4 ways super PACs are good for democracy

Many Americans assume super PACs are evil. But there are plenty of good reasons to applaud the new flood of cash flowing freely into our body politic The Supreme Court has gotten a lot of grief over its 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the door for deep-pocketed political action committees to drown this year's presidential race in cash from (sometimes anonymous) billionaires, corporations, and unions. Even politicians who rely on these super PACs, like Newt Gingrich — or plan to, like President Obama — say they don't like unaccountable financial behemoths. But what if campaign-finance reformers are wrong? Here, four ways super PACs might actually be good for democracy:

1. Super PACs increase transparency
Are super PACs still too secret? Yes, says David Weigel at Slate. Have a handful of billionaires completely re-shaped the race? Yes. But "there's more information out there about super PAC donors than there is about virtually any other kind of campaign fundraising... Maybe it's the novelty, maybe it's the size of the checks, but the rise of the super PAC has come with constant, clickable scrutiny from the Fourth Estate." Newt Gingrich's super PAC benefactor Sheldon Adelson has been profiled by every major newspaper. Meanwhile, "Rick Santorum's savior" — the "cowboy-hatted billionaire" Foster Friess — "has acted like a venture capitalist, putting seed money in a product and then shouting from the mountains about how more people should buy in."

SEE MORE: Who is stronger against Obama: Santorum or Romney?

2. They help level the playing field
This huge influx of campaign money, paradoxically, "ensures a stronger competitive balance in elections," says Josh Kraushaar at National Journal. Take the GOP race: Mitt Romney's campaign has outspent Newt by a 7-2 margin and Rick Santorum's 19-to-1, says Weigel. Super PACs help close the gap. Romney's super PAC outspent Newt's 2-to-1, and overpowered Santorum's 8-to-1. That's still a big advantage for Mitt, but "take away the super PACs, and Santorum would have probably had to drop out after Iowa," the Sunlight Foundation's Bill Allison tells Slate. "Gingrich might have had to drop out after South Carolina." And remember, says Kraushaar, without GOP super PACs, Romney would be at a huge disadvantage in November to President Obama's incumbency-fueled fundraising powerhouse.

3. Super PACs inform voters
The whole premise that super PACs are anti-democratic is off-base, says the Chicago Tribune in an editorial. Their "main function is one at the heart of democracy: Spreading information and arguments that voters may find useful in casting their votes." In other words, free speech. It's not like anybody has "accused super PACs of bribing voters."

SEE MORE: Why GOP voters are sitting out the primaries: 4 theories

4. They remind us how corrupt the system really is
"Our democracy was sold to the highest bidder long ago," says Ari Berman at The Huffington Post. So there's only one good thing about a new electoral landscape "almost exclusively defined by the 1 percent" — or, more accurately, "the .0000063 percent." Now that we see the naked influence of the 196 individual donors who have provided 80 percent of the money raised by super PACs, the public's focus has shifted "to the staggering inequality in our political system." And that's good for democracy.

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Romney aides to speak at super PAC events

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior campaign aides to Republican Mitt Romney will begin appearing at fundraising events for an independent political group supporting his White House run, officials said Friday. The decision comes days after President Barack Obama gave his campaign the OK to do the same.

Both moves blur the line between so-called "super" political action committees and their favored candidates. Federal rules prohibit coordination between the committees and the candidates, but that hasn't stopped Republican- and Democratic-leaning groups from blurring the line to raise money.

Restore Our Future, the pro-Romney super PAC, spent more than $15 million on ads through Florida's primary late last month either supporting Romney or attacking his rivals. That was more money than Romney's own campaign spent on ads. Such super PAC ads targeting GOP rival Newt Gingrich were largely credited for cutting into support for the former House speaker before the Iowa caucuses.

Romney's campaign confirmed the arrangement for The Associated Press on Friday.

The campaign's decision to follow Obama's lead in allowing aides to speak at super PAC fundraising events was not surprising. Romney himself spoke at a Restore Our Future event in New York last July.

This week, Obama's campaign said top administration officials would speak at events by Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting his re-election bid.

Obama has voiced support for campaign-finance reform, going so far as to chide the Supreme Court for its 2010 decision opening the doors for corporate and union spending in elections.

But, in explaining his embrace of super PACs, campaign officials said the president wouldn't "unilaterally disarm" and allow each campaign to operate under a different set of rules. Election data show Democratic-leaning groups, including the Democratic National Committee, have more cash on hand than their Republican counterparts. But Obama's team is taking few chances, particularly as billionaires are poised to spend tens of millions of dollars to support the eventual GOP nominee and to go after Obama in the fall.

"Our country is at a crossroads and the stakes could not be higher," Romney campaign spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in a statement. "President Obama and his allies will do whatever it takes, and spend whatever it takes, to hold on to power."

Gitcho added that Romney's campaign won't allow Obama to overtake it in fundraising.

The Romney campaign's decision was first reported Friday by The Wall Street Journal.

___

Follow Jack Gillum on Twitter: http://twitter.com/jackgillum

View the original article here

The 'disturbing' rise of super PACs: By the numbers

A small number of super-wealthy Americans are pumping a lot of lightly regulated money into the political system. Here's how it breaks down

President Obama got some grief this week when he reversed course on super PACs, suddenly encouraging wealthy supporters to contribute to the political spending behemoths that can accept unlimited donations from individuals and organizations. (Read a quick primer on super PACs here.) Obama campaign manager Jim Messina explained the change of heart as a nod to reality, saying Democrats can't "unilaterally disarm" while cash pours into Republican coffers. How much cash? A lot, say Kenneth Vogel and Abby Phillip at Politico. A new report from two public-interest groups confirms fears "that the cash for big-ticket campaign spending like TV advertising is increasingly controlled by an elite class of super-rich patrons not afraid to plunk down a million bucks or more for favored candidates and causes." Here, a stats-based look at the "disturbing" super PACs:

299
Registered super PACs

SEE MORE: Will the culture war shape the 2012 race?

$181 million
Amount raised by all super PACs in the past two years

56
Percent of those donations that came from "fewer than 200 super-rich people"

93
Percent of individual super PAC donors who gave at least $10,000

SEE MORE: The Nevada caucuses: 5 key questions

$34 million
Amount donated by just 32 people last year

17
People who gave at least $1 million to super PACs last year

SEE MORE: Tuesday's 'stunning' Santorum sweep: 6 takeaways

15
$1 million-plus donations that went to Republican-aligned super PACs

$2 million
Amount DreamWorks' Jeffrey Katzenberg donated to Obama-aligned Priorities USA Action

SEE MORE: Next up, Nevada: Can anyone overtake Romney?

$8.6 million 
Amount Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons and his company gave to American Crossroads and other GOP-aligned super PACs

$11 million
Amount casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his family donated to Newt Gingrich's super PAC

SEE MORE: Nominating Mitt Malaprop

$175,000
Amount liberal financier George Soros donated to super PACs (though he made political contributions of more than $20 million in 2004)

$30.2 million
Amount raised by Mitt Romney–aligned Restore Our Future PAC last year

SEE MORE: Is this the 'ugliest, nastiest, dirtiest' campaign ever?

$18.4 million
Amount raised by Karl Rove–founded American Crossroads last year

$4.4 million
Amount raised by Obama-aligned Priorities USA Action

SEE MORE: Why GOP voters are sitting out the primaries: 4 theories

$250 million
Non-super PAC funds raised by Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee last year 

Sources: American Prospect, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Demos, Los Angeles Times, Politico

SEE MORE: How deep-pocketed super PACs became 'shadow campaigns'

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Super PAC-Men: Obama Bundlers Gone Wild!

The White House didn't blow a dog whistle for deep-pocketed liberal donors on Monday. No, the administration whipped out a supersized vuvuzela. Blaring message: Let loose the campaign finance-bundling hounds of super PAC war!

President Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, who served as White House deputy chief of staff for operations before assuming 2012 re-election duties, announced the super PAC super-flip-flop in a mass e-mail to supporters and a blog post published on the left-wing Huffington Post website. In a related conference call to major campaign finance bundlers, Messina encouraged these high-dollar donors to start funding Priorities USA Action. That's the Democratic super PAC founded by former White House staffers Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney.

Super PACs and campaigns are barred from coordinating with each other. Nevertheless, Messina said that "senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events." Of course, they "won't be soliciting contributions." Wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

This brazen about-face for Team Obama is a goldmine of campaign lies, contortions and epic hypocrisy. Let us count the ways.

— A bundle of contradictions. "Bundling" is the rustling up of aggregate contributions from friends, business associates and employees, a practice to circumvent individual donation limits that Obama has long condemned. When he announced his presidential intentions in 2007, candidate Obama decried "the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play." He indignantly singled out "the best bundlers" who get the "greatest access" to power.

Last week, Obama acknowledged raising at least $74 million through his team of big-time bundlers who have been showered with access, tax dollars and plum patronage positions. This elite group of Hollywood celebrities (such as open-borders actress Eva Longoria), political cronies (such as Chicago bagman Louis "The Vacuum" Susman) and politically correct businessmen (such as bankrupt Solyndra investor George Kaiser) now totals a whopping 445 gold-card members.

— The roar of the revolving door. In his Monday announcement, Messina bragged about how the White House has enacted "sweeping" reforms to "close the revolving door between government and lobbyists." In truth, the administration has widened the carousel and removed the brakes. The Obama-cheerleading Fishwrap of Record (The New York Times) itself identified at least 15 bundlers "involved in lobbying for Washington consulting shops or private companies."

Moreover, "at least 68 of 350 Obama bundlers for the 2012 election or their spouses have served in the administration in some capacity; at least 250 of the bundlers visited the White House, and another 30 have ties to companies that conduct business with federal agencies or hope to do so in the future," according to a recent iWatch News report. Several first-time 2012 bundlers already have snagged administration posts:

— Norma Lee Funger, of Potomac, Md., who raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama, was appointed last month to the board of trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

— Glenn S. Gerstell, of Washington, D.C., who bundled the same amount, was appointed to the National Infrastructure Advisory Commission last fall.

— Richard Binder, of Bethesda, Md., another $50,000 to $100,000 bundler, was appointed to the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health last spring.

And note: The most transparent administration ever still refuses to disclose recusal orders involving the nearly 100 lobbyists and ex-lobbyists on its payroll.

— Super PAC super-hypocrisy. "Super PACs" are federal political action committees that only make independent expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, candidates. Their birth and growth were fueled indirectly by the Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruling in 2010. The decision overturned severe campaign finance restrictions that essentially criminalized certain forms of political speech. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it during oral arguments: "We don't put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats."

Until this week, the Obama administration vehemently condemned the Citizens United decision and vowed to eschew super PACs. The entities are a "threat to our democracy," Obama railed two years ago. The ruling would "open the floodgates for special interests," he warned. And last July, Obama campaign press secretary Ben LaBolt kept talking the anti-super PAC talk. "Neither the president nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs," he asserted. Now? President Obama and his wife won't fundraise for the democracy-undermining super PACs. But countless other Cabinet members and advisers, partying with Obama bundlers gone wild, will.

In 2008, Obama lambasted rival Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards for criticizing independent expenditures while raking in big PAC bucks: "So you can't say yesterday you don't believe in them, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can't just talk the talk."

Obama 2012 campaign motto: Empty talk? Yes, we can!

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

View the original article here

Obama's super PAC flip-flop: 'Hypocrisy or necessity'?

In a stark reversal of President Obama's long-touted opposition to super PACs, the president's re-election campaign announced Monday that it would encourage deep-pocketed donors to send hefty checks to the Obama-aligned super PAC Priorities USA. Obama fiercely opposed the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which allowed super PACs to receive unlimited donations from individuals and organizations, and has called super PACs a "threat to democracy." (Read a quick primer on super PACs here.) But with GOP-friendly super PACs piling up mountains of cash, Obama is changing his tune. In a blog post, campaign manager Jim Messina writes, "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." Is Obama's decision "an act of hypocrisy or necessity?"

Absolute necessity. Obama is right to change his mind: Team Obama's announcement is, "at its core, about tactics, not philosophy," says Buzzfeed. Remember, Obama made a similarly smart (and criticized) decision in 2008, when he reneged "on a pledge to take public financing, accepting the hit on his reform credentials... in exchange for a serious financial advantage over John McCain." This time around, Obama will face a GOP opponent "whose rich friends really will pour tens of millions into outside groups." The president would be foolish to simply cede that advantage.
"Obama's latest money decision: Less control, but it matters less"

Are you kidding? This is "pure hypocrisy": Even in Team Obama's blog post announcing its cooperation with a super PAC, the president's campaign calls super PACs' very existence a "dangerous trend," says William Teach at Pirate's Cove. What does it say, then, that instead of staying the course and refusing to accept their help, the president is "going to capitulate and become part of that 'dangerous trend?'" Let's just sum up "Barack Obama in a nutshell: No principles."
"Obama leads from behind, rationalizes why he needs a Super PAC"

This shouldn't come as a surprise: This is just the latest example of Obama "embracing pragmatism over principle," says Aaron Blake at The Washington Post. This is the same president who backed off his promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay within a year of taking office, and who promised to withdraw troops from Iraq in 2009, but took an additional two years to do so. Once again, when faced with the tough reality of a situation, Obama is begrudgingly shifting his stance. It's quite "clear he would be ceding a major political advantage by continuing to shun super PACs." Is it really any surprise he's embracing them?
"Obama picks pragmatism over principle on super PACs"

But it may not be the smartest move: This is no longer just an inside-politics debate, says Keyana Stevens at The Village Voice, largely thanks to Stephen Colbert's satirical super PAC and Occupy Wall Street's constant criticism of Citizens United. And just as many Americans are becoming aware of super PACs, "Obama's total about-face" on the issue gives Republicans "an easy opening to criticize him" as a flip-flopper. Ouch.
"Obama will support Super PAC, despite earlier opposition"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Madonna's Super Bowl halftime show: 'Sheer fun'?

The Queen of Pop vogued, wielded gold pom poms, and led a gospel choir. And by and large, critics loved it

The Super Bowl halftime show is arguably the most discussed 12 minutes in music television, and this year, it's Madonna who's facing the scrutiny. With the Giants and Patriots huddling in their locker rooms, the Queen of Pop presided over a captive audience of more than 100 million viewers, offering up a medley of her greatest hits and her new single, "Give Me All Your Luvin." (Watch the video below.) Things kicked off with a Roman-Egyptian-inspired rendition of "Vogue," and segued into a mash-up of her hit "Music," featuring party rockers LMFAO. Nicki Minaj and M.I.A. joined Madge for a Bring It On-tinged "Give Me All Your Luvin" cheerleading routine, with M.I.A. courting controversy for flipping the bird at cameras. The Voice judge Cee Lo Green then helped Madonna close things out, trading verses with her on drum-line-backed snippets of "Open Your Heart" and "Express Yourself" before going full gospel choir for "Like a Prayer." Last year, the Black Eyed Peas' performance was branded the "worst halftime show ever." How much better was Madonna?

She was wonderful: Madonna's performance was full of "sheer fun, dazzle, and most of all, wit," says Jim Farber at New York's Daily News. Things got off to a delightfully campy start with a Cleopatra-inspired "Vogue," and the "zest and humor" only escalated as Madonna joined in on LMFAO's trademark mock-sexy dance moves. The Queen of Pop definitely "delivered on the surprise and joy she promised."
"Madonna rides in like Cleopatra to wow Super Bowl crowd with classy, high-flying halftime show"

Perfect, even: Other than a blink-and-you-miss-it faux scandal involving M.I.A., says Ken Tucker at Entertainment Weekly, the show was refreshingly uncontroversial, with Madonna instead opting to make headlines by offering "joyous, unironic, open-hearted" spectacle. Really, all audiences want from a halftime show is "to hear some hits well-played, with more imagination than, say, the Black Eyed Peas provided last year." Gauging by that metric, "Madonna's Super Bowl performance was a bright delight."
"Madonna at the Super Bowl review: A shockingly sincere, joyous performance"

C'mon. There were a few fumbles: The show started strong, says Michael Solomon at the U.K.'s Guardian. "Vogue" was a wise, recognizable opener to get the crowd excited — though it was eminently apparent that Madge was not singing live. But things quickly took a turn for the worse. The costumes and random appearance by LMFAO were utterly bizarre, while Madonna's dance moves were "surprisingly stiff." "Give Me All Your Luvin" was "eminently peppy — and forgettable." Thankfully, a rousing finale rendition of "Like a Prayer" saved the whole thing. "When the choir started belting it out and Cee Lo hit those high notes… she took me there."
"New York Giants 21, New England Patriots 17: Super Bowl 2012 — as it happened"

SEE ALSO: Remembering Etta James, 'The Matriarch of the Blues'

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Gisele's Super Bowl 'rant': Is she a 'sore loser'?

Mrs. Tom Brady lambasts her superstar husband's butter-fingered teammates in the aftermath of the Patriots' epic Super Bowl loss to the Giants

The video: Quarterback Tom Brady's supermodel wife Gisele Bundchen had some unkind words for her husband's teammates after the New England Patriots' meltdown against the New York Giants in Sunday's Super Bowl. First, an opposing fan heckled the former Victoria's Secret model in the tunnel of Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium, yelling that Giants quarterback Eli Manning "owns your husband!" A clearly annoyed Gisele turned to her entourage and — apparently referring to critical dropped passes by New England's Wes Welker, Deion Branch, and Aaron Hernandez — said, "You have to catch the ball when you're supposed to catch the ball. My husband cannot f--king throw the ball and catch the ball at the same time." (Watch video of the "rant" below.) "I can't believe they dropped the ball so many times."

The reaction: Gisele sure looks like a "sore loser," says the Miami Herald. She was already "humiliated" last week when private emails leaked in which she asked close friends to pray for a Pats victory. With this newest video, "she's kinda sorta melting down in public." In any case, Brady's teammates can't be happy, says Matthew Scianitti at National Post. Welker in particular — who has publicly berated himself for letting the biggest catch of his life "touch his finger tips and then inexplicably fall to Earth" — "will probably forever think she was talking about him." And it's hard to feel too bad for Gisele, says Barry Petchesky at Deadspin. Sure, she was heckled. But that's simply "the cost of doing business when you date an athlete." Take a look:

SEE MORE: Did Rob Lowe really leak Peyton Manning's retirement?

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Pundits predict: Who will win the Super Bowl?

As the Patriots and Giants gear up for a rematch of 2008's dramatic championship, sportswriters place their bets for Sunday's contest

Amidst the frantic hype surrounding buzzy commercials and the halftime spectacle Madonna is reportedly planning, it's easy to forget that a football game will be played on Sunday. But it stands to be a great one. The New York Giants and New England Patriots are facing off in what's being heralded as "the perfect Super Bowl rematch." The two teams met in the 2008 championship, during which the Giants spoiled the Patriots' undefeated season with a crushing come-from-behind drive in the final minutes of the game. This time around, Vegas bookies are still favoring Tom Brady and the Patriots to defeat Eli Manning and the Giants. But who do the pundits think will win — and why? Here, three arguments for each team:

PATRIOTS

SEE MORE: America's Super Bowl feast: By the numbers

1. They're hungry for revenge
"Pride is a great motivator," says Don Banks at Sports Illustrated. No matter how much they downplay it, Brady, coach Bill Belichick, and the rest of Patriots are undoubtedly fired up by the opportunity to avenge their deflating Super Bowl four years ago. Given how evenly matched the Patriots and Giants seem to be, "motivation can be the edge that matters." Expect New England's squad to come out with fire in their eyes and payback on their minds.

2. Tom Brady is an all-time great
It's not wise to bet against Brady, says Branden Fitzpatrick at Bleacher Report. He already has three Super Bowl rings — a fourth would tie him with Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana for the all-time lead. And he's joining John Elway as only the second quarterback to start in five Super Bowls. At 34, Brady knows what's at stake: Retribution and legacy. "He may never get the opportunity to play in a Super Bowl again," and he has the chance to beat the only team that's ever topped him in the big game.

SEE MORE: Petty controversy: Obama refuses to make a Super Bowl pick!

3. Their offensive line is unbeatable
The Giants may have some of the best pass rushers in the NFL, but "keeping Brady upright and clean in the pocket" has been one of New England's biggest strengths this season, says Banks. The Patriots' offensive line has only given up one sack during the postseason. Four years ago, the Giants managed to sack Brady five times and harass him throughout the game. There's no way they'll be able to put anywhere near that kind of pressure on him this year. 

GIANTS

SEE MORE: Patriots vs. Giants: The 'perfect' Super Bowl rematch?

1. They have momentum
The Giants were never supposed to make it this far, says Bryan Kolesar at The Washington Times. The team barely clinched a playoff spot after a mediocre 9-7 regular season record, but then dominated the Atlanta Falcons and the heavily-favored Green Bay Packers in the postseason's first two rounds. Next, they beat the San Francisio 49ers in "heroic fashion" to win the NFC championship. The Giants are on a "convincing roll," making them awfully hard to stop.

2. Eli Manning is "red hot"
Peyton's little brother "is playing like he is the best quarterback in the NFL right now," says James Reagan at Bleacher Report. And let's give him his due: He's "one of the most clutch quarterbacks in NFL history." His stellar 7-3 playoff record includes six road victories, the most by any quarterback. This postseason he's thrown for more than 270 yards per game, eight total touchdowns, and has only fumbled once. And remember, the Patriots have one of the worst pass defenses in the league. "Manning has got to feel good about his chances."

SEE MORE: The 5 buzziest Super Bowl commercials (so far)

3. The defensive line is monstrous
The Giants' defensive line is a killer, says Jeffri Chadiha at ESPN. In 2008, the Giants pass rushers rattled New England's record-setting offense. Since, New York has added yet another first-rate player, Jason Pierre-Paul, and affirmed the notion that "the best way to contend for championships is through relentless, unforgiving defense." The Giants' front four are poised to give Brady hell on Sunday. "If their defensive line goes off, the Giants go home with another Lombardi trophy."

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here