We are All Chicagoans Now

The Obama campaign is supporting Priorities USA, the Democrats’ Super PAC:

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

What this change means practically: Senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won’t be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA. I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President’s campaign.

If Chicago-style politics means that Democrats use whatever campaign tactics the Republicans are using against them immediately, then baby don’t you want to go?

28 replies
  1. 1
    GregB says:

    Karen Handel has stepped down from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and has a serious sad.

    Boo fricken hoo.

    She will now join the pantheon of Republican martyrs on the cross of wingnut welfare.

  2. 2
    Dave says:

    Good. There’s no sense in bringing a knife to a gun fight. Beat the fuckers on their own terms.

  3. 3
    Cargo says:

    We’ll know this was a smart move when the Republicans decry it as another example of Obama’s corruption, having the nerve to use SuperPACs the way they are.

    The flipside of IOKIYAR is INOKIYAD – It’s Never OK If You Are A Democrat.

  4. 4
    wilfred says:


    Always works.

    Bernays would approve. Brilliant.

  5. 5
    schrodinger's cat says:

    \begin snark
    But but we are the good guys. We should be polite and nice. We will win because we have the truth on our side. People will reward with their vote for being virtuous.
    \end snark

  6. 6
    Steve says:

    I don’t know what they mean about disclosure. Obviously everyone expects they will follow existing law, and maybe that’s all they mean. In a perfect world, what I’d like to see is for the good guys’ PACs to voluntarily adopt disclosure standards like those found in the DISCLOSE Act. There’s nothing particularly onerous about those requirements – so it’s not akin to unilateral disarmament – and it would allow us to focus attention on the fact that the other side is funded by shadowy donors who won’t disclose their identity.

    This is important stuff, because until the day we’re able to get Citizens United overturned, disclosure is the best thing we can hope for. 99% of Americans have no idea there was ever anything called the DISCLOSE Act, let alone how our political system was screwed when the Republicans filibustered it.

  7. 7
    Maude says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:
    Obama is worse than Bush. That should be heard soon.

  8. 8
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Steve: Think of the Americans Elect/American Select (or whatever) group. Their method of disclosure is “We’re collecting money, go somewhere else.”

  9. 9
    Martin says:


    I don’t know what they mean about disclosure.

    Well, my read of it is that they’re going to treat the SuperPAC donations under the same disclosure rules as regular donations for the FEC. So, no secret donations, no waiting until after the election to disclose, no lobbyists, etc.

    That’s a smart move, IMO. They can still take the high ground without giving up on the cash.

  10. 10
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): I should state that Martin said what I mean to imply. My imply failed on further reading.

  11. 11
    Hill Dweller says:

    @Steve: The Obama campaign already voluntarily discloses the names of their bundlers and refuses money from registered lobbyists(Romney does neither of those things), but it hasn’t really won them any praise.

    I doubt voluntarily disclosing the names of their SuperPAC donors will help in that regard either, but they can use their transparency to hammer the republicans’ secrecy.

  12. 12
    Villago Delenda Est says:


    Agreed. If they put your guy in the hospital, put their guy in the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.

  13. 13
    rikryah says:

    this shouldn’t come as a shock. I’d be madder than a mofo if they hadn’t chosen to do this.

  14. 14
    Maude says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    And we are close to Valentine’s Day. How apt.

  15. 15
    Baud says:

    Paging Mr. Buffett, Mr. Warren Buffett…

  16. 16
    Baud says:

    @Hill Dweller:

    it hasn’t really won them any praise

    Exactly. There was a clear difference between Obama and the Republicans on how and from whom they raised their money, but it “was not good enough” to recognize, so why should any Dem politician follow suit, much less try to move the ball forward.

  17. 17
    The Moar You Know says:

    If Chicago-style politics means that Democrats use whatever campaign tactics the Republicans are using against them immediately, then baby don’t you want to go?

    I understood this to mean the use of Tommy guns and lead pipes. Tell me where to go, I am ready.

  18. 18

    @Martin: Except no one besides the Versailles gasbags gives a crap about that. They want a job, and a decent income. They don’t care about SuperPAC disclosure rules. They just want a fair shake in life.

  19. 19
    satby says:

    Hey, proud Chicagoan here. At least we’re the “city that works” and the “city of the big shoulders”. What’ve the Repugs got?

  20. 20
    Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937 says:

    I have this theory that the universe is rational and basically good. Bad ideas have bad outcomes. The majority of people thought Citizens United was a bad decision and the Republicans are currently reaping the negative consequences of that decision via the rise of the super pacs. While I don’t want the Dems to ‘unilaterally disarm’ I can’t help but feel that nothing good will result.

    I would like to see a Super PAC that, while claiming to support Romney, actually embarrasses him. Call it a Colbert approach. I’m thinking an ad that just says “I like to fire people” Romney/whoever 2012, played over and over.

  21. 21
    burnspbesq says:


    A glorious defeat is still a defeat, and the stakes are too high.

    Or do you want Romney to make four Supreme Court nominations?

  22. 22
    ruemara says:

    @Maude: You should have seen the TPM goog+ feed. Their headline made it sound like Obama was heading out to get money from American Crossroads and every conservative pac ever. It was idiotic. And by the 3rd comment in, we were at worse than Bush.

  23. 23
    Lurking Canadian says:

    It is well known that the only way to fight fair in a gunfight is to show up with only a knife.

  24. 24
    pacified says:

    what cross is wilfred on? Jeebus

  25. 25
    Samara Morgan says:

    fightin’ fire with fire.
    Like Colbert say.

  26. 26


    You keep your purist joys, I’m goin’ to Illinois
    Just as fast as I can
    You idealists think you’ll make a fool of any man
    Play all kinds of games and you cheat if you can

    Use support as your tool,make a man a fool
    What a beautiful motto
    “Do it MY way,” that’s it
    How can you mind if I split?

  27. 27
    agorabum says:

    Chicago style is a darn site better than Texas style…

  28. 28
    RalfW says:

    “take the high ground without giving up on the cash.”


    I’m sure Karl WATB Rove will howl about this. But just like his mega-sad over the Chrysler ad, this will just confirm that they actually are scared of Chicago style politics.

    Fine with me.

Comments are closed.