Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, Obama for America, was one of the most technologically-sophisticated—and therefore effective—campaigns of all time. It was able to compile a massive database of voters including their political affiliations, likelihood of voting and likelihood of donating, and by so doing raise money and encourage voter turnout in ways that were previously impossible. However, Obama for America didn’t end with the Nov. 6 election; it’s back in force and rebranded as Organizing for Action (OFA), a 501(c)4 nonprofit with the explicit purpose of furthering Obama’s political agenda. The decision on the part of the president represents an alarming increase in the influence of money in politics and reflects poorly on him.

In general, big spenders in the political arena come under attack because by spending large amounts of money, they are able to influence the political process both in terms of persuading voters and in terms of having a direct line to politicians. As a 501(c)4, OFA is already permitted to accept donations as high as anyone is interested in giving, but it goes further than do even super PACS: anyone who donates $500,000 or more to OFA earns the ability to sit on the organization’s national advisory board.

The role of the advisory board, and the amount of influence it will have in running OFA, is deliberately vague, but the result is clear. Instead of simply exerting financial power over politicians, a la Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers, big donors to OFA will have de jure control over the president by being able to influence which of the president’s policies are advanced, as well as how. Further, members of the advisory board will have a direct line to the president, having the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with him, as well as other meetings at the White House. In other words, those who are rich enough will be able to buy their way to promoting and directly molding the president’s agenda.

For any president to support these policies is offensive—liberal watchdog groups are already decrying the transformation of Obama for America—but in the case of this president, it is particularly disturbing. In the past, Obama has banned lobbyists from working at the White House on issues they worked on in the past two years as well as from giving gifts to federal employees, asked Congress to pass legislation forcing outside spending groups to disclose donors, endorsed public financing for presidential elections and even, last summer, called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court case that allowed for the creation of super PACS. While one could argue that Obama was forced to endorse super PACS in the last election because his Republican counterpart did so, there is no other similar organization that OFA could conceivably be set up to counter. Transforming Obama for America walks back on much of the president’s earlier stance and reeks of a second-term president who never needs to worry about reelection again.

Additionally, it contributes to the very spirit of partisan gridlock that Obama campaigned so heavily in 2008, and to some extent in 2012, to eradicate. Since the election, Republicans have pointed to Obama’s appearances in easy interviews and town hall-style events as evidence that the president never stopped campaigning and, as in the run-up to Nov. 6, is looking to score easy political points to beat down the Republicans in anticipation of 2014 midterm elections. The literal transformation of the Obama campaign, complete with the former campaign manager at the helm and many other former campaign workers in key positions, into a permanent, privately-funded, pro-Obama machine seems to confirm this.

If OFA remains a political force, then it represents a dangerous development in the world of influence, handing as it does some control over the nation’s highest office to whoever can afford it. Still, it is not totally unprecedented—Bill Clinton created a similar initiative to support his health care plans, and Ronald Reagan toyed with, but ultimately abandoned, the idea—and what is more disappointing is what it represents for Obama. It seems that the young, starry-eyed reformer who made many of us believe that “we are the change we have been waiting for” is gone and has instead morphed into the stereotype of the slick, jaded politician.