WASHINGTON — Soon before President Obama invited Republican senators to a recent friendly dinner, a political operation with close ties to the president launched a different sort of initiative, targeting New England’s two GOP senators with advertisements and a ground-level demonstration.
The campaign-style effort to push gun-control legislation was the work of an offshoot of Obama for America, the president’s 2012 reelection organization, that is now trying to maintain political momentum for the president’s policy priorities.
Comments
Seems to that the Democrats are trying to buy elections and legislation. Wasn't it supposed to be the GOP that did such things?
Just like the Republicans tried to do?
If you can't beat 'em, emulate 'em and then beat 'em.
Karl Rove, keep looking over your shoulder . . . . . .
I'm not sure if this is related, but because I contributed to the Obama presidential campaign, I am now getting several calls a week from all sorts of liberal causes to give money. Last week, Al Franken's campaign (from Minnesota!) called. Not to mention, I am STILL getting several emails a day from the Obama organization, an annoyance that I thought would end with the election. It makes me really NOT want to give next time. The Democrats are being incredibly short-sighted, and inconsiderate, in the way they constantly hound their past contributors for more money.
All email like that has the option to unsubscribe at the bottom. Simply do that and you won't be bothered by those emails anymore.
Personally I'm glad that President Obama is using his emailing list as an electronic bully pulpit. Lord know big corporations are trying to influence legislation, why not have some pushback from the people?
It's hardly just the Dems who do that. Basically, if you contribute to any campaign, be aware that your info could be shared with other like-minded entities. It's also the same when you contribute to a charity; they share your info with other charities and you start getting requests for contributions.
I don't support these types of operations by Dems. or Republicans. But I don't want to hear Repubs crying foul. They loved this stuff under Citizens United. I felt it a poor decision not only legally but in terms of American Democracy. I recall quite vividly right wingers writing in distressed prose that "money was speech." It was nutty then it isn't any less nuttier because Dems. do it.
Although it would be hard to discern from the comments seen in the Globe, public policy and political action are complicated things. When you add personality to the mix (one’s own and our leaders’) it becomes even more so. At the moment the only political personality I feel connected with is Elizabeth Warren and, if I had money to contribute to a personality PAC (which I don’t), it would be for hers, because she brings to the table a set of political possibilities that are truly extraordinary. But, in the meantime, I will support the “Move to Amend” folks who want to end the corruption of secret, or even not so secret, money. The Obama folks should not be too ashamed of playing the political game according to the rules that Karl Rove and Sheldon Adelson established and extended. They would be foolish not to fight back. But we would all be better off as citizens if Citizens United was overturned in the courts or defeated by a constitutional amendment.
Well said. The Supreme Court opened up this can of worms in 2010. I have no idea what they were thinking but it's certainly not in the best interests of a democracy.
But what's the difference between my employer, a larege corporation, and one of the unions buying ads for or against a political issue?
Think about the similarities - even though I am a stockholder I can no more control what the company espouses than the average union member can control his or her leadership? And don't tell me that the average cop or steel worker has the same tax and spend mentality that the Democrats have -among other issues.
The Democrats are just leveling the playing field here. If it's okay for the GOP then it's okay for the Democrats. Turnabout is fair play.
Quite so, turnabout is fair play, but it still amounts to both sides behaving badly.
I share JLErwin3's perspective: two "wrongs" don't make a "right." (Sigh.) They just lead to "parity."
This comment has been removed.
the hypocrisy continues
This comment has been removed.
I'm shocked that the top two stories in the Globe are taking shots at Obama.
Yes...someone went off script. The DNC will be very unhappy!
Maybe it has something to do with them being for sale? Maybe they are trying to appear unbiased since the press arm of the DNC, also known as the New York Times, won't be scripting the talking points anymore?
What, someone at theGlobe is coming out from under the ether? Maybe there's a chance they may even have a real JOURNALIST start looking into Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Time is short.
Hum...sounds like the Dems are finally taking a page out of the Tea Party and conservative Reps play book...ABOUT DAMN TIME!
I find it encouraging at least some readers realize this for what it is. Nothing can change until Citizens United is overturned. That will take nothing less than a demand for an article five constitutional convention. That can not happen in Washington. A call for a constitutional convention by two thirds of the states could. Look it up. We the people need to start working on our state houses to end the corporate control of every level of government in the nation.
As opposed to the unions running everything? Look at the state of RI and City of Detroit - the outrageous power of their unions is pushing them to insolvency - or in the case of Detroit it has.
I am not sure how unions became part of the discussion but since you brought it up that's something else that can not change until CU is overturned. The loyal party members have been led to think unions are the problem. When the Michigan legislature pushed through right to work the police union was exempt. Look that up. Why might that be? Everyone knows those greedy union thugs caused the global economic collapse. Then run the footage that day in Madison. Who was protecting the politicians from the people?
No bloggers have pointed out that the Globe article failed to include the real PUCHLINE for the Obama PAC. When the article says "large contributions", it "Forgot" to ask the David Letterman question.."How LARGE IS IT ?" Well that would be...$500,000 (That's 500 LARGE ONES). If you donate that money, you get a Private Meeting with the President! This is the biggget complaint by the GOP...That money would pay for a week of the cancelled White House tours.