New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not “Top Beneficiary of Outside Money” (Hillary is)

[Omaha Steve]

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/

Lee Fang
Jan. 29 2016, 7:27 a.m.

The New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic man-bites-dog style campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled “Bernie Sanders Is Top Beneficiary of Outside Money.” The article charges that despite his fiery campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics, Sanders has gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic opponents.

“In fact,” the Times reports, “more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.”

While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong impression by suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups supporting Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley. If that sounds confusing, that’s because the Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.

When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are leading the way.

FULL story at link.

[winter is coming]

1. Not surprising. Amazing that anyone would try this bullshit.

I wonder which superPAC fed them their "information".

[Nanjeanne]

2. I'm shocked I tell ya nt

[Punkingal]

3. Not surprising coming from the Iraq war cheer-leading NYT.

[restorefreedom]

12. many forget that tidbit about the nyt

their rah rah for war

[DanTex]

4. If the Intercept wants to play accounting tricks, they need to include all of Karl Rove's spending

against Hillary in the total as well, in which case Bernie is benefitting by an even greater margin than NYT reported.

[Bonobo]

7. LOL. What? Are you even serious? The most preposterous thing I ever heard.

Absolutely asinine and not even deserving of an argument.

[DanTex]

8. It's obvious. You count direct expenditures in favor of candidates, Bernie has more.

You count all expenditures, including all the anti-Hillary ads Rove is running, Bernie still has more.

The Intercept wants to count some but not others. And this is because Glenn Greenwald wants Bernie to win, as he's made very clear.

[Bread and Circus]

9. Then you must not read a lot of Dantex's posts.

[CharlotteVale]

5. The NYT lied big time, and her supporters ran with it in breathless all caps.

Their discredited memes are like whack-a-mole.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. These misinformers know this, they are just trying any trick so THEY can 'win.'

.


It's personal for them, they view their lives vicariously through their candidate.

Their candidates loss is a personal affront to their own being.



It's gone beyond promoting a candidate, values, or agenda... it's now just self-promotion.


Their desperation is really driving down discourse.


Just like with FOX News, they put out a Bullshit article.
The next day when it's refuted, they move onto the next lie.


.

[WillyT]

10. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. When you're taking heavy flak it means you're over the target.