Fast forward to this fall: Mitt Romney has successfully wrapped up the Republican nomination and is currently engaged in a fiery, nationally-televised debate with Obama. Had he remained true to his initial stance on PACs, Obama would have had a field day ripping Romney for the corporate goon squad he’s assembled to fund his campaign and his super PAC, Restore Our Future. Before this show of support, Obama could have drawn a fine line in the sand, illustrating precisely where he and Romney differ ideologically. He could have taken on Romney’s allegiance to all the billionaire donors who fund his PAC and used this to market himself as the candidate whose allegiance is to the voters, not to Wall Street. Yet Obama’s announcement last week nullified what could have been a substantial advantage on a hot-button issue come November.
The message that Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission sends to society is that money is more important than ideology. Our political system has evolved into a fundraising contest where the candidate with the deepest pockets almost always wins the race. The phrase “buying an election” has been tossed around loosely before, but it seems now an accurate description of our electoral process. That being said, there is no way Obama’s PAC will raise more than Romney’s. Why would the president engage the probable Republican nominee on financial grounds? It is a battle he won’t likely win. Instead, why didn’t Obama shout from the rooftops his objection to the notion of corporations being people, and back it up by not by endorsing his own PAC? He had the perfect opportunity to shine the spotlight on the rampant corruption created by PACs, and he let it pass by.
