In one of the latest revelations in political developments, a “secret that was no secret,” has been revealed. Yesterday, President Obama assented to Democrats' use of “independentexpenditure only committees.” As the label implies, these groups raise money expressly to make “independent expenditures,” which in coded Federal Elections Commission (FEC) language describes ads that support or oppose candidates, but are not coordinated, condoned outright, or prearranged by those candidates.
You have likely heard of these organizations referred to, in the more rudimentary vernacular, as Super PACs. Regardless of which euphemism one uses, they are instruments by which a donor or donors, who may (and most likely will) remain anonymous, are permitted to make an unconstrained number of contributions, totaling a limitless amount of funds.
Avid political observers as well as those involuntarily annexed into the daily swirl of angst, jabbering, and vitriol, spewing forth from the slowly shrinking, but increasingly vocal quartet of GOP Presidential candidates have come to know all to well the “Power of the PAC;” Super PAC, that is. Conventional wisdom suggests, with more than a little documentation, that the genius of the Super PAC has three significant components:
- Unlimited ca$h
- Anonymity
- Negative Advertising
Up to this point Super PACs have been largely the purview of the Republican Party. The GOP is currently engaging in its Primary Election process, while President Obama, who has no intraparty challenger, waits on the sideline for his eventual opponent in the general election. However, the handwriting is already on the wall. The Super PAC’s have been a key element in the GOP primaries, and negative advertising has been paramount. A soaring Newt Gingrich was pummeled by Super PACs supporting Mitt Romney. Not surprisingly, Super PACs supporting Mr. Gingrich have responded by thrashing Mitt Romney…and so it goes!
The GOP has far and away outpaced Democrats in terms of numbers of Super PACs, and the money they have raised. The underlying, but undeniable message is while the Super PACs, their money, anonymous donors, and ads, have all been trained on each other, they will be refocused to point at President Obama in the fall.
It is in this inexorably trending light that Presidential advisers and would-be donors alike prevailed upon POTUS to revisit a long-held, and I might add, principled stand against accepting money from Super PACs. In the end, the President reasoned, as one reporter noted, “What good is your “Brand,” if you don’t win?
In essence, in the backdrop of battling a Republican Party that established its top priority, in 2008, “making President Obama fail, and limiting his presidency to one term,” it was inherently clear that he would need to foster and promote an environment in which he was not unduly limited by an insufficient fund-raising apparatus. The GOP, of course, will argue that President Obama back-tracked and flip-flopped. Campaign reform proponents will submit that he blinked, or worse, flat-out capitulated. This decision will not be without its detractors.
Yet, if President Obama intends to vie aggressively for a second term (and few doubt he does), he had to at least provide his supporters the chance to create a level field of play, as it relates to fundraising. He has now taken what I believe is a necessary step to that end.
Super PACs are a relatively recent development, in sheer historical terms. Two Court decisions, both rendered in 2010, coalesced to enable to creation of Super PAC’s. In the first, the Supreme Court in, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, held that the government may not prohibit unions and corporations (which Mitt Romney defines as people) from making independent expenditures to political causes, including candidates.
Shortly afterward, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited. Super PACs are prohibited from coordinating directly with candidates or political parties, because they are “independent.” Candidates may however, talk to their associated Super PACs thru the media. Moreover, the Super PAC may listen.
Ultimately, Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, as traditional PACs do. However, in their brief history, many have exploited a technicality in the filing requirements allowing them to postpone disclosure until after the elections in which they participated.
The GOP Primary Season took an unexpected twist, last night as Rick Santorum made a clean sweep of elections in Missouri , Minnesota , and Colorado Minnesota Colorado
Undoubtedly, President Obama and his team looked on with interest as the expected coronation of Mitt Romney as the Party’s nominee was “Delayed until further notice!” Indeed, congratulations to Senator Santorum...and a word of caution: that sound off in the distance, akin to an approaching herd of elephants, is the streaming media that are about to alit on his path. Oh yeah, time for another turn. Meanwhile notice has been given, “PAC-Man-in-Chief: President Obama Joins the Fray!”
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment