(Image source: The New York Times)

BY VICTORIA CRAIG

President Obama might be looking for a bigger slice of the pie. The money pie, that is. HLN explains the president’s sudden reversal on the issue of campaign finance.

“They’re giving the go-ahead for administration and campaign aids to fund raise for Priorities USA Action, that is the Super PAC backing the president.”

Super PACs are partisan organizations that can raise unlimited funds from groups like unions or corporations -- not just wealthy individuals. The president has been highly critical of “Citizens United,” a Supreme Court decision that overturned campaign finance rules, and allowed the formation of super PACs to raise unlimited funds without coordination with candidates.

Here’s the president during his 2010 State of the Union address.

“I don’t think American elections should be bank rolled by America’s most powerful interests. Or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people.”

So why the sudden about-face? While the president has raised more money than Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney -- $128 million compared to $57 million -- one Bloomberg reporter says the president and other Democrats are getting crushed when it comes to super PAC fundraising.

“Two groups formed by Karl Rove to defeat the president and Democrats raised $51 million last year and the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney raised another $30 million. This super PAC backing the president -- Priorities USA Action -- raised only $4.4 million.”

Obama will not personally address super PAC donors at events, though there’s nothing legally prohibiting him from doing so. Rather, his top campaign staff and cabinet members will. But just because the president is calling for donations to his super PAC doesn’t mean he’ll get them. The New York Times explains why.

“His past criticism of outside groups … made it hard to persuade donors to back Priorities USA Action... One longtime, high-dollar Democratic fund-raiser said it was also partly a result of Wall Street’s anger at Mr. Obama’s statements and policies concerning bank regulation...”

Making waters murkier, even though the commander-in-chief is opening the doors to super PAC funds, he still stands firm on his view that big money donors should not be as involved in the electoral process. The Atlantic explains the implications of that seeming contradiction.

“Obama still opposes the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision... But the decision gives the president's GOP opponents fodder to criticize him for endorsing a system that he castigated less than two years ago, especially in light of Obama's 2008 decision to forgo public funding after vowing to accept it.”

But anchors for MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” defend the president -- saying the he’s simply facing a harsh reality.

“Some say the president’s being hypocritical, others are saying, and I think most of us agree around here, he doesn’t really have much of a choice if he wants to be competitive in this race.”

David Axelrod reiterated that point on MSNBC saying while the administration will throw its hat in the super PAC ring, it does not believe this is the best way for elections to function.