Axelrod: Maybe Super PACs Aren't So Bad After All

    Late on election night, after the race was called for Barack Obama, I tweeted:

    Now The Hill reports that the still-mustachioed David Axelrod concurs:

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod said Thursday that if he were a Republican billionaire who donated to a conservative super-PACs during this election, he would want his money back.
Speaking to reporters on a conference call two days after Obama won reelection, Axelrod said one key takeaway of the presidential race and other congressional races, is the ineffectiveness of the super-PACs.
“If I were one of these billionaires, I'd be wanting to talk to someone and asking where my refund is, because they didn't get much for their money,” Axelrod said. “Just looking at the heartening news is that you can't buy the White House. You can't overwhelm the Congress with these super-PAC dollars.”

    This is quite a change from the tune Axelrod was singing back in June. Politico reported at the time:

Obama campaign senior strategist David Axelrod said Thursday that free-spending super PACs are hurting the fabric of democracy — and that President Barack Obama's administration would move to reform the campaign finance system in a possible second term.
"It's a great concern," Axelrod said in an interview with WJLA ABC 7, a station owned by POLITICO's corporate parent. "People are writing $10 million checks in one fell swoop to these super PACs — in many cases, they're undisclosed."

     Since it now appears the "fabric of democracy" was in no more danger than Axelrod's mustache, it will be interesting to see if the Obama administration follows through on the promised "reforms":

Axelrod said a second term Obama administration would bring about reforms in the campaign finance system.
"I hope that when we win this election, one thing we can do is bring some common sense back to our system," Axelrod said.

    I am more than a little skeptical that these reforms will be pursued with much vigor, especially given what Axelrod left out of his super PAC comments in June:

Left unsaid is the fact that Obama also has a super PAC — Priorities USA Action — run by two former White House staffers. The group has struggled to keep pace with efforts on the GOP side — with many wealthy Obama donors recoiling at what the super PAC represents.

    The ultimate irony would be Axelrod himself jumping into the super PAC arena as his time with the Obama administration and campaign winds down over the next several years.  With Axelrod's background and with a fairly secure future as a political guru for years to come, this scenario seems to me to be almost a certainty.  I am tempted to grow a mustache myself just so I can promise to shave it off if I am wrong.

The Hijacking of Democracy

    Four years ago, the Obama 2008 campaign made history.  The New York Times reported:

Obama Forgoes Public Funds in First for Major Candidate

WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama announced Thursday that he would not participate in the public financing system for presidential campaigns. He argued that the system had collapsed, and would put him at a disadvantage running against Senator John McCain, his likely Republican opponent.

With his decision, Mr. Obama became the first candidate of a major party to decline public financing — and the spending limits that go with it — since the system was created in 1976, after the Watergate scandals.

 And with those limits out of the way, Obama went on to make more history (ABC News):

He was not quite the first $1 billion president -- but he was three quarters of the way there.
In 21-plus months, Barack Obama raised roughly $750 million from donors, surpassing all of his White House opponents this year and also eclipsing the total amount of money raised by all of the presidential candidates combined in 2004...

To put the $750 million in perspective:

McCain's fundraising for the 2008 cycle was not terrible. The Arizona senator raised a respectable $238 million from donors, in addition to the $84 million federal grant he received for participating in the public financing system.

 And of course this year, the Obama campaign reversed course on SuperPACS (New York Times):

President Obama is signaling to wealthy Democratic donors that he wants them to start contributing to an outside group supporting his re-election, reversing a long-held position as he confronts a deep financial disadvantage on a vital front in the campaign.

Out with the public financing and in with the private!  So forgive me if I seem a bit jaded in my reaction to Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter writing on the BarackObama.com blog this weekend:

...right now, we can't change the laws that allow the hijacking of our democracy by private money.

And she wants us to "take this seriously"?  If private money constitutes the "hijacking of democracy", then our republic has been sitting on a runway at Entebbe for four years waiting for a daring raid to set it free.  Let's hope the Romney campaign is as successful as the Israelis were in 1976 (on July 4th, no less) at ending our long, national hostage nightmare.