Obama campaign throws support to Obama super PAC

By: Lucy Madison
Topics: Campaign 2012

(Credit: CBS)

The Obama campaign on Tuesday defended its decision to urge fundraisers to back the outside group backing his re-election bid, telling reporters the choice to reverse himself was approved by the president himself.

The campaign late Monday announced that it was not going to unilaterally disarm in the face of a half billion dollars' worth of contributions aimed at defeating President Obama.

"The president did sign off on this," a senior campaign official, who asked to remain unidentified, said on a conference call with reporters.

In an email distributed Monday, campaign manager Jim Messina said "we can't afford for the work you're doing in your communities, and the grassroots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads."

As a result of the landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission, super PACs can spend unlimited funds to support a candidate as long as they do not directly coordinate with the candidate's campaign.

As CBS' Phil Hirschkorn reported in December, super PACs could drive campaign spending by independent groups up to $1 billion dollars in the 2012 election cycle - in addition to an estimated $4 billion in expenditures by presidential candidates, congressional candidates and political parties.

The campaign would not characterize the president's thoughts on the decision, but noted that his reversal was tactical and did not represent a change in principle with regard to the Mr. Obama's position on campaign finance laws.

The campaign added that it would not be lending its support to the super PAC's sister organization, a 501(c)(4) which does not have to disclose the names of its donors, and emphasized that all donations to the super PAC would be fully disclosed.

Senior Obama campaign officials stressed that the campaign would adhere strictly to the laws surrounding the extent to which a campaign may communicate with its super PAC, noting that the only communication between the two groups would revolve around administration members' appearances at super PAC-related events (which is legal).

Still, the campaign's decision to so publicly support Priorities USA is markedly different from the positions Mr. Obama's Republican rivals have taken up with regard to the groups that support their own candidacies: While the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC "Restore Our Future," as well as the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC "Winning Our Future" are staffed heavily by people who have recently been affiliated with the candidates they support, both Gingrich and Romney have been careful to avoid direct affiliation with those groups. Romney, particularly, has gone out of his way to note that he cannot take responsibility for the actions of Restore Our Future.

Relative to the money that the GOP-supporting PACs have raised, the Priorities contributions thus far have been relatively paltry: In 2011, the four most active Democratic Super PACS raised a combined $19 million. Priorities USA netted $7 million. Still, the Obama campaign has raised $140 million toward the 2012 elections, nearly triple the money raised by Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney for his campaign.

Lucy Madison
Lucy Madison is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

10 Comments +

Add a Comment


by Patriot_70 February 11, 2012 6:33 PM EST: At one time there was a thing called "Word of Honor." A man would make a decision, then stick with it. He would take the time and energy to think his stand out before he gave his word, then he would honor his word.

I see that the times of honoring your word, sticking by your word, doing the "right thing," had been replaced with "expediency, advantageous, convenient, pragmatic, and profitable.

In other words, Obama does what is good for Obama, first, above his word, above his "morals," and above his values. He does what he needs to do to win, and to hell with the rules he made up yesterday.

And you really trust a man like this?; Reply to this comment


by BlameRepublicanz February 7, 2012 6:10 PM EST: look at all the whiney neo-cons on here upset that Obama chose to fight fire with fire...yes, he said he was against it and he still is...but since the GOP gets their campaign funding from a handful of rich folks and will only get pennies from the middle class, Obama chose to exercize his rights...makes sense to me.

none of this matters anyway...Mittens Romney stands no chance...he's likeability is tanking and Obama hasn't even started campaigning yet! LOL.; Reply to this comment


by js2212 February 7, 2012 5:10 PM EST: When Obama condemned super-PACs (which he needs to play the dirty ball he likes to play), I thought "What an idiot"
Then I thought "He'll reverse that when he realizes what an idiot he is for saying that"
Then he reversed himself, going back on his word in front of everybody and I thought "What an idiot"

LOL, it's really going to be fun seeing the opposing super-PACs duke it out. They're going to bring up this reversal a lot.; Reply to this comment

by achememnon February 7, 2012 4:52 PM EST

I love it when people listen to fauznoise and use it as a legitimate means of information. Obama did not inact the Dream Act to give illegals amnesty and the ignorant will believe this lie without any proof to back it up.

To stop illegal actions like the only voter fraud case lately, with the Republican Secretary of State Charlie White in Indiana, and to stop the GOP from disenfranchising voters.

As far as the executive order BS, even factcheck.org says:
"Q: Did President Obama "enact" the DREAM Act by executive order to give "amnesty" to 20 million illegal immigrants? A: No.... National Archives records show that Obama has not issued any executive orders on immigration."

All he did was give direction:
"the administration adopted a policy of giving "particular care" before deporting students, military veterans and others deemed to be low risk, while concentrating on felons, gang members and threats to national security."

And if you think thats a bad idea, you must be a felon or gang member or threat to national security.

Go back to school little kid... Learn how to read.

Thanks DocD for showing the info those of us that educate ourselves to disprove these lying repugs.

Reply to this comment


by Patriot_70 February 11, 2012 6:38 PM EST: The Dream Act was an amnesty bill, sadly you haven't read it.

Why go after illegal actions when the president himself condones illegal activity and supports it? The Dream Act allows people to violate the law, and he supported it. When the commander of the Police Force of the United States openly and brazenly allows crime to flourish, then what law is left that is sacred? He's created two classes of people in the nation, one, who is granted the right to disobey the law, and another, who is deported - but they both broke the same laws.


by DocD--2008 February 7, 2012 3:32 PM EST: "Romney, particularly, has gone out of his way to note that he cannot take responsibility for the actions of Restore Our Future."

And then he goes into his private room and calls them on the phone. Anyone believing they have no communication is delusional.; Reply to this comment