The Real Lesson of Obama’s Super PAC Decision
By Bradley A. Smith
Ruth Marcus has an op-ed in today’s Washington Post that defends the Obama campaign’s decision to support super PACs (“it would be foolish to unilaterally disarm”) but complains, “it could have trumpeted its support for American Priorities without deploying campaign officials. It could have deployed campaign officials without involving the administration. Instead, it chose to push the envelope.”
I think all this flap misses the point. The question is not, as many both right and left seem to think, whether the president is being hypocritical. That’s a minor issue and the concept that one plays under the rules as they are is pretty strong currency.
Rather, the issue is that the reaction to president’s move undercuts the entire argument for campaign-finance regulation. It shows how nobody on the left really believes what they always say about campaign contributions and spending. No one (well, almost no one) believes that this will change the president’s preferred policies; or how he governs; or whom he appoints to office; or his willingness to work with Congress. No one thinks that this is drowning out any element of the Democratic party, or frankly, its Republican rivals. Certainly Ruth Marcus isn’t rethinking her general appraisal of the president, his administration, or its policies. She just wishes he would still support speech restrictions, or at least embrace freedom in this one area with a little less ardor.
