"President Obama eyes super PAC showdown"

ALEXANDER BURNS and MAGGIE HABERMAN (Politico):

National Democrats are banking on a long-shot strategy to shield President Barack Obama from an expected onslaught of outside GOP spending in the 2012 election: nuking the messengers.
(SNIP)
Democrats acknowledge that matching those groups dollar for dollar will be a difficult challenge — Crossroads alone may spend up to $300 million on all 2012 federal races, including the presidential contest. Instead, the president’s campaign and the Obama-sanctioned super PAC Priorities USA Action are attempting to undercut the spending by tainting it in the minds of voters, linking it to oil magnates and other unpopular corporate interests.

“We had always prepared for special interests to spend a half-billion dollars in an attempt to defeat the president,” Obama press secretary Ben LaBolt said. “We’re asking our supporters to invest now to allow us to build the largest grass-roots campaign in history. And we’ve made clear that we will not unilaterally disarm.”

The fight between Obama and Republican outside groups has, for now, overshadowed the more traditional contest between the parties’ official nominees: in this case Obama and the likely GOP candidate, Mitt Romney. That has presented a problem for Obama and his allies, both in defining their enemy (or enemies) and raising money to fight them. MORE...

"Howard Dean's second act: Campaigning and more campaigning" (with audio)

Kate Dries, WBEZ with audio.

Chris Hayes: "Billionaires could make U.S. elections resemble horse races" (with video)

Andrew Jones (RAW STORY) with video (06:01) from MSNBC:

In the aftermath of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson giving $10 million to the Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes speculated Saturday that unless campaign finance rules are changed, U.S. political elections could start resembling the Kentucky Derby. MORE...

"Get Money Out of Politics-Two days of action in Seattle"

Howie P.S.: Dina Johnson sent this over to me. She promises an appearance by Jim McDermott today @ Westlake Center (2pm) and videos and photos later.

Bernie Sanders: "The Saving American Democracy Amendment " (video)

SenatorSanders, with video (12:29):

Warning that "American democracy in endangered," Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted and secret campaign spending by corporations on U.S. elections. The first constitutional amendment ever proposed by Sanders during his two decades in Congress would reverse the narrow 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.

Al Franken: "Democrats Shouldn't Swear Off Super PACs In 2012 Election"

Amanda Terkel (HuffPo):

Franken said that even if the Democrats in Congress had managed to pass the DISCLOSE Act -- their legislative response to Citizens United -- the party would still probably need to create Super PACs and other outside groups since Republicans would be doing the same. He was also pessimistic about the chances of passing strong campaign finance reform, arguing that Democrats would essentially have to control the White House, House and have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. MORE...

"Feingold At Netroots" on 'corporate influence on elections' (video)

UpTakeVideo, video (27:08):

Former Senator Russ Feingold (WI-D) attended his first Netroots Nation today. At the conference, he presented a keynote speech. In his speech, he said that he was "eternally grateful" to everyone at Netroots Nation for their support and their "singleminded" pursuance of truth in complicated issues. In his speech, Senator Feingold noted that the most important thing, right now, is to overturn Citizen United, the Supreme Court Decision on campaign finance and corporate influence on elections. He also says that the Disclose Act needs to be passed through Congress. Near the end of his speech, Senator Feingold said that he feared for the identity of the Democratic party.

"After Citizen's United: What's Next? Public Forum, March 10th at UW‏"

Tiffany McGuyer:

On January 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the right to unlimited spending to influence elections.

Join us at a public forum on

After Citizen's United: What's Next?
Thursday, March 10th at 7:00
University of Washington, Kane Hall, Rm 220

Speakers:

• John Bonifaz - Free Speech For People
• Jeffrey Clements - Free Speech For People
• Lynne Dodson - Washington State Labor Council
• Steve Breaux - WashPIRG
• Dorry Elias-Garcia - Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County

Enrique Cerna from KCTS Channel 9 will moderate the event!

Sponsored by Washington Public Campaigns, UW Law School, UW Department of Communications, Free Speech For People , MoveOn Seattle Council, Minority Executive Directors Coalition, League of Women Voters - Seattle/King County and WashPIRG.

Surprised?: "Billionaire Brothers’ Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute" (NY Times)

UPDATE: John Nichols & Matt Rothschild discuss the lesser-known, but huge, implications of the "Wisconsin Union-Busting," GRITtv, video (13:00)

"David H. Koch, left, and Charles G. Koch have long used their wallets to promote fiscal conservatism and combat regulation."

Eric Lipton (NY Times):

Among the thousands of demonstrators who jammed the Wisconsin State Capitol grounds this weekend was a well-financed advocate from Washington who was there to voice praise for cutting state spending by slashing union benefits and bargaining rights.

The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, told a large group of counterprotesters who had gathered Saturday at one edge of what otherwise was a mostly union crowd that the cuts were not only necessary, but they also represented the start of a much-needed nationwide move to slash public-sector union benefits.

“We are going to bring fiscal sanity back to this great nation,” he said.

What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch. MORE...

Katrina vanden Heuvel: "Reversing 'Citizens United'"

Katrina vanden Heuvel:

In just the past two years, corporate money can be blamed for watering down consumer protections and diluting health-care and financial reform. In truth, there is almost no conversation we have in American politics in which corporations don't occupy all the seats at the table. As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged while talking about big banks during last year's financial reform debate: "They frankly own the place."

Changing that dynamic might well be the central challenge of this generation. Reversing Citizens United is about more than any one issue or court case - it is, at its base, a question of whether American democracy itself can beat back a corporate takeover, whether our most cherished principles of self-government can ultimately prevail. MORE...

"Rachel Maddow interviews House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" - full version (video)

The Maddow Blog, video (28:03).

"The Three Billion Dollar Election"

UPDATE: Robert Reich says it's "Only $4.2 Billion To Buy This Election? The number of dollars spent isn’t the issue; it’s the lopsidedness of where the dollars come from."
Charles Kaiser (Hillman Foundation):

If corporate control of the state is a pillar of fascism–and it is–it’s hard to imagine what could have pushed us faster in that direction than last January’s decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

That decision made it possible for every corporation and fat cat from Boeing to David Koch to spend without limit to destroy any candidate they wish to destroy. If that strikes you as hyperbole, listen to what Rob Collins, the president of American Action Network, one of the leading Republican groups in this campaign season, said to Jim Rutenberg a couple of days ago in a great story in The New York Times:

“We carpet-bombed for two months in 82 races, now it’s sniper time. You’re looking at the battle field and saying, ‘Where can we marginally push — where can we close a few places out?’” MORE...

GRITtv (John Nichols): "Citizens United Corrupts Absolutely" (video)

lauraflanders, video (02:11):

The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United is being felt right now, argues John Nichols of The Nation. When the decision came down, many thought it would take years to sort out the effects, but instead, he says, "We may have our first fully corporate-defined election this year, in 2010.

"Taibbi on the infrastructure that supports the Billionaires' Coup" (with video)

AMERICAblog with video from MSNBC-Countdown (06:58):

Investigative reporter Matt Taibbi has a new book, Griftopia, that covers the Koch brothers and others who are involved in the "Billionaires' Coup" (Frank Rich's phrase). The Coup is not exactly new; it's been talked about for weeks. But knowledge of the supporting infrastructure — the Big Money retreats and planning conferences — is a revelation. Olbermann calls it a "high finance cabal." Literally true. MORE...

"Follow the Money" (chart)

(CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE)
From The NY Times.

"Silver Lining in Corporate Attack on Democrats"

Cenk Uygur:

So, what's the upside? Well, they've given Democrats no incentive not to fight back (which is their usual M.O. in the good cop-bad cop games they've been playing until now). Now that the Democrats feel significantly endangered and there is no good argument for holding back, it's game on.

If the Democrats manage to hold on, for the first time in a long time they would have an incentive to fight back against a system that is rigged in favor of the rich and the powerful. Because those same folks just declared war on them. If they don't join the battle soon, they are going to get wiped out in 2012. If you thought business interests spent a lot of money in this election, wait till you get a load of 2012. MORE...

"Dems' next challenge: Linking secret election cash to economy"

Greg Sargent:

The question of whether voters will link the secret cash to the economy is part of the larger conundrum Dems are facing. The sputtering recovery has left the public deeply skeptical of Dem economic policies, and the only hope for Dems is to persuade people that GOP policies would be far worse. Dems hope the secret cash has handed them a new weapon to make that case: It isn't just that GOP economic policy has been proven wrongheaded; it's deliberately designed to help the wealthy and special interests at your expense. The GOP, at bottom, is not looking out for your interests. All this outside money -- coming from those who know very well which party butters their bread -- proves it.

So runs the closing message that Dems have settled on. The Dems' best hope is for voters to see the secret cash debate as an economic issue. We'll know whether it's working soon enough. MORE...

"In this election, follow the money" (with video)

Tim Rutten (LA Times) with video (00:30):

The emergence of the neo-populist "tea party" has been the big story of this election cycle. After the votes are cast in November, we may realize that the political resurgence of big business and great wealth was far more significant in determining election outcomes.

To an extent not seen in generations, companies and wealthy investors with a naked economic interest in influencing election results are pouring money into races.

Big money's reassertion of its interests is the result of two recent game-changing events. One was the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which overturned provisions of the bipartisan McCain-Feingold campaign finance act that prohibited corporations and unions from making supposedly independent, third-party expenditures to influence the outcome of electoral contests.

The other was emendation of the tax code to allow creation of so-called 501(c)(4) political action committees to which donors can contribute anonymously. Such organizations are supposed to make less than half of their expenditures for political purposes. But the definition of "educational" activity is extremely squishy, and organizations are able to lump a lot of things that look like blatant politicking under that umbrella. MORE...

Big $$$, Secret $$$

(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
"Astroturfing The Airwaves: Right-Wing Groups Have Now Aired 60,000+ TV Ads Since Aug. 1" (Political Correction-Media Matters):

Some changes this week to our ongoing coverage of TV activity from heavy-hitter conservative groups. We have expanded the list to 10 groups because the National Rifle Association's PAC has gotten in the game in a big way. The NRA had limited its electioneering to radio ads and direct mail until last week, but FEC filings show they've spent almost $2.7 million on TV ads. The advertising data we reviewed suggests the nation's leading pro-gun group has aired 1,822 ads across four Senate races. MORE...

"Secret Donations Could Haunt 2012" (Howard Fineman):

Corporations are funneling money into trade associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- a fact that President Obama is noting at every campaign stop.

But the bulk of the action -- and money -- tends to involve individual, high-rolling conservative donors who stayed away from the action in 2006 and 2008.
Story continues below

Now they are back, and in greater numbers, according to a top campaign-finance lawyer, who declined to be named because he may advise a candidate.

There are questions about whether high rollers, secret or not, would want to get involved in GOP intramurals -- even at presidential level. "These are guys who want to be in the inner circle," said the lawyer. "If you're 'independent,' you have to stay on the outside."

No one expects Karl Rove, the hub of the wheel of independent GOP spending, to choose sides in the GOP primary early on -- let alone lead an independent campaign for or against a presidential contender.

But many of the donors -- and others -- may well feel differently. Conservative cash supporting Tea Party candidates will see no reason to rest once the congressional campaign has ended -- and the more established contenders may hope that friends will defend them.

"I could see a Mormon-Harvard-Bain Capital coalition getting out there to defend Mitt Romney even before he is attacked," said Tracey. It's a potential gold mine for an enterprising "independent" consultant. (I wouldn't be surprised if some guy with a Power Point isn't on his way to Boston even as I write.) MORE...

Paul Loeb: "Stop the Anonymous Hit Men: Make Shadowy Campaign Money the Issue"

Paul Loeb:

We need to talk about the ads of all the front groups from the Chamber of Commerce to Karl Rove's American Crossroads and the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity. But we also need to highlight the Republican justices who overruled a century of precedent to enact Citizens United. And talk about how Republican Senators have stood in unison to prevent requiring corporate interests to at least put their names on their ads.

From what I can tell, most Americans are most vaguely aware of the DISCLOSE Act, the transparency legislation that a Republican filibuster blocked by a single vote. When they do find out, they're outraged, because anonymous attack ads are an affront to even the barest standards of fairness, whatever one's political beliefs. In fact, Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have long argued that so long as people knew who was paying for campaign ads, there was no need to regulate them through campaign finance reform or counterbalance them with public financing. "We ought to have full disclosure," said Boehner in 2007, "full disclosure of all of the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant." Yet since Citizens United opened the floodgates for monied interests to drown out the rest of our voices, Republican leaders and their key allies have done everything they can to foster anonymous and untraceable attacks from the shadows. MORE...