For Obama, The SuperPAC Rubber Has Met The Road : It's All Politics Faced with a GOP fundraising advantage, the president's decision to reverse course and throw his support behind a pro-Democrat superPAC may be politically risky but also realistic.

For Obama, The SuperPAC Rubber Has Met The Road

For Obama, The SuperPAC Rubber Has Met The Road

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript

President Obama telegraphed his campaign's reversal on superPAC funding during an interview aired Monday with NBC's Matt Lauer. NBC "Today" show screenshot hide caption

toggle caption
NBC "Today" show screenshot

President Obama telegraphed his campaign's reversal on superPAC funding during an interview aired Monday with NBC's Matt Lauer.

NBC "Today" show screenshot

The late conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr. once said that "idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive."

That seems to be the political calculation being made by President Obama and his campaign team when it comes to opposing superPACs.

Team Obama reversed course late Monday when campaign manager Jim Messina urged donors to help pro-Obama superPACs raise supermoney, and said administration officials will be free to help with the fundraising.

The math was an apparent wake-up call for Democrats: Priorities USA Action, which was founded by two former Obama aides, pulled in just $4.4 million last year, while the superPAC supporting GOP front-runner Mitt Romney raked in nearly $18 million.

More broadly, new fundraising reports show pro-Republican superPACs have pulled well ahead of those supporting Democrats. The biggest GOP groups raised more than $50 million last year, while Democratic groups — including Priorities USA — garnered less than $20 million.

The Evolving Language On SuperPACs

January 2010, President Obama in State of the Union speech:

" ... last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

July 2010, President Obama ahead of Senate vote on bill promoting greater financial disclosure for campaign money:

"A vote to oppose these reforms is nothing less than a vote to allow corporate and special-interest takeovers of our elections. It is damaging to our democracy. It is precisely what led a Republican president named Theodore Roosevelt to tackle this issue a century ago."

October 2010, President Obama at Democratic National Committee rally in Philadelphia:

"And thanks to a Supreme Court decision called Citizens United, [Republicans] are being helped along this year by special interest groups that are spending unlimited amounts of money on attack ads."

Feb. 6, 2012, President Obama in interview with NBC:

"One of the worries we have, obviously, in the next campaign is that there are so many of these so-called superPACs, these independent expenditures that are going to be out there, there's going to be just a lot of money floating around. And I guarantee you a bunch of that's going to be negative."

Feb. 6, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina on campaign blog:

The president "... continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the president favors action — by constitutional amendment, if necessary — to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands."

Obama's campaign had formerly kept Priorities USA at a distance as the president himself railed against the superPAC establishment.

The climb down from that perch has been a steep one.

Days after the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision that abolished some limits on campaign donations, Obama said in his State of the Union address — as the black-robed justices looked on — that the ruling had "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

Six months later, as Obama pushed a bill that would have barred foreign funding in federal elections and firmed up disclosure requirements, he was even more explicit in his opposition, saying the court's ruling allowed the purchase of millions of dollars in political TV ads with no disclosure on who was paying for them.

"Now, imagine the power this will give special interests over politicians," he said. "Corporate lobbyists will be able to tell members of Congress if they don't vote the right way, they will face an onslaught of negative ads in their next campaign. And all too often, no one will actually know who's really behind those ads."

But Monday's missive from Messina said Democrats couldn't afford to "unilaterally disarm" as the GOP nominee enjoyed the fruits of unlimited spending. "Therefore," he wrote, "the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC."

Obama himself laid the groundwork for the reversal during an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that aired earlier Monday.

"If you ask me, would I love to take some of the big money out of politics, I would," the president said. "Unfortunately, right now, partly because of Supreme Court rulings and a bunch of decisions out there, it is very hard to be able to get your message out without having some resources."

In the end, there was essentially zero political upside to standing on principle and not trying to maximize campaign cash, says Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

"It was inevitable," he says. "As we begin to see the Romney general election take shape and the willingness of donors to contribute in denominations of millions of dollars to that effort, you can't ignore that reality.

"I would say this is all about pragmatism and political expediency."

While the superPAC about-face opens the president up to accusations of hypocrisy, it's more likely to hurt him with Democrats than Republicans, says Nathaniel Persily, a Columbia University professor who specializes in election law.

"It's not that [Obama] will pay a price from his Republican rivals, but that the good-government groups that otherwise support Obama might be uncomfortable with this."

Updated 3:15 p.m.

On Tuesday's All Things Considered, NPR's Peter Overby also notes that good-government groups have found "a bright spot" in the Obama campaign's statement that the president would back a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United.

Overby also raises another question: "Will wealthy donors deliver" for Obama?

"There is this self-loathing relationship that Democrats seem to have with outside independent activity that has got to have an impact ... on donor attitudes," says Steven Law, head of American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, organizations founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove. The groups spent millions last year attacking Obama's policies.

As Overby notes, "it's those attitudes that the Obama campaign hopes to reverse, just nine months out from the election."