Bernie Sanders calls rivals' cash dash 'a national disgrace'

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Bernie Sanders on Tuesday is knocking his fellow presidential candidates’ last-minute cash dash before the FEC deadline, calling it “a national disgrace.”

“It is a national disgrace that billionaires and other extremely wealthy people are able to heavily influence the political process by making huge contributions,” he said in a statement. “The Koch brothers alone will spend more than the Democratic and Republican parties to influence the outcome of next year’s elections. That’s not democracy, that’s oligarchy.”

The statement from the Vermont independent — an ardent support of campaign finance reform who has rejected the notion of his own affiliated super PAC — said the “mad scramble” for super PAC money from other candidates is appalling.

“Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful,” Sanders said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-fundraising-rivals-disgrace-119589.html?hp=l4_4

---

This is why I can't take his prospects seriously. It's admirable to stand for principles, but running for national office isn't free, and if your opponents (especially the Republicans) will have the resources they'll need, you'd better as well.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I'd tip the article, but not the editorialization after the line.

If he can beat Hillary's money machine, it's not going to matter how much money Republicans can grift.

[brooklynite]

15. I would posit that the Republican General Election funds...

...will dwarf what Clinton spends in the Primary.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. But he'll have proven that 'money' doesn't matter if you've got a ton of fed up voters.

Let them waste billions.

[brooklynite]

30. No, he'll have proven that it's less important...

...remember that the General Election is with a larger and less liberal voter base than the Primary.

[upaloopa]

2. I am not a billionaire Bernie.

I will be listed as a Hillary donor tonight.
If you are going to run a national campaign against the Kochs you had better build up a war chest for 2016.
Bernie needs to wait until Hillary passes campaign finance reform before he tries to run a general election campaign built on $40 donations. In 2016 the right would run him out of money before summer.
You can't take a stick to a gun fight.

[azmom]

10. We have masses of people discontent

With their economic situation. Bernie's message is being heard.

[upaloopa]

14. Masses!

Yea sure!

[azmom]

20. There are Masses of working class people.

In this country.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

55. yes there are

[libdem4life]

63. and many are signing up for these small donations monthly. That's easier for working folk that he

appeals to.

[George II]

21. Of course its being heard, can't escape it, but what is it accomplishing?

[azmom]

25. Nothing yet. It has to be voted in.

[LanternWaste]

39. To date... vigorous discussions re: the role of money in public elections.

To date... vigorous discussions re: the role of money in public elections.

(move goalposts in space provided below...)

[billhicks76]

19. Hillary Won't Pass Squat

She's an honorary member of the Bush family and that's all you need to know.

[azmom]

22. Amen. Love Colbert, when does his show start?

[upaloopa]

34. Well that is a new one. Just as much made up shit

as the rest of it but maybe a bit more original I give you that.

[George II]

41. I'm beginning to think that you can't support Clinton on this site just as you can't...

...criticize Sanders on this site.

[truthisfreedom]

45. I will vote for the Democratic nominee,

Whoever that may be.

[billhicks76]

59. Maybe A Republican Should Run As A Democrat Then

With that logic we are such easily manipulated fools.

[billhicks76]

58. Cry Me A River

I rarely mention Bernie. How can you not love him. Hillary is allergic to compassion and goodwill.

[Comrade Grumpy]

65. I see people doing both of those things all the time. Including you.

[George II]

68. Total BS!

[OnlyBernieBurnsBush]

66. Why is this surprising?

This ssite represents the left-leaning base of the Democratic Party. It's not a good place for Third Way politics.
But being Canadian, you tend to love anything with the Clinton, Trudeau, or Kennedy namesakes.

[George II]

69. This site represents DEMOCRATS! "Third Way" is just a rationalization for people who.........

......don't like what other people say.

AND I'M A FREAKING AMERICAN, BORN IN NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't jump to ill-informed and ignorant conclusions!

[chapdrum]

52. The One Percent take care of their own

Hillary is likely one of them. Lets her daughter sign on with s*itheel billionaire Pete Peterson, who wants to dismantle or privatize Social Security and likely similar arbitrary mayhem. Apparently spoke to a group of GMO promoters in June 2014, suggesting that they get their message to young voters that she will need. Don't know for sure, but apparently head of Goldman Sachs said that he's good with either a Jebbie or Hillary presidency.

[OilemFirchen]

54. "Lets her daughter"...

Pretty sure that Chelsea Clinton was a grown woman when she made that decision.

I think you hit the trifecta of derp using the fewest words possible.

[George II]

60. Been away a few days, you beat me to it! Yeah, I'm sure Chelsea runs to mom and dad....

...every time she wants to do something to "get permission".

These "berners" get nastier and more insulting by the day.

[billhicks76]

57. You're Not Paying Attention

I could link at least 5 times her and Bill have been called that by Bush Sr, Barbara Bush and GW. Do your homework freshman.

[George II]

61. So? Now you're listening to the bush family and believing what they say? Bizarre!

[Fumesucker]

70. You might recall that Hillary rather infamously listened to Dubya...

And voted for him and Dick's excellent Iraq adventure.

[billhicks76]

71. They Said It To Her Face!!!

And she had no problem with it as she returned the same niceties. Those two families colluded and it's obvious to anyone who has watched them closely.

[George II]

42. But if Sanders is elected, he won't be ABLE to "pass squat".....

...by the way, Congress passes laws and bills, not the President.

[libdem4life]

64. There's this thingy called the Bully Pulpit..and it does more than pass laws, it informs and changes

and helps with the little people's understanding (which Bernie does well) so they will DEMAND their representatives "pass squat" you know, kind of like a Democracy.

Then enough people shift things and before you know it, the Supreme Court makes decisions that, sure as shootin', lead right back to the Bully Pulpit. Perhaps you've noticed that lately?

[George II]

67. Still won't happen. If you think Obama was stonewalled (not saying you specifically).....

....how do you think republicans will treat Sanders? Bully pulpit and "DEMAND" or not it isn't going to happen.

[arcane1]

3. He opposes Citizens United. That's a good position to have.

Why didn't you post this in GDP?

[Peacetrain]

6. So does Hillary and Martin, and Elizabeth and Joe if he gets in

Everyone opposes CU.. but the reality is.. this election has to be fought on their battlefield.. and money to get out the message is important.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

9. ^So much THIS!

It can't be said enough, no matter how much it's ignored.

[azmom]

12. Everyone opposes it now, but once they are in office

They will cave to the money interests and blame it on the other party.

Bernie is not taking their filthy money.

[Peacetrain]

24. Let me give you an example of what I am concerned about

Bernie will be in Sioux City on Thursday.. I only heard about it by accident.. He will be at the local college, and he should get a good turnout of students.. but Hillarys people have contacted me, Martins people to let me know when he would be in town.. uh Elizabeth's people when they did the honk for Elizabeth at the beginning of the year.

Nothing from Bernies side.. and this is problematic.. Because you have to touch ground with the base. That means a certain amount of money to set up offices etc.

The President used social media like no one else.. but his ground game was just as outstanding.

This is what I am talking about.. the CU has the right flush with cash.. and even if we get that overturned which all sides are committing to do.. It will always take money.. and small donors can fill and enormous hole..but we are a huge battle this election against unstoppable monies.. and that means fire with fire if we are going to win

We have to get our message out to the general population..

[azmom]

26. I don't trust Hillary to champion it.

Obama campaigned on it, we voted for him and what results did we get?
Nada.

[Peacetrain]

33. So what happens if Senator Sanders does get the Democratic nod

and we have to battle royal the Republicans flush with CU money.. and Senator Sanders PACs start forming to get him elected?

An election cannot run just off of social media.. its down in the dirt and hard work.. and time.. and calling and getting EVERYONE out to see the candidate..

I will see him for myself on Thursday and listen.. but his people have got to hit the ground if they have any hope of tying up the nomination outside of the north east.

I just wonder how many of the core workers who will move the election.. who will be caucusing for a candidate.. who will be organizing in the community have been contacted??..

[azmom]

36. Sanders would lose all credibility if he forms a PAC

He will not do that.


There is no denying that we have a lot of work to do.

But look at me, I have never been involved in campaigns, but Bernie's ideas have
Me so excited, I signed up to volunteer.

[Peacetrain]

37. I wish you well

Its a long hard slog.. been there and done that ..

[azmom]

51. Thank you.

[George II]

43. And he would lose the general election, but we don't have to worry about that happening.

[catnhatnh]

50. Show me a picture

Of Bernie in a room with open seats and no standees...then you'll have a point.

[George II]

35. A candidate's FIRST priority is getting elected - if he can't get elected he can have.......

........the greatest ideas and policies in the world but they will go nowhere if he's not in office.

[arcane1]

16. That's why he gets all my donations.

Kissing up to Goldman Sachs isn't going to accomplish anything but more of the same.

I for one won't be surrendering to their "rules" for campaigning.

[azmom]

27. I understand the concern, but I'm with you. The

Money class has a tight grip on her government. It's time to stand up to them. Bernie all the way. Bless that man for taking up our fight.

[NYC Liberal]

44. "Everyone opposes CU" -- Nope, not everyone. I don't, for example.

I agree with the ACLU's position.

In our view, the answer to that problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. Thus, the ACLU supports a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. We support carefully drawn disclosure rules. We support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and we support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

Some argue that campaign finance laws can be surgically drafted to protect legitimate political speech while restricting speech that leads to undue influence by wealthy special interests. Experience over the last 40 years has taught us that money always finds an outlet, and the endless search for loopholes simply creates the next target for new regulation. It also contributes to cynicism about our political process.

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.

It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-citizens-united

[George II]

7. Good point - I've been railing about this for days.

[morningfog]

4. Voters over dollars!

[azmom]

5. Bernie is winning in social media. No money needed

[Historic NY]

31. Social media isn't an election and millions of people don't use it...

besides how many social media people vote??

[azmom]

32. I guess we disagree on that one.

Social media is used by 2/3 of Americans.

[bravenak]

53. I agree with you.

Social media is very important.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. It would seem

that many people who have never voted will vote this time (due to social media)

[George II]

8. That's the way it is. Maybe he should sponsor a bill in the Senate to limit contributions?

[Kalidurga]

11. He is correct of course.

He may or may not get the nomination. If he does then Republicans are toast. Unless they can figure out how to win a blue state and get all the purple ones and not lose a single red state.

[azmom]

13. Once they start The debates. Things will

Be much clearer to everyone.

[Kalidurga]

23. They can't start soon enough for me.

Yes things will be much clearer. Bernie is going to wipe up the floor with any pseudo-liberal.

[frazzled]

17. Hey, if the billionaires are giving all the money

Please stop sending me all these hair-on-fire emails. Apparently, my $25 bucks is not needed.

I'm confused here. Even billionaires are not able to donate to a candidate, a candidate's campaign, or a PAC beyond the legal contributions, listed below. The Koch Brothers may be able to spend as much of their dough as they want on their own (thanks, Citizens United!), but they can't give huge sums to a candidate, or to a PAC that supports a candidate, and they can't coordinate with a campaign. So candidates can't ask for a million dollars from anyone.

ontribution Limits
An individual may give a maximum of:
$2,700 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections.
$5,000 per calendar year to a PAC. This limit applies to a PAC (political action committee) that supports Federal candidates. (PACs are neither party committees nor candidate committees. Some PACs are sponsored by corporations and unions--trade, industry and labor PACs. Other PACs, often ideological, do not have a corporate or labor sponsor and are therefore called nonconnected PACs.) PACs use your contributions to make their own contributions to Federal candidates and to fund other election-related activities.
$10,000 per calendar year to a State or local party committee. A State party committee shares its limits with local party committees in that state unless a local committee's independence can be demonstrated.
$33,400 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party's national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.
$100 in currency (cash) to any political committee. (Anonymous cash contributions may not exceed $50.) Contributions exceeding $100 must be made by check, money order or other written instrument.

Sure, some people can give $33,400 to the DNC and $2,700 to a candidate. The rest of us schlubs are pooling our $25, $50, and $100 contributions, and we're the ones getting bombarded with 50-60 emails a day.

[azmom]

29. Because they can't get enough. and at the same time you

Keep engaged. They want your vote. Hillary has 2.5 billion. She does not need money, she needs votes.

[24601]

62. We can take the $2.5B and re-distribute it to our other candidates. It's the only way to be fair

and, more importantly, make sure she pays her fair share. Think of it as a progressive tax - the less progressive, the higher the tax.

[George II]

28. "Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas,

....not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful,”

Not exactly true - the money is used to get the candidate's message out.

[LanternWaste]

38. Who exactly made the premise that running for office is free?

Who exactly made the premise that running for office is free or that money is wholly unessential to the process?



No doubt, if no one running made that particular argument, you may begin to understand why people who make unsupported statement themselves, are not taken seriously either...

[brooklynite]

40. I agree that the need for money should be obvious...

...but I get the impression some of the Sanders' supporters aren't willing to acknowledge the chasm he faces matching the Republicans' resources at $40 a pop. When I bring this up, they talk about volunteers and free social media as an adequate substitute.

[arcane1]

47. I haven't seen anyone make that premise n/t

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

46. It's the votes that count, not how much money is raised. You'll see...

[CTBlueboy]

48. Money over principles

So Democrats need to genuflect and beg the rich to donate to them ?

The rich don't pour money into your campaign without wanting something: Ambassadorship or Cabinet position

Pains me to say this :

There is a reason why JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon is not jail ,and its because of his relationship with POTUS , The DOJ just slaps the bank on the wrist with "fines" and proceed looking the other way

[sadoldgirl]

49. Okay, there is this attitude that

money gets the message out. You want to disregard
social media as well as the volunteers.

How will you keep this argument up if Bernie wins the
primary? HRC has huge amounts to run her
campaign and Bernie has comparatively little.

Generally the Dems come out very strong in the
GE, but the question then may come up whether
the party will support Bernie as strongly as it
would HRC. If it does not, then the party will
lose even more citizens than it has up to now.

And, yes, that is a very good possibility, no
matter how deplorable this may be.