President Obama must sue his super PAC in order to distance himself from it.
#1 Why not take the moral high ground? There is nothing to be gained by having one as he has all the money he needs.
#2 Individual contributions are limited by law. Most super PAC money will eventually be found to be illegal owing to the reasonable person test. This means in a Court of law donations to super PACs will be judged to be as if given directly.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. (James Whitcomb Riley)
#3 Foreign contributions are completely illegal in all forms. Just today Sen. John McCain recognized that millions of dollars of foreign money are being funneled into elections by individuals.
#4 Many super PACs are run by questionable individuals. The press has reported that some super PAC managers set up the firms that they send money to, and hide the kickbacks.
qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent, "He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas (Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack)
#5 Elephant in the room The obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed is Congress set individual contribution limits. No where did Congress say it was okay to give to a third party to escape this clause. It was the FEC that changed the law after the EMILY's List ruling that allowed people to claim campaign contributions were not against their individual limit.
#6 The FEC is now reviewing their changes. If the FEC and the Courts agree on ducks, dogs, and elephants, a whole lot of donors will be found guilty of violating campaign law.
By filing suit against "his" super PAC Obama gets to stand proud and say "See that is what my opponent does to try and get elected. My opponent embraces this questionable money. Please only contribute the maximum set by Congress and ignore the loop-holes."
Philip B. Maise