I'd have done it like this:
"I remain staunchly opposed to the power of big money in election campaigns, generally, and to the Citizens United decision, specifically, which has led to the formation of these superpacs which, as we all know, have been distorting our elections.
"However, for now, the rules are the rules. And just as a major league manager may be firmly opposed to the designated hitter rule, and think it's bad for baseball, but nonetheless must swap out his pitchers in order to compete, so my campaign is forced to play by the current rules if we're going to have an even fight.
"My efforts will, however, remain undiminished in favor of campaign law reform, and reducing the domination of big money in American elections."
Hey, it's at least better than this:
You do understand that the press has no trouble reducing that answer down to "the president's spokesman admitted that his campaign will take a hypocritical approach to funding his election campaign in order to win."
ReplyDeleteThat was her repeated question. And if the reporter decided to do a more in depth piece it would come out "it seems in order to combat the influence of big money corrupting influence, the president's spokesman admitted that he will be selling his campaign to big money on the other side."