Editorial: One Dollar, One Vote
by Jason Flynn
President Obama wants your vote, and now he is willing to pay for it.
Well, not by himself, and certainly not directly — that would be illegal.
Instead he has given his campaign staff the green light to begin recruiting ‘Super PAC’ donors, since Republican fund raising dramatically outpaced that of the Democrats.
In 2010 Obama placed himself on a moral political pedestal when he publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case. In his speech he decried the the opening of the American democratic system to the unlimited funds of wealthy corporations and special interests and the Republican leadership blocking a proposed reform bill.
Just two years later the Obama has turned on his previous rhetoric — and many of his supporters — to curry the favor of wealthy donors.
As the incumbent, Obama has a personal media spotlight and could just as easily use the unending attention to drive his campaign (he had no problem doing so in the State of the Union Address). Instead, he decided to toss aside the grassroots support that put him in his current position because of a jump in negative ads.
After so much talk about transparency and tearing through a corrupt political landscape, the move is a slap in the face.
This may will remain a single uncharacteristic occurrence, but I wouldn’t hold out hope.
Maybe he’ll raise enough money to buy back his credibility.
Well, not by himself, and certainly not directly — that would be illegal.
Instead he has given his campaign staff the green light to begin recruiting ‘Super PAC’ donors, since Republican fund raising dramatically outpaced that of the Democrats.
In 2010 Obama placed himself on a moral political pedestal when he publicly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case. In his speech he decried the the opening of the American democratic system to the unlimited funds of wealthy corporations and special interests and the Republican leadership blocking a proposed reform bill.
Just two years later the Obama has turned on his previous rhetoric — and many of his supporters — to curry the favor of wealthy donors.
As the incumbent, Obama has a personal media spotlight and could just as easily use the unending attention to drive his campaign (he had no problem doing so in the State of the Union Address). Instead, he decided to toss aside the grassroots support that put him in his current position because of a jump in negative ads.
After so much talk about transparency and tearing through a corrupt political landscape, the move is a slap in the face.
This may will remain a single uncharacteristic occurrence, but I wouldn’t hold out hope.
Maybe he’ll raise enough money to buy back his credibility.
In the digitally evolving classroom, the sounds of turning pages are being replaced by those of keys and mouse clicks.
