Larger Editorial: Super-PAC Money is Wrong, but Obama is Right to Take It

A quick refresher just for anyone who doesn’t spend all that much time thinking about Super-PACs or the Supreme Court: A few years ago, the five supreme court justices who are conservative (i.e. Republican, and generally do things that favor the Republican Party like stopping the recount of votes in Florida when Gore was within sniffing distance of beating Bush) voted to allow corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money. The decision is often referred to as “Citizens United” and—-in liberal circles—-referred to as the worst thing since AIDs. See, corporations being able to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns means that we’ll have a congress even more bought and paid for by big money than usual, and guys who aren’t puppets for a corporate agenda (polluting the environment and abolishing environmental regulations, tax cuts for corporations, union busting) won’t have a shot at getting elected when they’re being outspent 12 to 1 in campaign money.

Another tweak to the law is that not only corporations but singularly rich individuals can donate as much money as they want to a candidate’s “Super-PAC,” just like billionaire investor Foster Fries has done for Rick Santorum, and billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has done for Newt Gingrich. One scary factoid: In 2008, Barack Obama broke a record for the most amount of money raised by individual donors, with a staggering 69 million people donating a few hundred dollars to his campaign. Today, ONE billionaire like Sheldon Adelson could write a check for the exact same amount or more than those 69 million individuals were able to raise for Obama. Meaning one man holds more sway over the process than nearly 23 percent of the U.S. population.

So then comes the inevitable line that Republicans use “Well, if Super-Pac money is so wrong, then why is Obama taking it?” This is a typical manipulation of a party that never takes responsibility for anything. [“Rush Limbaugh called a woman a slut? Well….uhhh….Bill Maher said something about Sarah Palin!!!! He started it!!!!!”] But the problem is that fellow liberals are also saying it. Their reasoning is that Super-PAC money is wrong (which it is) so then Obama shouldn’t take it either (sorry, but he should).

Obama should take Super-PAC money because he has to. To not take it is roughly the same thing as giving up. An incumbent United States president can’t afford for Romney to outspend him five to one, and for his message to get drowned out by all the noise a well-funded opposition can throw at you. Besides, there’s always a difference between where you’re PAC money comes from, and if Obama’s is coming from unions and Hollywood (which it is), it’s a wee bit different than coming from oil companies trying to buy their way around environmental laws that protect us from being poisoned.

Plus, as much as I hate the process, it is the process right now, and it will continue to be unless influential people on the left are actually in power to change it. You don’t get a whole lot by protesting the system, but you do by protesting from inside of it. In short, it’s great to have the high ground, but you have to win races with it too. I’m pretty sure the Tea Party (which is the most powerful entity in congress) and Occupy Wall Street (which is still sitting on the pavement outside powerful institutions) would agree.