President Obama on Super PACs: We Will Not Play by Two Sets of Rules

Citizens United stinks
Politics • Views: 35,177

This is rather unfortunate, but what other choice does Obama have? If he doesn’t deploy his own Super PACs (while never actually coordinating with them, wink), the gargantuan amounts of money the Republicans will throw into the race would give them an overwhelming advantage: We Will Not Play by Two Sets of Rules — Blog — Barack Obama.

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

Last week, filings showed that the Super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney’s campaign raised $30 million in 2011 from fewer than 200 contributors, most of them from the financial sector. Governor Romney personally helped raise money for this group, which is run by some of his closest allies.

Meanwhile, other Super PACs established for the sole purpose of defeating the President—along with “nonprofits” that also aren’t required to disclose the sources of their funding—have raised more than $50 million. In the aggregate, these groups are expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President.

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. 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.

There’s nothing else he can do. The Citizens United decision launched a political arms race among super-wealthy donors, to see who could control the US political system by writing the biggest check.

Jump to bottom

155 comments
1 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:05:18pm

If I had the money, I’d fund a gazillion dollar superPAC to campaign against superPACs.

2 Interesting Times  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:05:39pm

Or, to recycle my quote from this morning:

@LOLGOP
If the GOP won’t vote for fair campaign laws, use every tool possible to defeat them and enact those laws. #simple

3 Altermite  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:07:29pm

I suppose this is one way to rotate money back into the economy, right?

4 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:07:31pm

The Cold War-Era principle of MAD: Mutually Assured Derpitude

5 _RememberTonyC  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:07:58pm

what’s good for the goose …..

6 Lidane  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:08:38pm

Cue the wingnuts complaining about Barack Obama raising money to run against them in 3…2…1…

7 Charleston Chew  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:15:38pm

re: #3 Altermite

I suppose this is one way to rotate money back into the economy, right?

Maybe there’s an argument for doing away with laws against vote-buying. At least then the millions in campaign money would go straight into the pockets of the voters instead of going to a handful of wealthy political consultants and media companies.

8 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:16:00pm

You go to campaign with the campaign finance laws you have, not the ones you wish you had.

9 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:16:55pm

re: #7 Charleston Chew

Maybe there’s an argument for doing away with laws against vote-buying. At least then the millions in campaign money would go straight into the pockets of the voters instead of going to a handful of wealthy political consultants and media companies.

Just make sure that the money voters take from candidates/parties is declared as taxable income.

10 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:21:07pm

Good move by the president.

11 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:22:26pm

General Lee did not let his troops plunder when they campaigned in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union Army based its strategy on plundering its way through Georgia and the Shennandoah Valley.

12 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:23:01pm

The timing on this is not coincidental. It follows Newt’s very public statements that when one politician goes negative, the other is forced to.

13 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:23:09pm

re: #11 ralphieboy

General Lee did not let his troops plunder when they campaigned in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union Army based its strategy on plundering its way through Georgia and the Shennandoah Valley.

What does that have to do with the current situation?

14 simoom  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:23:42pm

The Koch brothers’ 3-day superpac fundraiser to defeat the President out-fundraised ($100 million) the Obama campaign’s entire last quarter totals ($68 million). Losing the election for the sake of purity on this issue would have meant abandoning the levers of power to those who want to open the floodgates even wider.

15 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:24:02pm

re: #13 jamesfirecat

What does that have to do with the current situation?

Obama is not going to let himself be put at a disadvantage. He too, in effect, must plunder.

16 Charleston Chew  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:25:07pm

re: #9 ralphieboy

Just make sure that the money voters take from candidates/parties is declared as taxable income.

Now that I think about it, an auction system might work. Each voter has one vote up for auction. Bidding starts at zero and candidates take turns raising their offer. At any point a voter can lock in their vote for any candidate and receive whatever the current bid is.

If you passionately support a candidate for political reasons, you can lock in at 0 to give them your vote. Or you can hold out for the cash, but the catch is that at some point one candidate has acquired a winning number of votes and at that point bidding stops and anyone who hasn’t locked in a vote receives no money.

17 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:25:37pm

re: #1 Obdicut

If I had the money, I’d fund a gazillion dollar superPAC to campaign against superPACs.

The only superPAK worth the peanuts.

18 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:25:49pm

re: #15 ralphieboy

Obama is not going to let himself be put at a disadvantage. He too, in effect, must plunder.

But you started with stating how Lee didn’t plunder, so if you’re trying to make a “when one side does it the other should also….” analogy it sort of falls flat on its face….

I am cunfuzzled…

19 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:26:51pm

re: #3 Altermite

I suppose this is one way to rotate money back into the economy, right?

Well, something is rotating, or at least should be rotating while seated.

20 allegro  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:26:58pm

re: #12 Petero1818

The timing on this is not coincidental. It follows Newt’s very public statements that when one politician goes negative, the other is forced to.

Is there some rule that PAC advertising has to be negative?

21 HappyWarrior  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:27:26pm

You do with the situation you’re given as already been put.

22 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:27:53pm

re: #18 jamesfirecat

But you started with stating how Lee didn’t plunder, so if you’re trying to make a “when one side does it the other should also…” analogy it sort of falls flat on its face…

I am cunfuzzled…

Lee’s side lost the war. He put himself at a disadvantage by holding to certain standards of behavior, at least as regards plundering.

Obama would, too, if he did not use super PACs to help his campaign.

Let’s all join in a rousing chorus of “Marching through Georgia”.

23 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:29:05pm

re: #20 allegro

Is there some rule that PAC advertising has to be negative?

I think that in effect their actually is, since PACs aren’t allowed to say they support any candidate if my memory serves…

24 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:29:30pm

re: #20 allegro

Is there some rule that PAC advertising has to be negative?

The rules are set up so that a PAC can be as nasty as it wants to be but since is officially may not “coordinate activities” with the candidate or party, there is room to distance oneself.

That is all but inviting a mud-slinging contest.

25 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:30:07pm

re: #20 allegro

Is there some rule that PAC advertising has to be negative?

I think that’s the PAC Pact.

26 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:31:21pm

re: #20 allegro

Is there some rule that PAC advertising has to be negative?

There is no rule about it. But it is, since the Swift boating incident, the place where most of the real dirty stuff happens. It allows a candidate to keep so called clean hands while tearing his or her opponents to shreds.

27 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:31:30pm

re: #24 ralphieboy

The rules are set up so that a PAC can be as nasty as it wants to be but since is officially may not “coordinate activities” with the candidate or party, there is room to distance oneself.

That is all but inviting a mud-slinging contest.

Mud slinging is OK, but in this case Slug Mining is more productive.

28 allegro  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:32:35pm

re: #23 jamesfirecat

I think that in effect their actually is, since PACs aren’t allowed to say they support any candidate if my memory serves…

Sooo… a PAC ad can’t be used to mock the other side’s negative ads, for example, like a “They said WHAT?” approach along with proving that they’re lies or misdirects?

29 Feline Fearless Leader  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:33:01pm

re: #11 ralphieboy

General Lee did not let his troops plunder when they campaigned in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union Army based its strategy on plundering its way through Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley.

There’s a difference between “plundering” and “foraging”. Lee definitely did the later on both his raids into the North during the ACW. (And arguably some plundering was done as well.)

Sherman’s Georgia campaign involved liberal foraging with non-authorized plundering occurring as well. (And it’s not worth arguing this here and now.)

Sheridan in the Shenandoah was less plundering than razing to prevent further use of the area by the CSA to forage for supplies.

30 b_sharp  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:33:37pm

Missing mojo = buggering off.

31 allegro  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:34:04pm

re: #26 Petero1818

There is no rule about it. But it is, since the Swift boating incident, the place where most of the real dirty stuff happens. It allows a candidate to keep so called clean hands while tearing his or her opponents to shreds.

Oh, I see it now. A positive ad is one that can be done through regular campaign stuff. The point of the PAC is for the distance, not the message.

32 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:34:59pm

re: #31 allegro

Oh, I see it now. A positive ad is one that can be done through regular campaign stuff. The point of the PAC is for the distance, not the message.

I believe the term is “plausible deniability”.

33 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:35:15pm

re: #28 allegro

Sooo… a PAC ad can’t be used to mock the other side’s negative ads, for example, like a “They said WHAT?” approach along with proving that they’re lies or misdirects?

But mocking a negative add by someone else is still in effect negative campaigning.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

34 kirkspencer  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:36:28pm

re: #11 ralphieboy

General Lee did not let his troops plunder when they campaigned in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the Union Army based its strategy on plundering its way through Georgia and the Shennandoah Valley.

um, no. That’s the myth, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Rather than me being longwinded, see this site which discusses the myth. The short version is the only time the soldiers were directed to plunder was while the army was in South Carolina. Not Georgia, not North Carolina, just South Carolina.

35 Iwouldprefernotto  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:37:10pm

Something about bringing a knife to a gun fight….

36 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:37:32pm

re: #34 kirkspencer

um, no. That’s the myth, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Rather than me being longwinded, see this site which discusses the myth. The short version is the only time the soldiers were directed to plunder was while the army was in South Carolina. Not Georgia, not North Carolina, just South Carolina.

It was kind of a lame analogy, perhaps a better one is Mitt Romney’s tax rate. why should he not take advantage of existing laws to the full extent?

37 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:39:55pm

re: #36 ralphieboy

It was kind of a lame analogy, perhaps a better one is Mitt Romney’s tax rate. why should he not take advantage of existing laws to the full extent?

The problem with that analogy is that Mitt Romney doesn’t want to revise his tax rate upwards… quite the opposite in fact. Whereas while Obama is playing by the new set of rules he wants to change them back to the way they used to be.

38 kirkspencer  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:40:46pm

re: #36 ralphieboy

It was kind of a lame analogy, perhaps a better one is Mitt Romney’s tax rate. why should he not take advantage of existing laws to the full extent?

actually it was a pretty decent analogy. It’s just that I’m in an area (north Georgia) where any union-confederate comparisons carry a bunch of subliminal baggage. Thus my vehemence in jumping on the secondary point of accuracy. My apologies if I came across as abrupt - not aimed at you but at your post.

39 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:46:38pm

That muffled thumping you hear is the McCain-Feingold act being smothered with a pillow.

40 Olsonist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:47:06pm

re: #5 _RememberTonyC

what’s good for the goose …

That is one way to look at it, and short term, you are right. Why should Obama and the Dems fight with one hand tied behind their back?

Long term though, Citizens United rewards big corporate money. And Dems are as corruptible as Reps.

Thank you Judge Roberts. You really fucked this up.

41 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:48:52pm

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That muffled thumping you hear is the McCain-Feingold act being smothered with a pillow.

Does this look like the guy?

//

42 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:49:43pm

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That muffled thumping you hear is the McCain-Feingold act being smothered with a pillow.

“It was the beating of his hideous heart!”

43 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:50:20pm

There’s another super pac starting to operate out there. It’s called the Catholic Church.

I used to have tacit respect for their primitive stance on birth control, as long as it was their choice to use or not, and they didn’t force their will on others.

Now their non religious activities want to impose their will on everyone in all sectors. I’d like to ask how this is any different from those wishing to have special secular dispensation for Sharia?

I add that my (non) religion objects to my being forced to pay for their access roads, police, fire protection and more through the property taxes that I pay and they don’t….rant….rant…rant.

44 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:50:31pm

re: #42 ralphieboy

“It was the beating of his hideous heart!”

“Its constant breathing, in and out, in and out… so fucking repetitive.”

45 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:53:44pm

This is simple. Make primaries 60 days. Campaigns 90 days. allow donations from individuals and corporations but limit them to $500. Get rid of PACs. CAP election spending. Move on.

46 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:54:16pm

re: #45 Petero1818

Why allow donations from corporations at all?

47 kirkspencer  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:56:03pm

re: #45 Petero1818

This is simple. Make primaries 60 days. Campaigns 90 days. allow donations from individuals and corporations but limit them to $500. Get rid of PACs. CAP election spending. Move on.

I still stand by making primaries the sole responsibility of the respective party.

Put the various caps and limits on the general election, which starts the day after ballot registration closes.

48 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 12:56:47pm

The problem is not so much the donations, it is the ability to remain anonymous.

It allows candidates to accept largesse without having to acknowledge it publicly, denying voters the key ability to make a connection between the candidate’s voting/policy record and their financial backers.

49 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:00:01pm

I can see it now. Obama starts a SuperPAC, and the wingers go crazy accusing every shadowy figure in the world as using it to pay Obama.

I wait with baited breath for Pam to let us know how the Muslim Brotherhood donated millions of Al Qaeda dollars to the Obama PAC.

50 Lidane  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:00:34pm

re: #47 kirkspencer

I still stand by making primaries the sole responsibility of the respective party.

THIS. I’d love to see the two parties pay for their own primaries in each state rather than making the state responsible for them.

Of course, that’s probably because I’m annoyed over the redistricting fight here in Texas. If these assholes can’t get it together, and the courts force a split primary, the state will be forced to pay $15 million:

The stakes are unusually high because the nation’s second-largest state is adding four congressional seats — and the way they are divvyed up could be pivotal in determining which party controls the U.S. House.

The Texas Legislature got the first crack at drawing new maps for Congress and the Statehouse, but their plan was quickly challenged by Cuellar and minority groups.

If the court rejects the compromise, the judges could split the primaries into two elections — one for the presidential race, and a later one for state and congressional elections that are at the mercy of where map lines are settled.

A split primary would let parties hold their conventions on schedule — but could cost taxpayers $15 million.

51 lawhawk  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:01:37pm

Unless and until Congress changes the definitions of who can or can’t donate to a campaign we’re going to be stuck with this situation and trying to slow down the flow of funds (or figuring out who’s funding whom) is akin to sticking a finger in a ruptured levee.

Campaign finance reform should be one of simplification.

Make individuals able to donate up to $25,000 (or $100,000 - the level should be reasonable and adjusted on a regular basis too) per term per candidate (2 yrs House, 6 years Senate, 4 years President). No super pacs. No bundling.

Nonprofits can’t donate, nor can corporations - but nothing stops the CEO of said corporation from donating up to their limits.

52 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:03:33pm

re: #49 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I can see it now. Obama starts a SuperPAC, and the wingers go crazy accusing every shadowy figure in the world as using it to pay Obama.

I wait with baited breath for Pam to let us know how the Muslim Brotherhood donated millions of Al Qaeda dollars to the Obama PAC.

From this day forward one name will be heard.

Soros!

No wait. They’ve already been using that name.

53 Kragar  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:05:53pm
54 Olsonist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:05:57pm

re: #48 ralphieboy

The problem is not so much the donations, it is the ability to remain anonymous.

Corporations are persons.
Persons have privacy rights.
Corporations have privacy rights.

Once Dartmouth College v. Woodward opened the door of corporate personhood it became a slippery slope, to mix a few metaphors, to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (14th amendment applies to States] and finally Citizens United (corporate money is free speech).

A right wing wet dream.

55 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:05:58pm

Let’s not pretend the President is morally repulsed by raising large amounts of cash to win another term. Obama was the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing for a general election campaign since the system was created. Someone here at LGF called him the “most owned President in history.” His excuse at the time was the same as now - I have to win. The guy’s a politician like all the others.

Who seriously pays attention to these uber lame super PAC TV ads anyway? I switch the channel immediately. Has any American voter ever been swayed by a super PAC ad?

56 kirkspencer  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:08:44pm

re: #55 harrylook

[snip] Who seriously pays attention to these uber lame super PAC TV ads anyway? I switch the channel immediately. Has any American voter ever been swayed by a super PAC ad?

Yes. I cite the swift boat ads for example.

57 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:09:35pm

re: #54 Olsonist

“Personal privacy” was one of the arguments offered in the PU decision: the right of a donor, to say, a gay-rights advocacy group to be protected against retaliation from homophobic bigots.

But the leap from that to a corporation donating to a PAC or a candidate is enormous.

58 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:09:48pm

re: #55 harrylook

Yes, propaganda works.

59 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:11:00pm

re: #46 Obdicut

Why allow donations from corporations at all?

Well, I think it avoids a big issue. It is a concession, essentially a meaningless one.

60 Lidane  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:11:14pm

re: #53 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

MSNBC Guest Compares Birth Control Fight To 1930s Germany

ARGH. I’d sit here and flame that sanctimonious prick for Godwining and failing at life, but I’m in class and I’m watching a presentation about OK Go and their habit of making viral videos. That’s way more interesting.

61 kirkspencer  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:11:37pm

re: #57 ralphieboy

“Personal privacy” was one of the arguments offered in the PU decision: the right of a donor, to say, a gay-rights advocacy group to be protected against retaliation from homophobic bigots.

But the leap from that to a corporation donating to a PAC or a candidate is enormous.

My memory must be bad. I seem to recall there’s been a series of orders that the donor privacy didn’t exist, but it’s still being appealed up the chain.

62 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:11:43pm

re: #58 Obdicut

not on me. political ads make me ill.

the whole lot of them down in DC are totally corrupt. i vote holding my nose every time. i have no idea how to fairly fix the system. it’s depressing.

63 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:12:00pm

re: #59 Petero1818

Well, I think it avoids a big issue. It is a concession, essentially a meaningless one.

No, because a corporation can spawn a thousand other corporations to get past the donation limit very easily.

64 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:12:13pm

re: #62 harrylook

not on me. political ads make me ill.

That’s nice.

65 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:13:23pm

re: #56 kirkspencer

Yes. I cite the swift boat ads for example.

I doubt anyone was swayed. A Kerry voter saw the ad and said “Hell no - I’m voting for W.”?

66 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:14:16pm

re: #65 harrylook

I doubt anyone was swayed. A Kerry voter saw the ad and said “Hell no - I’m voting for W.”?

Yes, a “weak” Kerry voter. I’m not sure what your point is.

67 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:14:29pm

re: #65 harrylook

I doubt anyone was swayed. A Kerry voter saw the ad and said “Hell no - I’m voting for W.”?

You’re seriously disputing that propaganda works at all? Really?

68 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:14:59pm

re: #63 Obdicut

No, because a corporation can spawn a thousand other corporations to get past the donation limit very easily.

Yes but I would set the limits on campaign spending so it is essentially meaningless. Furthermore, the cost of setting up a corporation to donate in order to get a maximum of $500 into the hands of your candidate would be fruitless.

69 dragonfire1981  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:15:07pm

re: #65 harrylook

I doubt anyone was swayed. A Kerry voter saw the ad and said “Hell no - I’m voting for W.”?

Either that or they decided not to vote at all because, in their opinion, there was no satisfactory option.

70 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:15:55pm

re: #68 Petero1818

Yes but I would set the limits on campaign spending so it is essentially meaningless. Furthermore, the cost of setting up a corporation to donate in order to get a maximum of $500 into the hands of your candidate would be fruitless.

No, it wouldn’t. It’s a maximum of $500 to every candidate you want to give to, every year.

71 dragonfire1981  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:15:56pm

The one thing I really hate about this whole thing is that it gives even more power and prestige to wealthy individuals and organizations and takes it away from the average joe.

72 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:17:28pm

re: #67 Obdicut

You’re seriously disputing that propaganda works at all? Really?

How effective is propaganda in an intense mixed message environment like we are about to see? How do we separate the effect from other influences?

73 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:17:28pm

re: #66 Sergey Romanov

that we make a big deal out of Super PACs. they are running ads. everyone knows it’s propaganda. i don’t think they work.

money in elections in general is a problem. super PAC’s just run ads, though. I’m more concerned with the money that goes directly to the campaign. Like, I certainly can’t afford a dinner at a candidate’s event so I can get his/her ear. Rich people getting access and favorable laws/regs - that’s my big beef.

74 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:17:59pm

re: #72 Rightwingconspirator

How effective is propaganda in an intense mixed message environment like we are about to see? How do we separate the effect from other influences?

why are we trying to separate it?

75 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:18:06pm

Join President Barack Obama & Foo Fighters in Los Angeles
Obama for America invites you to attend a musical performance featuring:

Foo Fighters
with Special Guest
President Barack Obama

$500 a pop. Pat Boone to appear for Mitt Romney. //

76 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:18:10pm

re: #73 harrylook

i don’t think they work.

How do you figure?

77 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:18:12pm

re: #67 Obdicut

tell me how you have been controlled by propaganda recently.

78 Olsonist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:18:36pm

re: #70 Obdicut

No, it wouldn’t. It’s a maximum of $500 to every candidate you want to give to, every year.

Right. SuperPACs are unlimited but individuals are limited to $500.

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
I will work harder.

79 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:18:51pm

Ad campaigns don’t work. They should stop spending money on them.

//

80 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:19:22pm

re: #79 Gus 802

Ad campaigns don’t work. They should stop spending money on them.

//

Stupid candidates. They should just listen to harrylook and save money!

81 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:19:25pm

re: #70 Obdicut

No, it wouldn’t. It’s a maximum of $500 to every candidate you want to give to, every year.

fair enough. I was thinking presidential politics for the moment. But again, if you set the spending limit at a certain level that is essentially a low bar to reach, it still makes it unimportant. Every real candidate will have achieved maximum spending limits long before you need to raise all that money.

82 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:19:59pm

re: #80 Sergey Romanov

Stupid candidates. They should just listen to harrylook and save money!

They’re doing it wrong!

//

83 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:20:05pm

re: #77 harrylook

tell me how you have been controlled by propaganda recently.

No thanks. That propaganda works is a fact. It’s been demonstrated. Would you like citations for some scientific papers you can read on the subject?

84 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:20:22pm

re: #74 Obdicut

why are we trying to separate it?

For a sense of proportion of course. It’s evil or benefit is proportional to it’s effectiveness.

85 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:20:52pm

re: #83 Obdicut

yes. send me one that applies to propaganda in elections in democratic countries.

86 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:21:45pm

re: #84 Rightwingconspirator

I’m sorry, dude, but if you want to read the academic research on it, feel free, but figuring out exactly what proportional effect it has seems very pointless to me.

87 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:22:57pm

re: #82 Gus 802

have you seen the turnout numbers in the primaries? it would appear they are in fact doing it wrong. i am turned off by the ads, and I think most other people are as well.

88 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:23:45pm

re: #86 Obdicut

I’m sorry, dude, but if you want to read the academic research on it, feel free, but figuring out exactly what proportional effect it has seems very pointless to me.

Okay let’s skip that. Why should I assume propaganda is effective at all in a well countered environment like superPAC vs superPac?

89 William Barnett-Lewis  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:24:10pm

re: #75 Gus 802

Join President Barack Obama & Foo Fighters in Los Angeles
Obama for America invites you to attend a musical performance featuring:

$500 a pop. Pat Boone to appear for Mitt Romney. //

Damn, if I had the coin, I’d drop it on that. Love the Foo Fighters anyway ;)

90 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:24:12pm

re: #85 harrylook

yes. send me one that applies to propaganda in elections in democratic countries.

Okay.

[Link: docs.google.com…]

91 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:24:38pm

re: #88 Rightwingconspirator

Okay let’s skip that. Why should I assume propaganda is effective at all in a well countered environment like superPAC vs superPac?

Don’t assume anything. Read some papers on it. The one I just linked to is a good one to start with.

92 Petero1818  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:24:59pm

re: #87 harrylook

have you seen the turnout numbers in the primaries? it would appear they are in fact doing it wrong. i am turned off by the ads, and I think most other people are as well.

There is no way whatsoever to draw the conclusion you do there. It is equally or more plausible that they are not voting because the candidates are fucking morons, not because they disagree with the mode or style of campaign messaging.

93 Olsonist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:25:18pm

re: #87 harrylook

have you seen the turnout numbers in the primaries? it would appear they are in fact doing it wrong. i am turned off by the ads, and I think most other people are as well.

re: #77 harrylook

tell me how you have been controlled by propaganda recently.

Do you see a connection between these? Getting you to vote for A is one option. Getting you to vote for B is another. And getting you not to vote at all is a third.

The third option seems to be working. Propaganda just worked against you.

94 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:25:22pm

The well-known surveys about information knowledge and news source also show the effectiveness of propaganda, obviously.

95 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:26:41pm

re: #87 harrylook

have you seen the turnout numbers in the primaries? it would appear they are in fact doing it wrong. i am turned off by the ads, and I think most other people are as well.

Primary numbers are down because this Republican field is populated by jingoist walking-talking propagandists. They are in and of themselves negative campaigners. This is a chicken and the egg call here and the eggs are Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul. Never mind the whack jobs that already dropped out.

96 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:27:13pm

re: #91 Obdicut
Okay but before I commit the time-
You must be a bit familiar with that paper. Does it address the environment we can expect post Citizens united ? Or just the previous scenarios of past years?

97 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:28:08pm

re: #96 Rightwingconspirator

Huh? It deals with propaganda. Citizens united just altered the amount of propaganda, not the nature of it.

98 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:28:38pm

re: #96 Rightwingconspirator

i think it’s relevant. i’m reading it.

99 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:29:34pm

re: #91 Obdicut

Don’t assume anything. Read some papers on it. The one I just linked to is a good one to start with.

To pretty much the degree we worry over this issue we already are assuming the super Pac propaganda will be very effective even when countered by the super Pac funded propaganda of the other side.

100 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:30:40pm

re: #99 Rightwingconspirator

To pretty much the degree we worry over this issue we already are assuming the super Pac propaganda will be very effective even when countered by the super Pac funded propaganda of the other side.

What are you talking about, dude? I am really not understanding you. who is the we that’s assuming that? I’m not.

101 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:33:50pm

re: #100 Obdicut

What are you talking about, dude? I am really not understanding you. who is the we that’s assuming that? I’m not.

Your assertion above that propaganda works was in the context of concern about super PAC funded propaganda right?

You do see the potential difference between unopposed propaganda and near equally opposed propaganda in a contested election?

102 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:35:09pm

re: #91 Obdicut

good paper. experiment 1 tends to support what i am saying. haven’t read the whole thing though….

103 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:35:52pm

re: #101 Rightwingconspirator

Your assertion above that propaganda works was in the context of concern about super PAC funded propaganda right?

It’s in concern of all propaganda, of which superPAC is just the most recent kind.

You do see the potential difference between unopposed propaganda and near equally opposed propaganda in a contested election?

Where is the idea of near equal opposition coming from? People don’t get exposed to equal amounts of propaganda on subjects.

104 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:37:09pm

re: #102 harrylook

good paper. experiment 1 tends to support what i am saying. haven’t read the whole thing though…

No, it doesn’t.

I can’t believe you just skimmed a 17 page paper and then asserted that it agreed with you.

It doesn’t: It showed propaganda to have an effect even after the person had been informed the propaganda was false.

105 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:38:40pm

re: #93 Olsonist

re: #77 harrylook

Do you see a connection between these? Getting you to vote for A is one option. Getting you to vote for B is another. And getting you not to vote at all is a third.

The third option seems to be working. Propaganda just worked against you.

That’s a big option in this election. Getting the far-right and the evangelicals to not vote for Romney in November. They’re obviously not going to get them to vote for Obama. So the key here is designing advertising that may also send a message to those demographics while appealing to Obama voters. The message doesn’t even have to be an appeal for Obama voters just noting the “liberal” past of Romney for example in an unidentified ad.

106 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:41:07pm

re: #104 Obdicut

i told you i only read experiment one. it said that what your side’s politicians say about an issue only effects your feelings slightly, and then only to push you in the direction you were already going….

“Experiment 1 thus indicates that subjects exposed to both party cues and policy descriptions were never ‘predominated’ by the cues.” It then goes on to say that this doesn’t explain everything, so the need for experiment 2, which I will read. I’ll let others comment on it from now on.

107 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:43:41pm

-44, heh. I think we haven’t had that for some time.

108 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:44:02pm

re: #106 harrylook

It is beyond weird to me that you’re even debating that propaganda works. It’s common goddamn sense about human nature that it does.

109 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:47:24pm

Arguing that political ads are not effective is the same as saying that the $450+ billion spent on advertising every single year is just money pissed away that has no effect on anything at all.

I am certain that you could come up with 10 words to describe any product that’s advertised, even if you’ve never seen an example with your own eyes.

Political ads are the same way, and they don’t even have to be factually correct.

110 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:48:22pm

re: #107 Sergey Romanov

-44, heh. I think we haven’t had that for some time.

Your chew toy is still being polite, though.

111 Big Steve  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:48:45pm

So President Obama’s message seems to be some garbled version of Spock (“the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one”) and becomes “the good of the one because he is good, outweighs the good of the many” I am not politically naive but he did come out strongly against superpacs and manhandled the Supreme Court on their decision. I have lost a teensy weensy bit of respect for him.

112 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:48:56pm

re: #103 Obdicut

No, this will be two kinds of super PAC. One kind that supports the President and one that supports the GOP opponent.

113 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:49:58pm

re: #112 Rightwingconspirator

No, this will be two kinds of super PAC. One kind that supports the President and one that supports the GOP opponent.

I know this. So what? Why do you think they will somehow be equally opposed? Or equally effective?

114 harrylook  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:50:02pm

re: #108 Obdicut

do you disagree with experiment 1? I’m only using your material and my common sense.

In a tyranny, where there is only one propaganda, of course it will work. In a free society, I don’t think it is very effective at all. No, I don’t. Sorry you are getting mad about my disagreement. That’s why I tend not to comment here. Either I agree and I have nothing to add, or I disagree and I make people angry. Kinda sucks…

115 TedStriker  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:50:09pm

re: #107 Sergey Romanov

-44, heh. I think we haven’t had that for some time.

Who unleashed the derp?

116 Lidane  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:51:31pm

re: #111 Big Steve

It’s an unfortunate side effect of Citizens United.

OTOH, at least this year will be a more honest election in the sense that we’ll see all the money that’s being raised on both sides because it’s going to be up front and public.

117 Lidane  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:52:03pm

re: #115 talon_262

Who unleashed the derp?

A rather gamey troll in the Prop 8 thread.

118 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:52:35pm

Interesting in light of the recent Super Bowl ads and their effectiveness in creating product recognition. More importantly here the accidental Obama ad most commonly know as the Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad. Therein lies one model. Another being the now possible Obama-endorsement by the Foo Fighters which has potential for garnering the youth vote.

119 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:52:53pm

re: #114 harrylook

do you disagree with experiment 1? I’m only using your material and my common sense.

You’re not even representing experiment 1 correctly. I’m sorry, dude, but when you ask for materials and then bullshit and pretend you’re understanding a dense scientific paper after reading one experiment from it in a hurry— I can’t take you seriously.

120 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:53:30pm

re: #118 Gus 802

they’ve always been Obama supporters

121 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:55:20pm

re: #113 Obdicut

I’m not saying exactly equal. We just have a likely effect of one largely countering the other. In the end, not terribly effective at all due to largely countering each other.

The largest effect may yet prove to be the stimulus on the multi media corporations.
//

122 Gus  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:55:35pm

re: #120 WindUpBird

superpacs

they’ve always been Obama supporters

Then they bring them out again. Springsteen as well as others. All of which works as political advertising.

123 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:55:39pm

re: #46 Obdicut

Why allow donations from corporations at all?

Cuz they’re people too.

124 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:55:46pm

re: #121 Rightwingconspirator

I’m not saying exactly equal. We just have a likely effect of one largely countering the other. In the end, not terribly effective at all due to largely countering each other.

Why do you believe this to be true?

125 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 1:55:48pm

re: #111 Big Steve

So President Obama’s message seems to be some garbled version of Spock (“the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one”) and becomes “the good of the one because he is good, outweighs the good of the many” I am not politically naive but he did come out strongly against superpacs and manhandled the Supreme Court on their decision. I have lost a teensy weensy bit of respect for him.

He was against the rules that allowed super-PACs. He still is against the rules that allow super-PACs. That he is forced to play by these rules by the SC that he rightly “manhandled” doesn’t mean anything. There’s no inconsistency.

126 Achilles Tang  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:00:00pm

re: #88 Rightwingconspirator

Okay let’s skip that. Why should I assume propaganda is effective at all in a well countered environment like superPAC vs superPac?

Because you assume that people hear both sides. You assume that people understand both sides. You assume that people spend as much time thinking about these matters as we do here. You assume everyone is as smart as you are.

127 jamesfirecat  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:02:28pm

re: #114 harrylook

do you disagree with experiment 1? I’m only using your material and my common sense.

In a tyranny, where there is only one propaganda, of course it will work. In a free society, I don’t think it is very effective at all. No, I don’t. Sorry you are getting mad about my disagreement. That’s why I tend not to comment here. Either I agree and I have nothing to add, or I disagree and I make people angry. Kinda sucks…

Its fine with getting people on LGF mad, just do it with good reason and with facts backing up your statements.

Argue with more than gut feelings and you’ll be fine!

128 wrenchwench  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:02:38pm

re: #109 negativ

Arguing that political ads are not effective is the same as saying that the $450+ billion spent on advertising every single year is just money pissed away that has no effect on anything at all.

The saying in the retail world is, “Half your advertising dollars are wasted. You never know which half.”

129 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:03:18pm

re: #124 Obdicut

Why do you believe this to be true?

Once both sides have at least roughly the same opportunity to produce the propaganda I see no reason to think one side would be much less effective at it. They each have access to the top ad companies, focus groups, experts in the field.

We’ll have to see how it really shakes out. This is new ground. The best study well be about 2012 in retrospect.

130 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:05:18pm

re: #129 Rightwingconspirator

Once both sides have at least roughly the same opportunity to produce the propaganda I see no reason to think one side would be much less effective at it.

Where does this belief that when two sides go at something, they’ll both be equally effective? It is so, so rare to find things that are equal out in the world, I really don’t get where this firm belief in magical balance fairyness is coming from.

We’ll have to see how it really shakes out. This is new ground. The best study well be about 2012 in retrospect.

Nope. Propaganda has been around for aeons, and it’s known to be effective. There’s thousands, literally, of scientific studies on it. Citizens united changed things quantitatively, not qualitatively.

131 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:05:52pm

re: #126 Naso Tang

Because you assume that people hear both sides. You assume that people understand both sides. You assume that people spend as much time thinking about these matters as we do here. You assume everyone is as smart as you are.

Okay, then which side has the big natural advantage and why?

132 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:07:18pm

re: #129 Rightwingconspirator

Once both sides have at least roughly the same opportunity to produce the propaganda I see no reason to think one side would be much less effective at it. They each have access to the top ad companies, focus groups, experts in the field.

We’ll have to see how it really shakes out. This is new ground. The best study well be about 2012 in retrospect.

This assumes that both sides will engage in all possible levels of propaganda. However, if one side engages in below-the-belt tactics, and the other side doesn’t want to use it, their effectiveness may differ.

133 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:08:31pm

re: #130 Obdicut

Citizens united changed things quantitatively, not qualitatively.

Obama just evened up the situation. Or just put himself in a position that he has the opportunity. You seem to think that does not matter.

134 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:08:45pm

re: #132 Sergey Romanov

It imagines equal access, equal competence on all sides, equal effectiveness of everyone involved, equal touchstones inside people to work off of, equal prior knowledge, and all sorts of other things there is no reason whatsoever to believe would be equal.

135 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:09:12pm

re: #133 Rightwingconspirator

Obama just evened up the situation. Or just put himself in a position that he has the opportunity. You seem to think that does not matter.

Dude, when two guys start punching each other, is it automatically a fair fight because it’s just two guys?

136 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:13:23pm

re: #135 Obdicut

That’s the wrong comparison. Or maybe not. Boxing has weight classes for a reason. It assures a fairer fight.

If Obama had declined any and all superPAC money there would be a huge disadvantage. Now, not so much. Now we have two fighters, instead of a fighter and say a couch potato.

137 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:15:09pm

re: #136 Rightwingconspirator

That’s the wrong comparison. Or maybe not. Boxing has weight classes for a reason. It assures a fairer fight.
.

Ex-fucking-catly. That’s why i’m using it as a comparison. In the real world, to make things equal takes a lot of prep— and then it’s not even going to happen. You can just make things more equal. So why on earth do you believe that this will shake down to some naturally equal opposition, when there is nothing, nothing at all in place to make sure that’ll be so?

I don’t get it.

If Obama had declined any and all superPAC money there would be a huge disadvantage. Now, not so much

I’m not talking about who has the greater advantage, and no clue why you think I am.

138 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:16:46pm

I think Obama will get more money than Romney. And Obdi’s point still stands. Yes, a situation of more or less equal effectiveness is possible. In theory. It doesn’t mean it will happen.

139 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:18:27pm

re: #138 Sergey Romanov

I think Obama will get more money than Romney. And Obdi’s point still stands. Yes, a situation of more or less equal effectiveness is possible. In theory. It doesn’t mean it will happen.

It could be the Democrats message works far, far better— and that’d still suck, in principle, if not in effect this one time.

140 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:20:53pm

re: #137 Obdicut

You exaggerated my meaning as to how equal. I said largely equal. I meant largely equal. I meant far more equal than if only one side has that money. We all this worry about one side or the other dominating because of this money. Why would one side necessarily prevail? No reason I can see.

141 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:21:41pm

re: #140 Rightwingconspirator

We all this worry about one side or the other dominating because of this money. Why would one side necessarily prevail? No reason I can see.

Because, in general, one side does, when it comes to getting out a message.

I have no idea, really, where this so-common idea of equal effect comes from. It’s so weird.

142 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:24:21pm

re: #141 Obdicut

You really don’t see the difference in effect between a one sided campaign and a two sided campaign with roughly the same resources?

I don’t see why those two different things appear the same to you.

143 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:24:24pm

Obama is catching flak from his own party…

Feingold: Obama super-PAC decision is ‘dancing with the devil’

Liberal ex-Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) is ripping President Obama’s decision to embrace super-PACs.

Feingold, who co-authored landmark campaign finance legislation with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to regulate campaigns, said Obama is “dancing with the devil” by deciding to fully support Priorities USA, a Democratic political action committee.

He also said it would turn Democrats into “corporate-lite.”
“This is dancing with the devil. I know a lot of Democrats in D.C. don’t agree, and I understand the desire to do everything possible to win,” Feingold said in a statement. “But this decision will push Democrats to become corporate-lite, and will send us head-on into a battle we know we will lose, because Republicans like Mitt Romney and his friends have and will spend more money.”

144 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:24:52pm

re: #142 Rightwingconspirator

You really don’t see the difference in effect between a one sided campaign and a two sided campaign with roughly the same resources?

Yes, I do see that difference. What I don’t see is why you believe that winds up being a ‘fair fight’, or equal in effect.

145 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:27:33pm

re: #144 Obdicut

Yes, I do see that difference. What I don’t see is why you believe that winds up being a ‘fair fight’, or equal in effect.

Roughly equal resources equals a roughly fair contest. Nothing in politics is exactly equal, apart from our single vote each. We already tolerated differences in campaign resources between contenders before super PAC was an issue.

146 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:30:10pm

re: #145 Rightwingconspirator

Roughly equal resources equals a roughly fair contest.

No, they don’t. Why on earth do you believe this? If you and I both get $20 million to run an ad campaign, we’re not going to be equally successful.

147 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:33:20pm

re: #146 Obdicut

If we each have 20 million, and compare that to each of us having about 200 million, how does that give one of us an advantage?

148 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 2:37:59pm

re: #147 Rightwingconspirator

If we each have 20 million, and compare that to each of us having about 200 million, how does that give one of us an advantage?

I have no clue what you’re talking about. You seem to think that I’m claiming Citizens United gave a benefit to one side. I didn’t. Ever.

149 Varek Raith  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 3:39:39pm

re: #77 harrylook

tell me how you have been controlled by propaganda recently.

Look at all the fools who think AGW is not real and refuse any contradictory information on it.

Your argument in invalid.

150 Robert O.  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 4:10:39pm

I totally agree there is nothing he could do. Super PACs is the political equivalent of nuclear weapons. When one side deploys one, the other side is forced to counter-deploy; otherwise it is screwed. Even prior to Citizens United, our political system was already awash with obscene amounts of money. Citizens United merely escalated an already out-of-control arms race. Like the nuclear arms race, it is not counter-intuitive to be forced to deploy your own while recognizing the monumental folly and danger of it. It is going to take both sides to de-escalate. Unfortunately, compromise is expecting too much of the Republican Party at the moment, where Citizens United was foisted upon this country by a conservative Supreme Court. It will take the people to rise up everywhere and demand an end to this political obscenity.

151 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 5:05:39pm

re: #148 No, I am Spartacus!

I have no clue what you’re talking about. You seem to think that I’m claiming Citizens United gave a benefit to one side. I didn’t. Ever.

After all these comments back and forth you have no idea?

We started with your just not understanding my point that both sides using superPAC money to transmit propaganda was a more equal situation than just one side as we had before Obama made the above decision. Then you could not see why one might want to sort out the influence of other factors in the election than the superPAC money. Then you took my “about equal” reference and treated it as if I said exactly equal.

You appear to be avoiding understanding points I might have hoped you would simply agree or disagree with.

152 Obdicut  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 5:09:41pm

re: #151 Daniel Ballard

We started with your just not understanding my point that both sides using superPAC money to transmit propaganda was a more equal situation than just one side as we had before Obama made the above decision.

Well, yeah, that’s not at all what I thought you were saying, since you jumped into the middle of a conversation I was having with someone who was denying that propaganda worked at all. That was the context you were talking to me in.

You appear to be avoiding understanding points I might have hoped you would simply agree or disagree with.

Avoiding? Why one earth would you think that?

153 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 5:22:10pm

What is up with our nic’s?!

154 Political Atheist  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 5:25:53pm

re: #152 A Pie In a Cake In a PIe

Hm. Obdicut, then No I am Spartacus, now you appear as A Pie In a Cake In a PIe

155 labman57  Tue, Feb 7, 2012 10:10:20pm

Obama has made clear that he would like to see SuperPACs and unlimited campaign donations be eliminated, but he also has always adhered to the mantra: Pragmatism over Dogmatism.

It makes perfect sense that he would recognize the necessity to stay competitive using the resources that are so eagerly being utilized by the opposition, even though he would prefer that these resources not be available to anyone running for public office in the future.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 138 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 305 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1