Quote:
Originally Posted by hi_im_god
"Small donations would have flooded the Obama campaign, overwhelming Romney’s billionaire super PACs. The people would have been given a chance to be heard."
Read more: http://robertreich.org/post/17251255054#ixzz1m0OicAo2
i think reich was asking the president's campaign to "set an example" and that american's would swarm to him with small donations.
that's unbelievably optimistic and ultimately the campaign made the calculation that they wouldn't risk a second term on it. they'd play by the rules everyone else is playing by.
obama's state of the union address right after the ruling (the one that had sam alito shaking his head in disagreement) called for congress to pass new rules requiring disclosure. no surprise that following their sweep in 2010 republicans weren't terribly interested.
since the administration can't unilaterally change the rules by themselves i'm not sure what else they were supposed to do. they could be virtuous losers or they could play the game to win.
|
It isnt a game, if you believe that something is a very specific and dangerous threat to our way of life and system of government (and say so) then you should hold your moral ground or done something about it when you had the chance. Not sell out and get on board because everyone has more cash than you do. BS.