The following article is cross-posted from The American Prospect:
Today featured contradicting reports on the presidential election’s fundraising front. In The New York Times Magazine, Robert Draper describes the long, hard slog of pro-Obama Priorities USA, the self-acknowledged underdog of super PACs that is bound to be beaten by American Crossroads–the super PAC Hulk masterminded by Karl Rove. Because of the well-known troubles of Priorities USA, it was surprising to see the National Review report on Obama’s super PAC advantage, citing FEC reports that showed that anti-Romney spending far outweighs anti-Obama spending.
Just a little oversight in this analysis, though. The biggest conservative spenders in 2012 aren’t likely going to be super PACs. The real scary fundraisers are the 501(c)4 nonprofits, which don’t face the same disclosure requirements as their more overtly political super PAC brethren. As TPM’s Brian Beutler points out, American Crossroads’s nonprofit sibling, Crossroads GPS, dropped $24 million on one ad buy in May.
If we take another step back, the Republicans’ advantage in political spending grows even starker. National Review only covered outside spending on the presidential campaign–not on state and local races. But congressional and state races are where conservative outside groups truly have liberal groups beat. The top Republican-leaning outside groups plan to spend $1 billion in 2012, and the bulk of that money is going to go toward winning Congress–not the White House. Labor unions, on the other hand, are expected to spend between $200 to $400 million on Democratic campaigns. Priorities USA only plans to spend $100 million by November, and they are by far the biggest Democratic-leaning outside group. As much as Draper paints Priorities as an underdog, the other more localized Democratic-leaning outside groups are miles behind the rest of the pacs, and that’s where the Republicans’ true advantage lies.

TDS Managing Editor Ed Kilgore posts at the Washington Monthly today on “The General Election as a Continuing Primary,” which attributes a unique if dubious achievement to the GOP’s presidential nominee-apparent:

What we may be witnessing is a truly rare phenomenon: a general election where one party’s candidate is so manifestly without trust among key elements of his own “base” that they are demanding he continue to campaign as though the primaries are still going on….This is all about what conservative activists want because they did not get the assurances they wanted from their nominee during the primary season, in no small part thanks to their crappy field of candidates, and also, of course, as a reflection of Mitt’s richly earned reputation for lying.
So Romney is going to have to spend his time between now and election day not only trying to beat Barack Obama, but proving himself over and over again to “the base,” running a primary as well as a general election campaign. If I wasn’t so aware of how he’s put himself into this situation throughout a career of serial pandering to anyone he needed to fulfill his ambitions, I’d almost feel sorry for him.

Romney’s schitzy campaign looks increasingly unable to generate the needed level of enthusiasm in his “base.” And it looks like Dems have plenty of evidence to make the case to blue collar workers he is counting on that he is more likely to export their jobs than to protect their employment security. Hard to see an easy fix for either one of those problems, which is encouraging for Democrats, up and down ballot.

The following article, by Mike Lux, author of “The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be,” is cross-posted from HuffPo:
The incredible new Vanity Fair piece on Romney’s secretive off shore tax accounts and business practices at Bain immediately made me think of one of my favorite video clips of 2012, this one where Romney is talking about how issues related to the concentration of wealth should only be discussed in “quiet rooms”:

Mitt Romney undeniably likes his secrets, especially when it comes to money, and I have to admit that the revelations in Vanity Fair gave me a different take on the “quiet rooms” quote. I had always assumed it was just Mitt being Mitt, doing his classic Thurston Howell III imitation, another in a long line of Mitticisms (I like being able to fire people, I know a couple of Nascar team owners, did I tell you the funny story about how my dad laid off a bunch of people, etc.) reminding us how cluelessly out of touch Mitt was. It was also the ultimate in big money Republicanism: we don’t talk about these issues in public because we don’t want people to get mad and start a class war. But now it occurs to me what Mitt was really trying to guard in his quiet rooms: all the millions he has secretly stashed away.
What Mitt, with his offshore accounts and his secretive business practices and his endorsement of the Ryan budget which gives even more advantages to Wall Street tycoons like himself, is trying to preserve is the ability to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. He wants a world where the wealthy have all these advantages and loopholes and secret deals and lower tax rates, precisely because that was his entire business model at Bain Capital. He wants a world where he doesn’t have to pay taxes on his accounts in Bermuda and the Caymans and Luxembourg and Switzerland. He wants a world where he can recruit any sleazebag overseas investor to invest in Bain. As Alex Seitz-Wald at Salon.com puts it: “This pattern of elusiveness is hardly confined to Romney’s finances, but rather defines his public life.”
Mitt’s entire career is defined by the secrets he has, and the fact that he didn’t have to play by the same rules as everyone else except for a few other well-connected Wall Street guys. The way Mitt made his money is exactly the kind of thing we should be talking about in this presidential campaign — and not only because it relates directly to Romney’s character, experience, and values. We should be talking about this because we should be debating as a country whether we want a country whose economic system is structured primarily to benefit a small number of wealthy, well-connected insiders operating behind closed doors, manipulating the tax code and financial markets to become more and more wealthy; or whether we want a country where businesses make money the old-fashioned way, by manufacturing and selling quality products, and playing by the same rules everyone else has to play by. By and large, with only occasional exceptions where Bain actually created real new jobs, the way Romney became wealthy was to make other people poorer — manipulating the financial markets and tax code, off-shoring jobs, cutting wages and benefits, laying off people, driving companies into bankruptcy while still getting huge fees from them. He also ripped off the rest of us taxpayers through the outrageous carried interest loophole, through loading up companies with debt and then writing it off, and through taking advantage of the taxpayer-backed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation’s obligation to pay off pensions when Bain’s companies went bankrupt. I guess it is not surprising that having made most of his money that way, he decided to keep so much of that money invested in secret overseas accounts.
No wonder Mitt Romney wants to keep this discussion confined strictly to “quiet rooms”. I would too if I had stashed so many of the millions I made from off-shoring jobs and all these other revolting business practices into secret off-shore accounts. But it is time for America to have this discussion — and not just in quiet rooms.

It’s a revealing commentary on our times that the better political analysts increasingly require a heaping ladle of irony to adequately describe the base shenanigans of the once-sane Republican Party. TDS Managing Editor Ed Kilgore provides a Colbert-esque example in his post “The Betrayal Begins” at the Washington Monthly. As Kilgore writes,

…Yes, patriots, it’s started again. The shadowy forces that have brought America to its knees, in chains of Big Government, ready for the yoke of Secular-Sharia law, its men emasculated by feminists and the Nanny State, its God-dictated Constitution in tatters, are on the brink of stealing another election, just as it appeared you were taking your country back from the Kenyan Muslim Athiest who has befouled the White House for far too long.
And as in 2008, the America-hating elites are operating through a Manchurian candidate, or rather two of them: Barack Hussein Obama, to be sure, but also his opponent.
The plot was revealed when the Trojan Horse of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, stabbed the brave conservatives of the Court in the back, but was forced to reveal the obvious truth that the unconstitutional ObamaCare law was a monstrous tax on God-fearing American job-creators for the benefit of the looters who feed at the public trough yet pay no taxes themselves. Just as battle-cries erupted from the throats of a million warriors for freedom, however, their purported champion, Mitt Romney, showed his cowardly hand and bent his knee to the enemy.

Kilgore then quotes National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar’s post arguing that Romney has embraced a strategy of dodging all issues except the economic recovery and also Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com, who says “This ain’t Etch-A-Sketch, Mitt. Go hard or go home.”
In like spirit, Kilgore concludes with a rousing call to arms, a la Colbert:

…On this eve of the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the document that established this Republic as a divine mission for the protection of property rights and of the unborn from the moment of conception, begin to prepare to march on Tampa and take back the Republican Party!…Victory is yours for the taking!

To the barracades wingnuts! Show them, once and for all, just who really runs the show in the GOP.

In his latest ‘Public Opinion Snapshot,’ TDS Co-Editor Ruy Teixeira has some very bad news for outsourcing pioneer Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans who have been so blase about it. “The public is very, very concerned about outsourcing and wants action to mitigate the damage from the practice,” notes Teixeira, explaining:

Let’s start with how heavily the public believes outsourcing contributes to our ongoing economic problems. In a September 2010 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 86 percent agreed (including 68 percent who strongly agreed) that U.S. companies outsourcing work to foreign countries is one of the reasons for our struggling economy and unemployment. This was ranked the highest of eight reasons tested in the survey.
Similarly, in a December 2010 Allstate/National Journal survey, 67 percent thought outsourcing played a major role in high unemployment, compared to just 28 percent who thought it played a minor role and 4 percent who thought it played no role at all.

And Americans believe somethjing can — and should — be done about it, continues Teixeira:

Not surprisingly, the public wants something done about this problem. In the August 2010 edition of the same survey, 70 percent thought it was either extremely (39 percent) or very (31 percent) important to reduce the number of jobs being outsourced in order to help the U.S. economy recover from the recession.
Even more impressive, in the March 2011 Pew Mobility survey, “Keep jobs in America” was ranked first out of 16 possible steps government could take to make sure people don’t fall behind economically. Ninety percent deemed it either one of the most effective steps (59 percent) or a very effective step (31 percent) the government could take.

If the Republicans thought that Romney’s profiteering from outsourcing was not going to be much of an issue, they are in denial. As Teixeira concludes, “These data suggest conservatives’ attempts to portray outsourcing as no big deal and nothing to worry about are doomed to fail. The public is in no mood for happy talk on this one.”

At Washington Monthly’s ‘Political Animal,’ TDS Co-Editor Ed Kilgore’s “A New Grievance for the Right” has a couple of reality checks for those who may still be in swoon about the ACA ruling and harboring unrealistic expectations that Chief Justice Roberts has decided to become a dependable moderate swing vote:

…Roberts’ ulterior motives, if any, will never become clear until much later in his career.I think it’s just as plausible that he “switched sides,” if indeed he did, because he’s playing a longer Federalist Society game than his conservative friends, and may soon provide some nasty shocks to liberals who are now hailing him for his long-sighted sagacity.
…It would be helpful if progressives focused on the judicial stakes of the November election as well, despite the tendency of some to view that perspective as representing a rationalization aimed at forgiving Obama his various heresies. Whatever else last week’s decision ultimately meant, there is little question now that the Court has at least four votes for a profound constitutional counter-revolution.

In other words, hope for the best, but plan for the worst. The future of the Supreme Court is still very much a critical issue for everyone to the left of Mitt Romney.

TDS Managing Editor Ed Kilgore’s “So What’s the Election About?” at the Washington Monthly has some perceptive ruminations on Romney’s strategy options at this juncture. In the wake of the High Court ruling,

…ObamaCare does indeed touch on conservative obsessions–e.g., the “welfare” that “socialists” want to give to those people–that the subject the election was previously “about,” monthly jobs reports and GDP indicators, doesn’t quite arouse…But is that a smart strategy? And is Mitt Romney, who has all but lobotomized himself, his staff and surrogates to prevent presentation of anything other than the pure economic referendum message, on board?

You can almost hear the Republican base’s eyes glazing over at the prospect of more Mitt yada yada about economic indicators. On the other hand, asks Kilgore, “Is a big national debate over health reform–particularly since Democrats may have actually learned a thing or two about how to market reform, and because popular parts of ACA are now being implemented–a slam dunk for Republicans?” Further, adds Kilgore,

…As Paul Waldman points out today, an ACA debate also brings Romney’s own flip-flop back up in a big way, just when he thought he had that problem in his rear-view window…But it’s not clear to me that Romney is going to be able to suppress the desire of conservatives to rant about ObamaCare 24/7. You may recall that in 2008 wingnut activists got so frustrated with John McCain’s refusal to talk about Jeremiah Wright and ACORN that they started disrupting his events. I think we can look forward to a lot more of that if Mitt tries to “get back on message” and talk monotonously about economic indicators when his audiences want him to whup up on the godless babykilling socializers who want to take Medicare away from hardworking Americans in order to help those people.

All in all, it’s an unhappy dilemma for the Mittster: Provoke more discussion about Bain’s outsourcing of American jobs or Romney’s flip-floppage on health care. It’s hard out there, being a flip-flopping job-outsourcer.

This article by Democratic political strategist Robert Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, is cross-posted from HuffPo:
The most important thing about today’s Supreme Court health care decision is the victory for the millions of Americans who will live longer, happier, healthier lives because of the new health care law.
It is also an historic day for the thousands of health care warriors who have fought to make health care a right in America for decades and have finally seen their struggle rewarded with success.
But the Supreme Court’s decision has massive political implications as well:
First, this victory will send another bolt of electricity through Obama’s base. Nothing succeeds better than a hard-fought victory at pumping people up — and firing them up for the next great battle. The victory will send thousands of volunteers streaming into Obama campaign offices — and millions of dollars into its coffers. It will invigorate Obama’s army of volunteers.
It is particularly important when coupled with the president’s decision two weeks ago, protecting Dream Students from deportation. That decision already had a major impact on enthusiasm among Obama supporters — and particularly Latinos.
Their Supreme Court defeat will also dispirit the right-wing — particularly because they were abandoned by their own iconic, conservative Chief Justice who wrote the opinion finding the law constitutional.
Enthusiasm is a huge factor in electoral politics.
Second, the Romney campaign — and Republican candidates across the board — have now been forced to double down on repealing the entire bill. They will argue that now, the only way to get rid of the bill is to elect a new president and a Republican House and Senate.
Opponents of health care for all can no longer rely on arguing that the bill is an “unconstitutional usurpation” of government authority. No less a conservative icon than Chief Justice John Roberts found the law constitutional.
Since Obama Care is now a reality, Democrats can now move from defense to offense on health care.
By supporting repeal of the entire law, Republicans also support taking away the law’s protections against discrimination because of pre-existing conditions.
They support taking away access to free preventive health care for seniors.
They support taking away health care from millions of young people who can now stay on their parent’s insurance policies until they are 26 years old.
They support taking away access to contraception for women.
They support taking away enhanced prescription drug coverage for seniors.
They support taking away provisions that no longer allow discrimination against women.
They support taking away provisions that prevent people from being just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.
The support ending provisions that require that insurance companies can must spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical care — not on administrative costs and profits.
People may be afraid of things they don’t know much about. That helps explain some of the past opposition to the health care law by people who would benefit from it. But people are furious when you try to take something away from them. Romney will lose that argument over the months ahead.
Third, ironically, the past unpopularity of the law now positions the president as a strong, resolute leader, who does things because they are right — not because they are politically popular.
Passing health care reform was incredibly difficult and politically risky. Barack Obama is a leader that is a committed to principle — the mirror opposite to Mitt Romney, who has no core values whatsoever. Most voters want leaders who stand up for what they believe. That is a huge advantage for Barack Obama’s candidacy for re-election.
Finally, the Supreme Court victory creates political momentum. In politics as in sports, momentum — the bandwagon — is absolutely critical to the outcome. People like winners — they like to be with winners. Today Barack Obama — and the people of the United States — were winners.
That fact will give the president a major boost — a long-term boost — among swing voters over the months ahead.
This is a very, very big day for the lives of ordinary Americans.
It is also a very, very big day for the critical November battle that will chart our nation’s future.

TDS managing editor Ed Kilgore Blogs at The Washington Monthly on the MSM buzz about some Democrats taking a pass on the upcoming convention, and it’s a fun read because Kilgore knows the turf like few other political writers — from the inside.

Both Republicans and some MSM purveyors of a snail’s-eye-view have been richly enjoying the drip-drip-drip of “stories” about this or that Democratic pol in a highly competitive race deciding to skip the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. …Look, don’t get me wrong: I love national party conventions, God help me. I’ve been to six of the suckers myself, and have watched as much as I could of both parties’ conventions since 1964. Hell, there are years when it was about the only thing I watched on TV, other than election night coverage itself and University of Georgia football games.
But let’s face it: national conventions lost their deliberative functions long ago. The last multi-ballot affair was in 1952, long before the advent of the modern primary system. The last convention where there was any doubt after the opening gavel about the identity of the nominee was in 1976, and that was only because of a miraculously close primary finish between Reagan and Ford. The last time there was any serious convention maneuvering over the platform was in 1980, when the Carter forces blithely caved to a full-employment plank designed to embarrass the president.

Kilgore acknowledges that political conventions do serve some worthwhile functions as “a well-timed opportunity for message delivery” and “fundraising and GOTV preparations.” However, “For a junior congressional candidate in a tough race, it’s time better spent either on the hustings or dialing for dollars. Kilgore concludes, “So let’s give the no-show meme a rest, folks. It’s news about nothing from nowhere. ”

At The New Republic, Dissent Co-Editor Michael Kazin makes a cogent argument for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and spare America future campaign finance debacles. Of course none of several proposed amendments can pass, as Kazin acknowledges, since that would require a two-thirds majority just to get out of congress and into the state legislatures. In addition, notes Kazin, “as long as Sheldon Adelson, the brothers Koch, and their ilk are eager to finance some politicians and destroy others, no proposed amendment of this kind will get beyond the agitational stage.”
But Kazin, author of “American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation,” makes a persuasive case that such an amendment could be very helpful in starting a serious movement for campaign finance reform:

But that drawback can be turned into a virtue. Agitation has, in fact, been the initial purpose of many proposed amendments, including those that keep failing (like that which would require the federal government to balance its budget) to those that are now unassailable (like the 13th, which abolished slavery.) The idea of altering America’s foundational document can give focus and legitimacy to movements which need to show that the people are truly on their side. In 1994, the balanced budget amendment became the centerpiece of Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and helped conservative Republicans present themselves as tribunes of common sense. Of course, if enacted, it would have forced the government to slash spending in 2009 instead of increase it, turning the Great Recession into a second Great Depression. An amendment is good to campaign with before it has a chance to become law–and even if it never should.
For prime examples of amendments that helped movements grow, one can look back a century ago, to the aptly named Progressive Era. From 1913 to 1920, four major amendments were quickly passed and ratified–the 16th establishing the income tax; the 17th creating the popular election of senators; the 18th, prohibition of the business in alcoholic beverages, and the 19th women’s suffrage. Each victory capped a grassroots struggle that had lasted for decades and, for much of that time, had seemed rather hopeless. Suffragists and prohibitionists–whose ranks often overlapped–had begun organizing in the 1840s. The groundswell for an income tax, which, at first, only the richest citizens had to pay, and the push to democratize the election of Senators both grew out of the anti-monopoly fervor of the late 19th century….

As for the political psychology behind those amendment campaigns, Kazin adds “Each proposed amendment helped progressive organizers to focus the attention of the press, to galvanize supporters of their cause, and to unify campaigns that otherwise were fragmented by local desires and diverse constituencies.”
Kazin notes a pervasive reluctance to champion constitutional amendments among modern liberals and the failure of alternative approaches to get much traction. Yet, he argues that, “To shake up a system that both parties have long abetted and the High Court has graced will require a massive effort by angry outsiders and those members of the political class who share their disgust. To transform that system will require having a true alternative in mind. Advocating for a constitutional amendment could aid both purposes…”
Where all other reforms have clearly failed to generate much excitement, the very boldness of a constitutional amendment just might be the tonic that revitalizes the progressive base. As Kazin concludes, “the end result might even breathe some new life into that 225-year old promise to “promote the general Welfare.”