Insight: Key Democratic donors cool to pro-Obama Super PAC

Comments (43)
codestud3 wrote:

“reluctantly embraced” is that another term for “flip flop” or can you use that on democrats only?

Apr 06, 2012 8:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Curly wrote:

One reason Obama is having trouble raising funds (if he is)is because in the 2008 campaign he ran on a promise but this year, 2012, Obama has to run on his record. That has not attracted the support that he had in 2008. The annual deficit of $1 trillion dollars is one to the reasons for that lack of support.

Apr 06, 2012 8:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Rascal69 wrote:

Why would you invest money in a Constitutional Law Professor who doesn’t know the law? Would you pay your lawncare attendant thousands of dollars to put a new stent in your blocked artery?

Apr 06, 2012 9:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
weneedrubio wrote:

I “hope” this will “change” our president because he is a criminal surrounded by like criminal minds. Soros and his ilk are just waiting to see who to pay off. They should be in jail and the new president should pursue them immediately upon election.

Apr 06, 2012 9:32am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Justcurious2 wrote:

IMHO the reason that so many donors are not stepping up to the plate this time is that they may be disgusted with the last three years of Obamasocialism. They, being people of means, may be looking at this country on life support and do not see Obamasocialist as the right person to get us out of this mess.

A small rating agency has just dropped the US credit rating again. The large well know agencies probably won’t be far behind. The main stream media will probably “overlook” this. Also “overlooked” will be the dire outlook in a very few years that the INTEREST PAYMENTS ON OUR NATIONAL DEBT WILL EXCEED THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SPENDING. Now this is a scary thought.

Apr 06, 2012 9:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Steve0798 wrote:

Like it or not, America has become a “what have you done for me lately” culture. Obama skirted that in 2008 by being New and Black; it is not gonna work this time around.

Also, America sees Hateful Relationships on TV constantly, and although many (most?) of us enjoy the occasional train wreck, we don’t gravitate to the sort of people who harvest hate and rage – therefore the Hate campaigns of the GOP are a major turnoff now, as will be the Hate campaign BO will doubtlessly orchestrate. If the GOP can communicate the failures of the BO presidency without sounding like a poorly-cast reality show (are there others?) they will ensure a GOP victory in November. If they employ the same bile and invective as the Dems they will only keep voters home.

Apr 06, 2012 9:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
timerunner wrote:

Keep your money in your pocket why give it to a person who wants to enslave you and your family.
It’s not worth the cost from a king of foodstamps and misery.

Impeach this tyrant want a be.

Tea Party Patriot

Apr 06, 2012 9:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
timerunner wrote:

REUTERS is not posting all comments, obama must be getting shalacked in the comments today, and he should and so should REUTERS too!

Tea Party Patriot
PS:Impeach this jerk.
PS: Thanks for the censorship R. you stink too!

Apr 06, 2012 9:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
neocon47 wrote:

Now you need to ask yourself this. The Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2007. The debt was 8.7 trillion. They are going to raise the debt ceiling to over 16 TRILLION. Thats 8 trillion more debt in a little over 5 years under the leadership of Democrats. Are you 8 trillion dollars better off now?

Apr 06, 2012 10:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse

When these billionaire 1%ers donate all that cabbage to the Democrats, how, exactly, do they get paid back?

Apr 06, 2012 11:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

I continue to marvel at all of the right wing posters ability to spout talking points without fact. It is truly a miracle of the modern age.

Apr 06, 2012 11:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NewsDebbie wrote:

I am not a bizillionair so to have a PAC where only my ideals are promoted is never going to happen. I think people who are appalled and oppossed to the Citizens United ruleing are going to be reluctant to put in money. It says in essence that an individual values money power over character values and abilities to lead. I think as the election gets close contributors will give some to PACS to fight fire with fire so to speak but it will be reluctantly. The Citizens United ruling says everything about this SCOTUS and that is the ruling changes the USA from a representative democratic republic of a people to a notion that corporations and money are people their views are represented in a monied plutocracy. Romney will be very well adapted to plutocracy.

Apr 06, 2012 11:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Isn’t that Lewis guy the turkey who owns Progressive Insurance co>?

Apr 06, 2012 12:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

We won the first election without a super PAC. We’ll win the second one also. Obama has no problem raising money.

Newt can do his thing. Us Democrats will do ours.

Apr 06, 2012 12:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MJGSimple wrote:

Since most of the comments seem to be questions or lack information, I will do my best:

codestud3 – “Reluctantly embraced,” means that most democrats are against super PACs on principle. However, when that is the current way of doing things, they are going to. Kind of like driving a fuel inefficient car, not a smart thing, but there are few options.

Curly – If I’m not mistaken, President Obama is not having trouble raising funds in the usual sense. His campaign has more money than any republican campaign. However, super PAC fundraising is less, because most democrats believe money should not be synonymous with voting power.

Rascal69 – I believe President Obama does know the Constitution and law. He made a comment regarding the clear activism on the Supreme Court (See Citizens United). He then defended the statement by pointing out that it has been decades since the court had struck down an economic law based on the commerce clause. His defense proves his knowledge to me, as I’m sure few people know outside of constitutional law.

weneedrubio – I find it interesting that you call Soros a criminal. Wasn’t Sheldon Adelson being investigated for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Justcurious2 – I think most donors aren’t stepping up to donate to super PACs on principle. They never agreed with super PACs being created, so why would they fund them now that they exist?

Steve0798 – Interesting point. Haven’t almost all of the attack ads been funded by Republican super PACs for the purpose of attacking other Republican nominees? It seems to me that the Republican party is the one perpetuating nonsensical arguments.

timerunner – You don’t even understand the Reuters posting system, I don’t imagine you have a good understanding of the government or politics, so I won’t overwhelm you. Feel free to read the Reuters posting logic by clicking the link below the comment box.

neocon47 – Most non-partisan economists agree that the stimulus was necessary. I believe many also believe that there should have been more stimulus spending for a greater impact on recovery. Unfortunately, it is unanimously agreed that tax cuts and wars are not the way to help the economy or federal deficit.
Constitutionfst – Billionaires give to the democrats because they agree with the principles of the party. Your comment only shows how, in the republican party, everyone is out for themselves with no/little regard for anyone else. Good way to live.

Apr 06, 2012 12:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gobnait06 wrote:

fromthecenter: Your sweeping assessment of ‘all’ right wing posters is patently ridiculous.

Apr 06, 2012 12:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Credit2u wrote:

Or maybe they have come to the realization that it is fruitless to throw your pearls before swine? If this was Europe 10-20 years ago, he would be a shoe-in, but this is the United States of America, we have sacrificed our sons to ensure our freedom and don’t take kindly to shysters.

Apr 06, 2012 1:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ranger01 wrote:

Not worth his salt, and not worth a Dollar. He is against consitutional freedoms. Vote Against Obama 2012.

Apr 06, 2012 1:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rickhenk wrote:

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Is that right Mr President? Way to be a leader; and you wonder why your previous voters are so disenfranchised with you.

Apr 06, 2012 1:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rickhenk wrote:

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Is that right Mr President? Way to be a leader; and you wonder why your previous voters are so disenfranchised with you.

Apr 06, 2012 1:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tarmangani wrote:

In 2008 he said he would take matching funds until he found out how much he could make on his own and then matching funds were out the window. He doesn’t want PACs because he knows It will even the playing field. Fairness and doing what is right are foreign concepts to him. He doesn’t care about being fair it’s all about the win. Just look at the tactics he used in his Senate race and in 2008. Listen to what Hillary supporters said he did.

Apr 06, 2012 1:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SanPa wrote:

The GOP is the Party of Corruption. So would would Dems contribute to an organ of the corrupted?

Apr 06, 2012 2:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

it’s the gop pac’s sole purpose to attack opponents that dems are reluctant to join in on. call it a higher moral fiber that the gop has always pretended to have, but can just never seem to get over the pure hatred it now embodies. just read a few of these ‘tarded responses for proof.

Apr 06, 2012 2:55pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Buelligan wrote:

Super PACs – the Supreme Court’s way of saying America isn’t by the people and for the people. It’s by the dollar and for the dollar.

I believe that negative campaigning is a big part of why so many American’s are disenfranchised with politics, politicians, and the political process. When all I see are ads telling me how horrible every politician is, how can I vote for any of them?

Apr 06, 2012 2:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Buelligan wrote:

Not that I’m happy about Obama’s presidency thusfar, but its good to see all the righties who are feeling what the rest of America and the world thought of and felt towards George W Bush for the last 5 years he was president.

Apr 06, 2012 3:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DaMav wrote:

Another Reuters “Official Spin for Obama” article.

See,Obama, the guy who spun on a dime in 2008 and rejected public financing just agonized & agonized over money to superpacs but those big ole meany Republicans were raising that way so poor Obama Teh Principled had no choice but to join him but his big donors who don’t hesitate to lie and bribe and spend money for socialism are so high minded and moral that they are, despite OBama’s obvious divinity, holding back and… yada yada yada

Apr 06, 2012 3:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Tarmangani wrote:

So let’s just say it we will do away with all the PACs. Now that means unions are packs because they give hundreds of millions of dollars. and media matters and all those organizations cannot give or cannot run ads for or against any political person. Let’s just take it to the people. Only individual citizens can donate and only their limit.

Apr 06, 2012 3:35pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Miguel526 wrote:

This one-time California democrat says that any rank and file democrat who is one of The American Workers truly hates his or her children & grandchildren if that worker votes for Obama again.

Obama’s people have been wrecking California’s once Golden State of prosperity for actual workers for the last ten years, all according to the progressive academics’ long-held plan to wreck our prosperity to gain government control over all of us by crippling the American citizen.

As always, it’s follow the money. Obama’s insider elites have plundered our California government treasuries for their friends and associates for the last few decades, running us taxpayers into national bankruptcy to pay for this plundering of our public money. This is all according to the 100-year-old progressive plan to undo the American Revolution, so academia’s “Philosopher Kings” can re-impose their old European style control over the people by the elite classes.

A King George kind of thing, but re-routed through Franz Kafka and George Orwell. Obama considers himself one of the More Equal animals in the famous “Animal Farm”.

It just came out that twice the percentage of American millionaires are “educators” than are CEO’s. 12% of all US millionaires are university profs, etc, while only 6% of US millionaires are CEO’s. We are well on our way to Franz Kafka’s dreamland.

Apr 06, 2012 3:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
2Confused wrote:

What do you expect? Obama and his handlers started bragging about the $1 billion Obama was going to raise for his re-elections. Why should they donate when he’ll have more than enough?

You know fundraising isn’t going as expected when you have to beg for $3.00 donations from the poorest of his supporters. Shameless and classless.

Apr 06, 2012 4:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Even though MJGSimple already did a good job refuting alot of the rightie posters already, I need to make one point…

The reason the Obama Super PAC is not raising money IS NOT because Obama cant raise money, he has raised much more then Romney already, it is because, in general, the people that support Obama do not feel like they need to ‘hide’ behind a Super PAC. Also people that donate to Obama, once again in general, loath the whole concept of a Super PAC so they would rather give to the candidate directly.

Apr 06, 2012 4:21pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Buelligan wrote:

Miguel526 – so in the last 10 years, the first 7 of which he was a state or US senator out of Illinois, he was somehow destroying the California economy? Or is it for several decades, like you said later in your post? I’m only asking because his legislative career only began 15 years ago, so how could he and his “insider elites have plundered our California government treasuries for their friends and associates for the last few decades, running us taxpayers into national bankruptcy to pay for this plundering of our public money”?

Please elaborate, because I’m sure you can prove your statement and cite sources other than Fox News.

Apr 06, 2012 4:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
libertadormg wrote:

In the war of ideas, how can you reasonably expect one side to unilaterally disarm?

Apr 06, 2012 4:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
adriandt3 wrote:

I cant believe that people actually think the way democrats do. It amazes me as to how they want to change Americe. Well I need them to tell me, to what do they want to change America? If people keep pushing, they will get what they want, another civil war, and all the people on the other side do not believe in guns, so what will they do? I mean it, this is getting to a head, blacks against whites, libs against conservs.. all I can say is be very careful when walking around a rattlesnake, it will get ya!

Apr 06, 2012 4:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
adriandt3 wrote:

Romney beats Obama this nov. with mandate for direction of country..Obama loses by 18% points….

Apr 06, 2012 4:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WahWahWah wrote:

Single largest political donor in 2010 elections was a public service union, and virtually all went to Democrats. The only reason Dems hate PACs is because they’re afraid they’ll lose the billion dollar advantage that being bought-and-paid-for shills for union labor gives them.

If you want to ban PACs, fine. Just be fair. Ban union dollars from political campaigns also. Then, ban unions from busing in out-of-state protesters to various “rallies” and “events.” One person, one vote, one voice. Make it work for everyone, or sit down, shut up, and hang on.

Apr 06, 2012 5:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
walfourth wrote:

I would say that it is also a matter of donor fatigue. You cannot keep returning to the well again and again without expecting a diminished return over time.

Apr 06, 2012 8:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Ranroddeb wrote:

I see, the Dems aren’t donating to show their distaste for the Reps use of Superpacs. Riiiight

Apr 07, 2012 10:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PseudoTurtle wrote:

The greater and much more important question of this article is how the presidential candidates can legally accept such egregious amounts of money?

Clearly, our system is broken, having been bought and paid for by the wealthy.

The American people will soon come to bitterly regret allowing this to happen.

We should remember that “a man cannot serve two masters” at the same time — in this case they are the wealthy class, and the American people.

The two are not at all the same.

Apr 07, 2012 12:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
x6blues wrote:

And the lowest denominator has arrived in the Reuters comment section — shocking. Of course, as USAPragmatist pointed out, the gain in donations is most prevalent with the official campaign and DNC efforts. And that’s in addition to the historical advantage of incumbent Presidents who are able to bypass the nomination process and have 3 years on their side, encompassing organization, recognition amongst the public, and actual gains during his term.

Oh, and to justify the first point, “impeach this jerk” is a terrific disconnect from reality and full admission of bias/prejudice clouding any reason or intelligence (that was probably deficient to begin with). Regardless of one’s party blindness, electoral fundraising is in need of serious reform. The Citizens United v. FEC decision was disastrous and has forced a serious change in landscape for the US electoral system. But for these gents, as long as Romney wins — which is so bloody unlikely — those needs just won’t be addressed. Drones is an apt term, with quite a bit of the population enjoying their near religious obedience and subservience to a select few.

2nd example: “If people [Democrats] keep pushing, they will get what they want, another civil war, and all the people on the other side do not believe in guns, so what will they do?”

Just fantastic analysis and so true! Well, not really.

Apr 07, 2012 12:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WahWahWah wrote:

So apparently the first amendment only applies to “common folks”? If you’re rich, don’t bother having an opinion, this is America and we don’t care what people who actually succeed in life think about anything.

Corporations, which are a combination of people pooling their resources toward a common end, are forbidden to speak out on political matters that concern them. But unions, which are a combination of people pooling their resources toward a common end, are encouraged to engage in politics. And when unions become the largest donors in an entire election cycle, why, that’s just freedom at work! But when corporations fight back, why, that’s the “evil rich buying undue influence.”

Please, shop your hypocrisy somewhere else. This is America. For now.

Apr 07, 2012 2:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UnPartisan wrote:

The only solution is publicly financed elections. No union money, no coporate money, no millionaire money, no billionaire money, no poor people money. At that point you have to put serious rules on the media. Without the ads then CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, Talk Radio, Newspapers, Blogs, Political organizations like Sierra Club, etc. then have all the power to sway opinion.

The Democrat plan is to eliminate Super Pacs, but allow Unions, their non profit organizations, and their media allies free reign. They will have then shut down talk radio and Fox News with “equal” airtime laws etc… For it to be fair, you have to trample on people’s right to free speech, and press, and not allow anyone to say anything about a candidate for a period of time up until the election. The only thing that could be said would be what the candidate wants you to hear. Sounds good right?

Apr 07, 2012 5:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

“He changed course after seeing the cash being amassed on the Republican side”

All you need to know, really. Typical Obama hypocrisy. Preach one thing, do the opposite.

Apr 09, 2012 5:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
chrisryan wrote:

President Obama continued the Patriot Act and signed the NDAA. This election will be decided by hate and the rich. As an American, I feel deeply sorry for America.

Apr 11, 2012 3:52am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.