in U.S. history.
This money is supposedly to be used for educational purposes. I don't call producing and airing lies and distortions educating the public. That's propaganda. I don't call instilling irrational fear into the hearts of millions of Americans educating the public. That's fear mongering and it is what the military industrial complex uses to keep their coffers filled.
Nearly all of Obama's campaign funds are raised by small individual donors but virtually all the Republican money is contributed by the super rich and corporate giants. I don't call that free speech I call that buying an election.
I agree Patsy citizens United made corruption even more legal and in-your-face. These are very sad times for democracy.
Bret Wooten wrote:
"The only hope we had was that the average person had the same power to vote as the wealthy. "
The average person still does, Bret. You're conflating suffrage and message. We have a participatory democracy. If you participate, you get democracy. If you don't, you get what you deserve.
You want democracy to be easy. It wasn't at the founding. It hasn't been for 225+ years, and it never will be.
What we, the 99%, must remember that 1 person, even with a billion dollars still only has 1 vote. If we pay attention and vote we don't have to let the 1% steal an election from us.
The crossroads guy is typical of republicans, they revise historical fact. Environmental groups have the interest of the public at heart. I cannot see how partisan advocacy helps me.
If I shop with a corporation, I really want to know whether that company is supporting the issues that I think are important. I do not want to spend my hard earned dollars on products like Brawny, Dixie cups etc. when I know the owners do not support issues that I find important.
This is so true Bret, we get the democracy that we deserve. Money is not the most important factor.
This is so true Bret, we get the democracy that we deserve. Money is not the most important factor.
In my view, corporations AND unions should be barred from political interference. Corporations are fundamentally organized to make a product and a profit. Unions are fundamentally organized to protect their members from being taken advantage of by their employer. Neither of the organizations should be allowed advertise for one candidate over another, let them members of the organization make their own decisions on this.
How far does this go? Could Vladimir Putin donate a billion or so?
That's because the vast majority of employees in any investment bank are from the middle class doing the tough work to keep the company going but getting paid a tiny fraction of what the partners or CEOs make. And they are tired of seeing their hard work making the big shots richer, especially when they see the lack of corporate ethics in the behavior of the bosses.