Obama ‘Signed Off’ on Super PAC Decision After Decrying Negativity
Email
Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images
President Obama “signed off” on the decision to reverse course and overtly encourage support for his affiliated super PAC, Priorities USA Action, senior campaign officials said today.
“It’s been an evolving conversation,” one official said, explaining the move on a conference call with reporters. “We’ve been watching throughout the course of the Republican primary process, the most recent filing deadline and the Koch brothers conference and what’s been coming out of that: a half billion dollars to defeat the president.”
Aides refused to characterize Obama’s feelings on the decision — specifically whether he made it “distastefully” — or when he made it.
“I’m not going to characterize how the president came to the decision. It’s pretty clear that the president doesn’t support the law as it currently stands, but he realizes this is the law that currently stands,” one campaign official said.
Just two days ago, Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer that he “worries” about the influence of super PACs on the political process.
“One of the worries we have obviously in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called super PACs, these independent expenditures that are gonna be out there,” he said. “There is gonna be just a lot of money floating around, and I guarantee a bunch of it’s gonna be negative.”
Later Obama defended his role in soliciting campaign contributions from wealthy donors — likely the same crowd that will be now tapped to give to Priorities USA — as an inconvenient reality.
“Unfortunately, right now partly because of Supreme Court rulings and a bunch of decisions out there, it is very hard to get your message out without having some resources,” he said.
Then, one day later his campaign announced that his Cabinet secretaries and top White House officials would help raise millions for a super PAC that will run negative ads.
GOP independent political groups have spent more than $40 million on radio and TV ads in the primary campaign so far, with millions more in cash on hand. Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have also reportedly pledged to spend close to $100 million in conjunction with dozens of their allies to campaign against Obama.
Officials emphasized that White House and campaign staff would not overtly solicit funds for the super PAC but simply “express support for their mission, which is re-electing the president.” The president, vice president and first lady are not expected to attend any super PAC events.
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Yes, and if you remember Bush was unpatriotic, using China as a credit card, for raising the debt ceiling, no red states blue states, most transparent, no lobbyist, and the list goes on and on and on.
All lies!
Posted by: Freedom | February 7, 2012, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
Uh…I’m not for…uh…an individual mandate…uh…now I am. Uh…I’m not…uh…for…uh…the Super PAC…uh…now I am. I’m not…uh…a marxist…now…uh…I am.
Posted by: P_Diddy | February 7, 2012, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
All lies!
Posted by: Freedom | February 7, 2012, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
Bush did use China as a credit card – it’s documented. The Obama administration is more transparent than the last- that’s documented as well – and has fewer lobbyists . .. and the list goes on and on.
Posted by: Juniper | February 7, 2012, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Today in congressional hearing testimony, Ben Bernanke said that failure of the Senate to pass a budget harms economic growth. He was responding to Senator Ron Johnson and said this:
“Is uncertainty about the future of the tax code, government programs, and so on, a negative for growth?” he said, rhetorically. “I think it is, because firms like to have certainty [and] like to be able to plan.”
So if Obama is concerned with Super PACs and Republicans being negative, what is he to think about his OWN Federal Reserve Chairman who, in some eyes, just made a “negative” assessment about Obama’s OWN Democrat led Senate and their failure to pass a budget? To most people, THAT is more of a blow than a “negative” Republican attack. As for Bernanke, he should be very careful…being thrown under the bus is probably in his immediate future.
Posted by: Shoe | February 7, 2012, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
Some of the posts on this subject are amazing! Obama flip flops and it’s the Republicans who are the hypocrites? Talk about spin….
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
Some of the posts on this subject are amazing!
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
The President was right in both cases. Right to find the ruling objectionable (so did 4 or the 9 Supreme Court judges) and right to go ahead now and operate by the same PAC rules as the Republicans.
So much for your attempt to frame this in some negative way.
Posted by: Sarah | February 7, 2012, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
Posted by: Shoe | February 7, 2012, 7:14 pm 7:14 pm
Bernake wasn’t talking about the Senate passing a budget . .. read the quote you posted. It’s about the future of the tax code.
There is a long history of budgets not being passed and continuing resolutions being used to fund the government.
Continuing resolutions were used under Bush in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008.
You act as if the current situation is out of the ordinary and particular to this Congress – it isn’t.
Posted by: Dennis | February 7, 2012, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
Now I wonder if Obama will follow PAC non-disclosure? I’m betting he will.
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Now I wonder if Obama will follow PAC non-disclosure? I’m betting he will.
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
I’m presuming the Democrats will use the PAC rules as the law allows.
Posted by: Sarah | February 7, 2012, 8:29 pm 8:29 pm
Sarah; Of course. To the full extent no doubt.
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 8:35 pm 8:35 pm
Sarah – if stating the obvous is an attempt to present this in a negative light, you’ve got some issues with reality.
Posted by: Douglas | February 7, 2012, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
Sarah – if stating the obvous is an attempt to present this in a negative light, you’ve got some issues with reality.
Posted by: Douglas | February 7, 2012, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
The President didn’t flip flop at all. If I object to a certain new traffic rule and speak strongly out against it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t perfectly logical and natural to play by the rules established and follow the law once its put in place. I’d be a fool not to. And it doesn’t mean I can’t still object to the law and fight to have that law changed.
The President was right on both counts. He was right to find the ruling objectionable (so did 4 of the 9 Supreme Court judges), and he’s right by now playing by the same PAC rules as the Republicans.
Posted by: Sarah | February 7, 2012, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
From the story; “President Obama “signed off” on the decision to reverse course and overtly encourage support for his affiliated super PAC, Priorities USA Action, senior campaign officials said today.” OK, he didn’t flip flop, he “reversed course”.
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
That’s a statement by a reporter – and I’m surprised you would take what an abc reporter says in a blog at face value – given the never-ending criticism of those very reporters by the Republicans on this blog.
Posted by: Sarah | February 7, 2012, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
I think its a good decision by the President.
If I object to a certain new traffic rule and speak strongly out against it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t perfectly logical and natural to play by the rules established and follow the law once its put in place. I’d be a fool not to. And it doesn’t mean I can’t still object to the law and fight to have that law changed.
The President was right on both counts. He was right to find the ruling objectionable (so did 4 of the 9 Supreme Court judges), and he’s right by now playing by the same PAC rules as the Republicans.
Posted by: Sarah | February 7, 2012, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
You know Sarah, there’s no getting through to you. You keep posting the same talking points. You’re like one of those women who keeps repeating yourself and by doing so, somehow you’ll make your point. Back to the original point I tried to make, no one said the Republicans can do this, but Obama can’t.
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
@Juniper….. Comparing Obama’s Job to Bushes is really not saying a lot….. Sorry… I expected A **** of a lot more. So far… when it all comes down to it, Obama is just another RICH ### Politician.
Posted by: tuesdaysgone | February 7, 2012, 10:52 pm 10:52 pm
Posted by: newcountryman | February 7, 2012, 10:19 pm 10:19 pm
Good!
Posted by: sarah | February 7, 2012, 11:25 pm 11:25 pm
POSTED BY: JUNIPER | FEBRUARY 7, 2012, 6:18 PM 6:18 PM, that’s all there is in this administration LOBBYISTS.
Who needs super pacs as long as you have drug dealers contribute and bundle money for the democrats, especially if you live in Iowa are a democrat and received money from the Cardona family, incl. Pres.Obama.
“Cardona family members still living in the U.S. and have made efforts in the past to get Pepe pardoned for his crimes, which today mainly consist of a probation violation in Iowa. ” as reported by the Atlantic Wire and The Times.
Posted by: Lizzy | February 7, 2012, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
Sarah, why does Pres.Obama need a super PAC he has moveon.org, adbusters, unions, the media, the Hollywood elite, Soros, Bufffet etc. etc.
Posted by: Lizzie | February 7, 2012, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm
Sarah, why does Pres.Obama need a super PAC he has moveon.org, adbusters, unions, the media, the Hollywood elite, Soros, Bufffet etc. etc.
Posted by: Lizzie | February 7, 2012, 11:47 pm 11:47 pm
Lizzie you should do some research on PACS and how they’ve allowed Republican supporters to do anonymous smear attacks while keeping who they are hidden from the public.
Posted by: johnnie | February 8, 2012, 1:54 am 1:54 am
The Critics in a Nutshell: It’s unfair that Obama is doing what the Republicans are doing.
Posted by: blip | February 8, 2012, 3:08 am 3:08 am
I’m back. Geeze you Obama supporters are thick. The issue is not that it’s unfair Obama is doing what the Republicans are doing (using Super Pacs). No one ever said that. It’s that he flipped on his principled stance of opposing them and now he’s using them. The same thing he did with public financing when he first ran in 2007. You may think it’s justified and that’s OK, but it cannot be denied he does what’s in his best interests despite his hollow principled political rhetoric. get it yet?
Posted by: newcountryman | February 8, 2012, 7:06 am 7:06 am
What can’t be denied is that he’s in it to win it, and some of us admire that he isn’t going to allow Romney to buy the election– that he is indeed a fighter. As you acknowledge, it is only fair that Obama does what the Republicans do given that he can’t change the status quo with the current Congress. It’s like walking into the ring, having stated that you’d rather stick to modified boxing rules. The opponent says no matter what you do they’re fighting street because that is what the current rules allow and its the only chance they have for winning. What do you do? I’d fight street, win the fight, but still advocate for changing the rules down the road. Fair is fair, and your spin is spin.
Posted by: Jen | February 8, 2012, 10:01 am 10:01 am
but it cannot be denied he does what’s in his best interests despite his hollow principled political rhetoric. get it yet?
Posted by: newcountryman | February 8, 2012, 7:06 am 7:06 am
The principled rhetoric isn’t hollow – that’s only your opinion and spin. The President found the Supreme Court ruling objectionable (so did 4 of the 9 judges), and opposed it. However, the law is in place and the President (and the Democratic party) have found they must deal with that reality. I’m with Jen. Newcounryman is the one blind to his hypocritical spin.
Posted by: Dara | February 8, 2012, 10:18 am 10:18 am
Back during the last election when Obama could have chosen to accept public money as did McCain, he made a self serving decision then instead of sticking to his prior commitment. Now he is exactly the same thing, only why this time? Last time, he insisted he needed every time he could extract from voters, but that shouldn’t be the case this time. He can run on his record, by his calculations the opponents are weak, and he has a committed donor base and so why on earth compromise when he could at least stand strongly on his principle? He didn’t just disagree with this SC decision, but publicly lashed them for a decision he now plans to take advantage of.
Shame. Really shame, but no surprise. He is after all a career politician.
Posted by: Susan | February 8, 2012, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
He didn’t just disagree with this SC decision, but publicly lashed them for a decision he now plans to take advantage of.
Posted by: Susan | February 8, 2012, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
President Obama disagreed with the Supreme Court decision (so did 4 of the 9 judges on the Supreme Court) and spoke out about it, but it’s now the law of the land and he will operate within the law until it’s changed. Makes complete sense.
Posted by: Jan | February 8, 2012, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm