U.S. President Barack Obama arrives to deliver his State of the Union speech on January 24, 2012 in Washington, DC.
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images/Getty)
In order to help close the financial gap between his campaign and its republican contenders, the Obama campaign reversed its long-standing opposition to super PACs. The reversal marks the beginning of a new phase in the presidential race both in terms of strategy and ideology, and is yet another sign of the huge role that these largely unregulated fundraising groups will play in the 2012 election cycle.
Joe Hagan is contributing editor for New York Magazine, and recently wrote the article, "The Coming Tsunami of Slime."
Defining Normal After a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia, The Mayor of Oklahoma City, A New Kind of Commencement Speech
The DSM and Mental Health in America
Lessons From a Female Union Electrician
Defining Normal After a Diagnosis of Schizophrenia
Diplomatic Damage Caused by Drone Strikes, In Defense of the DSM-5, Bob Woodruff's Advice for New Grads
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [3]
It makes sense, when government is so gigantic, and spesnding so much money, and is such a pervasive influence in all aspects of our economic and social lives, that everyone -- from Hollywood producers to labor unions to manufacturing companies to the AARP; EVERYONE -- would want to have Washington lobbyists and a campaign war chest.
Influencing such a massive overwhelming and overweening government is a great investment! It's cheap! There can be great returns on investment!
I found this story as prewsented by John Hockenberry to be NAUSEATINGLY one-sided. The implication seemd to be that Republicans created "Citizens United" which created Super PACs which created the need for Democrats to establish their own Super PAC and poor Obama had to go back on his solemn promise to oppose Super PACs. What. A. Lot. Of. Nonsense. Karl Rove could have told you a year ago that Obama would never, ever disarm on campaign finance. And a real expert on the Citizens United decision (you could conduct a REAL interview with your 'friend of the program' Floyd Abrams on this one) could explain to you why free speech/free expression and the First Amendment are truly well-served by the Citizens United decision.
Abrams must have some really, really funny conversations with his friends on the editorial page of the New York Times about Citizens United. The Takeaway might actually perform a service if we could eavesdrop on one of those conversations. Trouble is, it might violate the attorney-client privilege...
So our President who is responsible for more spending than any person in world history doesn't want all this money but darn it we are forcing him to do it?
The "tsunami of slime" has been with us for three years with this President and his minions going negative with the endless barrage of demagoguery and vicious defamation against their opposition. Even his speech about civility one year ago at the Tucson memorial was turned into a campaign event.
The left blaming their opposition for a tragedy and then than trying to cow them into silence with the civility ruse and then throwing support behind the execrable Occupy movement does not get more slimy than that, does it?
This President's fund raising target has been long been one billion dollars for his campaign with the grossly inappropriate use of the trapping of his office to do it. Who pays for these pointed political speeches at the Joint Session of Congress, in schools and industry across the nation and his million dollar Canadian built bus tour to name just a few?
Just another reminder that we need serious journalism and not political cheerleading sans the pom-poms.
First of all, disgusting.
I wonder if Americans and its society could use the estimated $4 billion+ expected to be spent in the 2012 election cycle?
Finally, for everyone that believes _money = speech_, the expenditure of ever-growing sums of money on campaigns is only the logical extension of this interpretation, one that seems to be getting more extreme. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the current problems of governance and politics in the U.S., right?
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.