Who's going to stop the super-PACs ? Not Obama.

From today's Opening Shot column at Salon:

On January 27, 2010, in one of the most celebrated moments of his presidency, Obama stood in the rostrum of the U.S. House and called out to their faces the five members of the Supreme Court who had ruled six days earlier that the federal government has no authority to limit the independent political activity of corporations and unions.

“With all due deference to the separations of powers,” he said, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” 

Since then, Obama has sought to portray himself as the chief conscientious objector to Super PACs, the “independent” advocacy groups that grew out of the court’s Citizens United ruling...

But all of that abruptly changed last night, with word that Obama has decided to give in and play the Super PAC game just as aggressively as his Republican opponents... campaign manager Jim Messina framed the decision as a pragmatic necessity, insisting that Obama still abhors the Citizens Unites ruling while arguing that “our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands”

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm calling bullshit.  It's too bad we don't live in a country where we could, you know, vote on this stuff or something.

More at the link, and in the New York Times.