Obama, once again, sacrificed his "principles" for money as he admits that fundraising is not going well.

(CNN) - In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. . . .  in the wake of the group's anemic fundraising, made public last week, the campaign decided to  . . . . . [announce] the new stance to members of its national finance committee Monday evening.
Two Obama campaign aides confirmed . . . . . . . . . . . .   administration  . . . . . . . . . .  appear at events for Priorities USA Action, the PAC supporting Obama.
"This decision was not made overnight,” one campaign official said. “ The money raised and spent by Republican super PACs is very telling. We will not unilaterally disarm."  The article goes on to emphasize Obama's decision to abide by the law and his imagined  code of transparency.  You can read the full article here.  
Editor's notes:  understand that the first promise broken by Obama,  the very first,  was his promise and agreement to abide by the McCain-Feingold fundraising rules.  What is almost incredible is the fact that Obama,  as a Senator,  voted for passage of this law.  But, the moment he realized how much money was available to his campaign, however,   he left that promise behind and and went on to  out spend McCain $800 million to $440 (plus $500 million that came in from his socialist union buds).  Principles be damned (of course). 
The Dems have been consistent in their criticism of the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations the same rights relating to political speech that are enjoyed by individual Americans.  That High Court decision is known as Citizens Untied and was made public by the Court on January 25, 2010,  two days before Obama's first State of the Union speech.  In that speech,  you will remember he took time to point his bony finger at the Court,  sitting in attendance on the front row of the House,  in ridicule of the justices for that 5-4 decision.  While the decision applied to corporations and unions alike,  unions had strategies in place for passing on monies raised before Citizens United,  corporations did not.  
The reason for Obama's anger,  back in 2009,  was more than obvious.  He had a distinct fundraising advantage before the High Court's decision.  Citizens United took that advantage away to a degree.  
Understand that Obama's advantage was and is not limited to Big Labor's 500 million dollar support.  There is the matter of  Big Media,  which has donated billions of dollars worth of  presidential interviews and  pro-Obama reporting.  You should know that during the Bush years,  Big Media refused to give Bush the same treatment,  declaring such to be an unfair political advantage
Conclusion:  what do we learn from this CNN story?  First,  that Obama's fundraising is not giving him the advantage he had hoped for.  Two,  that fundraising principles mean nothing to this man.  And, finally, the Administration is worried about its re-election chances.  
Update:  by the way,  Obama has his eye on two SuperPacs,  both created by two of his supporters.  In other words,  he was going to benefit from their work anyway.