Obama Bites Super PAC: But Hey…..Why Should White Guys Have all the Fun?
Does Citizens United Want to Divide US?
Political pundits have been scrutinizing the Obama 2012 campaign's decision to use administration officials to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, an independent expenditure-only committee or "super PAC," supportive of the President. Obama's acceptance of super PAC support is being criticized as a hypocritical reversal of his prior position regarding the corrupting influence of unlimited expenditures on the electoral process. The Obama campaign has countered that the change in position is merely a pragmatic response to the political arms race unleashed by the United States Supreme Court in its decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
On January 21, 2010, in Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing political spending limits on corporations and unions. The highly controversial 5-4 decision highlighted the Court's on-going political division. In fact, the decision could be described as a proxy war of the prior Reagan-Bush administrations versus the Clinton-Obama administrations with those justices in the majority falling neatly into the camp of GOP nominees. The majority held that any compelling state interest in the prevention of political corruption did not justify the threat posed to political free speech by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Act, also known as McCain Feingold, sought to reform campaign finance, but with the floodgates of special interest money opened by the Court's decision, the proxy war began to spread to new battlefronts.
1% Big Tent Pre-"Occupation" Beats 99% Gingrich Marginalization
It appears that the Obama campaign is not alone in its calculation regarding the necessity of leveraging super PACs. Within the last month several reports have emerged that members of African American and Hispanic civic organizations have formed super PACs to ensure that issues important to their communities are not overlooked during this election cycle. For example, in early January it was reported that Omega Psi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi, two historically Black fraternities that celebrated their centennials in 2011, had formed 1911 United. The super PAC's stated goal is to mobilize African American voters in key swing states to re-elect Obama. Similarly, last week members of the "Divine 9," nine historically Black fraternities and sororities including Omega Psi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi, announced the formation of Unity 9 PAC. The organization's goal is to encourage members of the Black fraternities and sororities to run for elected office. Although Unity 9 is not a super PAC, it may hold the potential to organize and fund efforts of importance to the African American community on a scale greater than other nonconnected PACs. Before anyone assumes ethnic based PACs are a phenomenon exclusive to the Democratic Party, conservative based Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC) was founded by Black Republican Alan Keyes and has been incorporated since 1994. Although BAMPAC was formed as a regular PAC, it would not be surprising if it were eventually to re-launch as a super PAC to take advantage of the greater flexibility.
The American Latino Alliance PAC also notified the Federal Election Commission of its intent to make independent expenditures and raise unlimited funds on January 19, 2012. According to its treasurer, Joe Velasquez, the super PAC plans to support President Obama's reelection and Democratic Senate candidates in seven states: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Arizona, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. Coincidentally, Hispanic Vote PAC, a conservative based super PAC, filed its intent to make independent expenditures with the FEC just one day earlier on January 18, 2012. According to Angelette Aviles of Hispanic Vote PAC, there is a gap in the Republican Party's outreach to Hispanic voters. "Even with the Republican Party, they say they have Hispanic outreach, but they never dedicate a budget to it. We're helping to bridge that gap."
"Lifting as We Climb" and Other Acts of Accountability
Last week Obama announced the launch of African Americans for Obama. The announcement coincided with the beginning Black History Month and is intended to energize Black voters. According to Huffington Post, "African Americans for Obama will be a part of Operation Vote, the campaign's outreach arm to select voting blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, LGBTQs, youth and older voters." Although Obama has consistently enjoyed high job approval ratings among Blacks, he has received criticism from some influential African Americans that he has done too little to address Black unemployment, and at times has been too willing to compromise campaign promises made to his political base to satisfy Republican demands. Obama's conciliatory demeanor at times gives credence to the impression that he prefers to be the "Professor in Chief." If the 2012 campaign is destined to become a brutal street fight, in part due to super PAC money, the President's outreach efforts combined with his new embrace of super PAC support may be the kind of rapprochement necessary to convert high approval ratings into higher voter turnout.
More than Just the Benjamins, Romney!
An analysis of the $15.4 million in independent expenditures disbursed in support of the remaining GOP candidates, as of 2/7/12, shows that Mitt Romney received $1.8 million, Newt Gingrich received $6 million, Rick Santorum $3.7 million, and Ron Paul $3.8 million. Despite the considerable gap in supportive expenditures between Santorum and Gingrich, Santorum won the Missouri primary and the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on February 7. Gingrich also finished 3rd in Colorado behind Romney. Similarly, a review of the $27 million in independent expenditures disbursed in opposition to the GOP candidates shows that $9 million was used in opposition to Romney, $17 million in opposition to Gingrich, $430,000 in opposition to Santorum and only $133,000 in opposition to Paul. Despite the relatively small amount disbursed in opposition to Paul, he finished last in both Missouri where Gingrich was not on the ballot as well as in Colorado where all four candidates were on the ballot. Paul had the lowest ratio of opposition to supportive disbursements, but it did not translate into political success in the most recent caucuses and primary.
Of course super PACs have not yet become the primary source of candidate support in the 2012 election. According to the New York Times, as of the end of December 2011, the now remaining GOP contenders' campaigns had raised $98.1 million. Of that total, Romney's share was $57.1 million, Paul's share $26.1 million, Gingrich's $12.7 million and Santorum's only $2.2 million. Based on these figures Rick Santorum's recent success as well as his earlier performance in Iowa seem highly improbable in a political environment where funding coffers are alleged decisive. Interestingly, during that same period Barack Obama had raised nearly $140 million—42% more than the four Republicans combined.
Tweet Me, Meet Me, Tumble, Stumble, But I Really Hope You Like Me
Although large sums of cash can clearly fund activities associated with political mobilization, the prevalence of free and low cost social media as an organizing tool mitigates the historical advantage bestowed upon the rainmaker. Of course centralized political campaigns have studied the Obama 2008 playbook and exploit social media in a virtuous evergreen cycle of fundraising. Money still begets more money. However, the relatively low barriers of entry provided also appeal to decentralized movements and issue advocacy. Think Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street. The ability of like-minded individuals and groups to organize even in the absence of deep pockets has probably never been greater. Although super PACs tend to frame their own activities through a romanticized Don Quixote-like lens, the reality is that most, if not all, are backed by high profile, very influential political insiders. Any claim of bottoms-up mobilization is a veneer. It is no coincidence that the GOP candidates have also attempted to tap into the political avatar of "outsider." Never mind that two of the four remaining contenders are former high profile Republican Congressman with one actually having attained the position of House Speaker. Among the other two, one is an existing Congressman from Texas and the other, the possible front-runner, is a former Governor and successful retired investment banker. Notwithstanding their existing name recognition and status, the four remaining GOP candidates were the beneficiaries of nearly $4.8 million of independent expenditures disbursed in support of their candidacies for internet marketing activities including social media. That figure is approximately 31% of the total independent expenditures disbursed in support of those candidates as of 2/7/12. Additionally, $2.6 million in independent expenditures were disbursed for the purpose of opposing one or more of the same candidates via internet marketing during that same time period.
So, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Elephant in the Room?
It was announced last week that Priorities USA Action had only raised $4.4 million through the end of last year. Meanwhile, the Karl Rove led conservative super PAC, Restore Our Future, had already raised $30 million and the similarly oriented American Crossroads super PAC and its 501(c) 4 affiliate Crossroads GPS had raised $51 million. Perhaps more importantly, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS intend to raise as much as $300 million to help defeat Obama and it has been reported that conservative billionaire Koch brothers have already secured $100 million in pledges for conservative based super PACs and non-profits. Obama aides have expressed alarm that the Karl Rove/Koch brothers unlimited spending might result in $500 million in attack ads against the President. Against this backdrop, the Obama campaign has reasonably concluded that rejecting super PAC disbursements would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament. Folks, let's get ready to rumble!
Does Citizens United Want to Divide US?
Political pundits have been scrutinizing the Obama 2012 campaign's decision to use administration officials to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, an independent expenditure-only committee or "super PAC," supportive of the President. Obama's acceptance of super PAC support is being criticized as a hypocritical reversal of his prior position regarding the corrupting influence of unlimited expenditures on the electoral process. The Obama campaign has countered that the change in position is merely a pragmatic response to the political arms race unleashed by the United States Supreme Court in its decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
On January 21, 2010, in Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from imposing political spending limits on corporations and unions. The highly controversial 5-4 decision highlighted the Court's on-going political division. In fact, the decision could be described as a proxy war of the prior Reagan-Bush administrations versus the Clinton-Obama administrations with those justices in the majority falling neatly into the camp of GOP nominees. The majority held that any compelling state interest in the prevention of political corruption did not justify the threat posed to political free speech by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The Act, also known as McCain Feingold, sought to reform campaign finance, but with the floodgates of special interest money opened by the Court's decision, the proxy war began to spread to new battlefronts.
1% Big Tent Pre-"Occupation" Beats 99% Gingrich Marginalization
It appears that the Obama campaign is not alone in its calculation regarding the necessity of leveraging super PACs. Within the last month several reports have emerged that members of African American and Hispanic civic organizations have formed super PACs to ensure that issues important to their communities are not overlooked during this election cycle. For example, in early January it was reported that Omega Psi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi, two historically Black fraternities that celebrated their centennials in 2011, had formed 1911 United. The super PAC's stated goal is to mobilize African American voters in key swing states to re-elect Obama. Similarly, last week members of the "Divine 9," nine historically Black fraternities and sororities including Omega Psi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi, announced the formation of Unity 9 PAC. The organization's goal is to encourage members of the Black fraternities and sororities to run for elected office. Although Unity 9 is not a super PAC, it may hold the potential to organize and fund efforts of importance to the African American community on a scale greater than other nonconnected PACs. Before anyone assumes ethnic based PACs are a phenomenon exclusive to the Democratic Party, conservative based Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC) was founded by Black Republican Alan Keyes and has been incorporated since 1994. Although BAMPAC was formed as a regular PAC, it would not be surprising if it were eventually to re-launch as a super PAC to take advantage of the greater flexibility.
The American Latino Alliance PAC also notified the Federal Election Commission of its intent to make independent expenditures and raise unlimited funds on January 19, 2012. According to its treasurer, Joe Velasquez, the super PAC plans to support President Obama's reelection and Democratic Senate candidates in seven states: Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Arizona, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. Coincidentally, Hispanic Vote PAC, a conservative based super PAC, filed its intent to make independent expenditures with the FEC just one day earlier on January 18, 2012. According to Angelette Aviles of Hispanic Vote PAC, there is a gap in the Republican Party's outreach to Hispanic voters. "Even with the Republican Party, they say they have Hispanic outreach, but they never dedicate a budget to it. We're helping to bridge that gap."
"Lifting as We Climb" and Other Acts of Accountability
Last week Obama announced the launch of African Americans for Obama. The announcement coincided with the beginning Black History Month and is intended to energize Black voters. According to Huffington Post, "African Americans for Obama will be a part of Operation Vote, the campaign's outreach arm to select voting blocs, including African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, LGBTQs, youth and older voters." Although Obama has consistently enjoyed high job approval ratings among Blacks, he has received criticism from some influential African Americans that he has done too little to address Black unemployment, and at times has been too willing to compromise campaign promises made to his political base to satisfy Republican demands. Obama's conciliatory demeanor at times gives credence to the impression that he prefers to be the "Professor in Chief." If the 2012 campaign is destined to become a brutal street fight, in part due to super PAC money, the President's outreach efforts combined with his new embrace of super PAC support may be the kind of rapprochement necessary to convert high approval ratings into higher voter turnout.
More than Just the Benjamins, Romney!
An analysis of the $15.4 million in independent expenditures disbursed in support of the remaining GOP candidates, as of 2/7/12, shows that Mitt Romney received $1.8 million, Newt Gingrich received $6 million, Rick Santorum $3.7 million, and Ron Paul $3.8 million. Despite the considerable gap in supportive expenditures between Santorum and Gingrich, Santorum won the Missouri primary and the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on February 7. Gingrich also finished 3rd in Colorado behind Romney. Similarly, a review of the $27 million in independent expenditures disbursed in opposition to the GOP candidates shows that $9 million was used in opposition to Romney, $17 million in opposition to Gingrich, $430,000 in opposition to Santorum and only $133,000 in opposition to Paul. Despite the relatively small amount disbursed in opposition to Paul, he finished last in both Missouri where Gingrich was not on the ballot as well as in Colorado where all four candidates were on the ballot. Paul had the lowest ratio of opposition to supportive disbursements, but it did not translate into political success in the most recent caucuses and primary.
Of course super PACs have not yet become the primary source of candidate support in the 2012 election. According to the New York Times, as of the end of December 2011, the now remaining GOP contenders' campaigns had raised $98.1 million. Of that total, Romney's share was $57.1 million, Paul's share $26.1 million, Gingrich's $12.7 million and Santorum's only $2.2 million. Based on these figures Rick Santorum's recent success as well as his earlier performance in Iowa seem highly improbable in a political environment where funding coffers are alleged decisive. Interestingly, during that same period Barack Obama had raised nearly $140 million—42% more than the four Republicans combined.
Tweet Me, Meet Me, Tumble, Stumble, But I Really Hope You Like Me
Although large sums of cash can clearly fund activities associated with political mobilization, the prevalence of free and low cost social media as an organizing tool mitigates the historical advantage bestowed upon the rainmaker. Of course centralized political campaigns have studied the Obama 2008 playbook and exploit social media in a virtuous evergreen cycle of fundraising. Money still begets more money. However, the relatively low barriers of entry provided also appeal to decentralized movements and issue advocacy. Think Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street. The ability of like-minded individuals and groups to organize even in the absence of deep pockets has probably never been greater. Although super PACs tend to frame their own activities through a romanticized Don Quixote-like lens, the reality is that most, if not all, are backed by high profile, very influential political insiders. Any claim of bottoms-up mobilization is a veneer. It is no coincidence that the GOP candidates have also attempted to tap into the political avatar of "outsider." Never mind that two of the four remaining contenders are former high profile Republican Congressman with one actually having attained the position of House Speaker. Among the other two, one is an existing Congressman from Texas and the other, the possible front-runner, is a former Governor and successful retired investment banker. Notwithstanding their existing name recognition and status, the four remaining GOP candidates were the beneficiaries of nearly $4.8 million of independent expenditures disbursed in support of their candidacies for internet marketing activities including social media. That figure is approximately 31% of the total independent expenditures disbursed in support of those candidates as of 2/7/12. Additionally, $2.6 million in independent expenditures were disbursed for the purpose of opposing one or more of the same candidates via internet marketing during that same time period.
So, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Elephant in the Room?
It was announced last week that Priorities USA Action had only raised $4.4 million through the end of last year. Meanwhile, the Karl Rove led conservative super PAC, Restore Our Future, had already raised $30 million and the similarly oriented American Crossroads super PAC and its 501(c) 4 affiliate Crossroads GPS had raised $51 million. Perhaps more importantly, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS intend to raise as much as $300 million to help defeat Obama and it has been reported that conservative billionaire Koch brothers have already secured $100 million in pledges for conservative based super PACs and non-profits. Obama aides have expressed alarm that the Karl Rove/Koch brothers unlimited spending might result in $500 million in attack ads against the President. Against this backdrop, the Obama campaign has reasonably concluded that rejecting super PAC disbursements would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament. Folks, let's get ready to rumble!
SHARE
