Bernie wins the Super-Pac spending contest! According to the Federal Election Commission,

[pnwmom]

more Super-pac money has been spent to support Bernie than on either HRC or MOM.

The nurses have been spending more on Bernie than Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation Voters have been spending on Hillary.

And in addition to being the candidate who has most benefited from money spent in direct Super-Pac funds, he has also gained in indirect support. Conservative Super-pacs have spent millions attacking Hillary.

Ironic, isn’t it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html

But the union is not just busing nurses into Iowa. The union’s “super PAC” has spent close to $1 million on ads and other support for Mr. Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has inspired liberal voters with his calls to eradicate such outside groups. In fact, 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.


SNIP

Mr. Sander’s unlikely rise to super PAC pre-eminence is, in part, the story of an unusual alignment of strategies by different outside groups, including Republican ones eager to bloody Mrs. Clinton and lift Mr. Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election. While the nurses’ super PAC is the biggest left-leaning outside spender in the Democratic primary, conservative organizations have also spent at least $4.3 million attacking Mrs. Clinton in recent months.

One recent online ad from the Republican super PAC American Crossroads has assailed Mrs. Clinton for her Wall Street speaking fees — echoing an argument Mr. Sanders often makes against her. Another conservative group, Ending Spending, bankrolled by the Wyoming billionaire Joe Ricketts, has begun a $600,000 campaign in Iowa highlighting Mr. Sanders’s promises to raise taxes on the rich and provide free public college tuition, calling him “too liberal for Iowa.” But the ad’s language and imagery, including a contented-looking superrich couple hugging in front of a mansion and expensive cars, has led some Democrats to believe it is actually meant to bolster Mr. Sanders.

SNIP

Priorities USA has continued to husband most of its money for later in the campaign, however, in anticipation of a major general election battle with Mrs. Clinton as the nominee. Several other liberal groups have spent money on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, including Planned Parenthood’s political arm and the League of Conservation Voters. But those expenditures totaled only $847,000, according to spending reported to the elections commission through Monday, less than the amount spent by the nurses’ super PAC, National Nurses United for Patient Protection.

[Vinca]

1. Candidates are not in control of super pacs, as you know.

If you get excited about a candidate, you spend. I wasn't planning on donating to political campaigns this time around, but I really support what Bernie stands for and I have . . . and will be in the future.

[stevenleser]

2. Now you're saying Bernie can't do stuff? I thought you guys are the ones

Saying Bernie can make the Ryan House of Representatives vote for single payer and a $15/hr minimum wage.

Which is it?

Either the guy can do magic and accomplish everything he wants or he can't.

[madokie]

9. What does Hillary bring to the table

that will benefit you or me or anyone else except the rich?
I'm serious, what is it that she will do that will make life better for us the 99%

Same o same o ain't getting it, sorry

[stevenleser]

11. No moving the goalposts. Respond to my point. Nt

[Art_from_Ark]

13. What is your point, exactly?

That Bernie is human?

At least he will try to make things better for the average person. He freely associates with Joe and Jane American, rides coach, walks picket lines. He has a much better idea of how we live our daily lives, while your candidate, the one you tore to shreds 8 years ago (remember?), has to have a wide roped area around her so she won't have to come in contact with the riff-raff.

[Gothmog]

49. Anti-Sanders attack ad isn’t quite what it seems to be

Here is a great example of the GOP and conservatives supporting Sanders. This so-called attack ad is really an ad designed to help Sanders. The fact that the Sanders supporters think that this is an attack ad and do not realize that the purpose of this ad is to help Sanders is amusing http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be

Republicans have made no secret of the fact that they’d prefer to run against Bernie Sanders in the general election. Whether or not their assumptions are correct is a separate question, but GOP officials, convinced that the senator would be easy to defeat, have gone out of their way to help Sanders in the Democratic race.....

At first blush, the move may seem encouraging to Sanders supporters. After all, if Republicans have gone from defending Sanders to attacking him, maybe it means GOP insiders are getting scared of the Vermont independent?

It’s a nice idea, but that’s not what’s going on here. In fact, far from an attack ad, this commercial, backed by a prominent Republican mega-donor, is the latest evidence of the GOP trying to help Sanders, not hurt him.

Indeed, in this case, it’s hardly even subtle. This commercial touts Sanders’ support for tuition-free college, single-payer health care, and higher taxes on the “super-rich.” It concludes that the senator is “too liberal,” which isn’t much of an insult in an ad directed towards liberal voters in Iowa.

In other words, we’re talking about a Republican mega-donor investing in a faux attack ad to help Sanders win because he sees Sanders as easy to beat in November.

It’s the mirror image of the tactic Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) used in the 2012 U.S. Senate race in Missouri, when she invested in ads intended to boost then-Rep. Todd Akin (R) in his primary race, with commercials touting his far-right positions and calling him “too conservative.” The point was to make Akin look better in the eyes of Missouri Republicans so he’d win the primary, making it easier for the incumbent Democrat to defeat him on Election Day.

This ad is just another example of the GOP trying to help Sanders become the nominee because the GOP knows that Sanders is the weaker candidate.

[Bubzer]

89. This is a non issue. We all agree (or should) that super PACs shouldn't exist.

But they do. The reason super PACs shouldn't exist is that they unfairly influence elections to favor the affluent. So, what's at issue is where that money is coming from. Bernie is receiving money from individuals Americans, while Hillary is receiving money from corporate interests, investment groups, and in general, the affluent. That's what's at issue here.

To illustrate the issue, let's look at the source of her funds:


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Not exactly a list of philanthropy. In fact, quite a few of those are some of the most corrupt corporations out there.

Now, one of the classic arguments is that all that money is coming from individual donors... the proverbial average American... but that's only partially true:


https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I

She receives over 50% of her funding from affluent sources and/or or sources expecting a quid-pro-quo relationship... collectively; business.
That 50+ percentage is where the issue resides.

[A Simple Game]

33. Super pacs aren't supposed to be in direct communication with the candidates.

Can you name one super pac that is in direct communication with a candidate?

I bet you can name one, I will also bet that you don't name it.

[morningfog]

44. Lamest straw man ever.

Bernie can't work with congress because of superpacs spending? Lol.

[Roland99]

91. it's like dealing w/Freepers, isn't it?

[Perogie]

68. hmmmm

[AlbertCat]

83. Now you're saying Bernie can't do stuff?

No.

No one has said anything remotely close to that in the original post or #1.


Perhaps you replied to the wrong post.


Does anyone know what "steveleser" is talking about?

[thesquanderer]

85. re: "Which is it? Either the guy can do magic and accomplish everything he wants or he can't."

So you're saying either someone can do EVERYTHING, otherwise they can't do ANYTHING?

What a ridiculous straw man you've set up.

Let's start with this: Bernie can't do anything that's illegal. (Like, coordinating with a SuperPAC, for example.)

[Roland99]

88. oh good grief

[pnwmom]

3. Is this what you'd be saying if Hillary had had the most spent on her?

[tazkcmo]

40. I'd vote for Hillary if nurses supported her with a super pac.

I'll listen to real nurses and teachers when they discuss issues because I trust them and respect them. Make believe TV nurses, hedge fund managers and corrupt politicians not so much. Anything that Sen Sanders does that pisses DU's HRC crowd off, I support because it's means it's beneficial to someone besides the wealthy.

[morningfog]

37. One candidate does control her PAC: Hillary.

[JohnnyRingo]

84. You should present your evidence directly to the FEC.

The ensuing fines and scandal should bring her down for good, so why you're hiding the proof is beyond me. Perhaps you're trying to keep her in the race.

[morningfog]

90. Her campaign relies on a "loophole" in the law.

Since Correct the Record doesn't publish, in hard copy, through the mail, tv or radio, HIllary claims it is not covered under the SUperPAC laws. Obviously this is a tortured reading and flies in the face of the campaign finance law, which was drafted prior to widely used online publications.

There is no doubt if/when this practice is challenged, the courts would find HIllary's practice in violation of the law.

[Lage Nom Ai]

98. Mr. Brock

Has found a loophole that allows him to pull it off. Do your own research.

[Dustlawyer]

64. Somehow spending $600,000 in attack ads against Bernie is helping him, but when they

air ads attacking Hillary it is to help Bernie too! Which is it? Trust me when I say that they would much rather have Hillary as POTUS than Bernie. Bernie scares the crap out of TPTB! He is going after their ability to buy politicians and control our government with his plan for Publicly Funded Elections.

[John Poet]

71. What a brain-dead attack.

Bernie has no control or connection to any of these outside groups spending money on his behalf. What is he supposed to do about GOP groups spending against Hillary: tell them to "cut it out"? Maybe he can have Hillary take care of that for him.

It does, however, seem to weaken the argument about how Hillary would have more money spent on her behalf.

[JohnnyRingo]

80. Except when I read a post about how David Brock is....

...Hillary's "trained monkey".

According to many here just last week, David Brock was taking orders directly from the candidate for Hillary's biggest Superpac.

[Jarqui]

4. I think their analysis is grossly misleading and wrong

Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record hasn't provided any numbers since June so they've omitted those. They are officially an extension of the Clinton campaign who enjoy Super PAC ability in taking contributions but have special stature because of the way they're supposed to operate.

[winter is coming]

5. Yeah, I'm having difficulty believing a nurses' union has outspent Corrupt the Record. n/t

[Jarqui]

7. Corrupt the Record spent $333,000

in their first few weeks. And haven't filed since June (Don't know why - could be their special PAC status)

[pnwmom]

17. Priorities USA is saving money for the General Election campaign.

Priorities USA has continued to husband most of its money for later in the campaign, however, in anticipation of a major general election battle with Mrs. Clinton as the nominee. Several other liberal groups have spent money on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, including Planned Parenthood’s political arm and the League of Conservation Voters. But those expenditures totaled only $847,000, according to spending reported to the elections commission through Monday, less than the amount spent by the nurses’ super PAC, National Nurses United for Patient Protection.

[Health Wagon]

114. Too bad they will be forced to either 1) return the money or 2) spend it on Bernie.

Because Priorities USA won't have a candidate to which to spend the money.

[pnwmom]

115. Why would it be too bad if they spent it on another Democratic nominee?

My bottom line is that the Rethugs must be stopped. I happen to think that Hillary is the best person to do it, but if it's Bernie, then so be it.

[Health Wagon]

116. Then they shall spend it for Bernie.

That is the only logical conclusion, and if not, then they are in violation of several FEC laws.

[pnwmom]

8. This report is on money SPENT and it is quite possible that they've collected money

that hasn't been spent and is designated for the general election. According to the article, most of the Super-pac money collected for Hillary was being saved for the general.

[Jarqui]

20. I am talking about money spent.

The nurses SPENT about $1 million bucks and much of that if not all of it went Bernie's way

Priorities (A Clinton Super PAC) SPENT roughly $444,000 (I don't recall the cutoff date)

Correct the Record SPENT roughly $333,000 in the first few weeks of their existence in May and June.

So unless Correct the Record spent less than $240,000 over the past six months (including hiring PPP to do debate polling) when they'd spent $333,000 in their first month and a bit, then the article is wrong.

It's very unlikely financially that an outfit for a campaign spends $55k per week starting up and falls to $9k per week immediately after when they had about $1.4 mil in the bank 7 months ago.

The article is lame, deceptive bullshit.

Clinton had $50 mil sitting in her bank account at the end of September - with about $15 mil of that belonging to her Super PACs (ignoring Correct the Record). Does anyone here really think that the Clinton Campaign is saving up for Christmas 2022?

That's information that is far more pertinent to the outcome of the primary than smearing Bernie with this trivial, meaninglessness, inaccurate bullshit.

[pnwmom]

24. Do you have links for all that? Maybe you should report it to the FEC.

Especially the part about her having $15 million in Super-Pac money sitting in her bank account.



https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis – the super PAC's choice – in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

[Jarqui]

28. I have posted them before. May not have time to find them all

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

See Hillary's cash on hand as of Sept/15
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
$14.9 mil cash is from outside groups.
$32 mil is in her campaign

Cash on Hand $32,995,172 + $14,938,881 = $47,934,053 Total cash that Opensecrets tallies

Here's Priorities
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00495861

Priorities whole existence is for Hillary so I calculated the entire $444k because the $58k for ads against the GOP is basically towards her cause.

Correct the record is dead info
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/detail.php?cmte=C00578997
Here's their June FEC filing
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/419/201507319000556419/201507319000556419.pdf

[pnwmom]

42. And your big claim that Super-Pacs gave her $15 million

that is "sitting in her bank account" now?

[Jarqui]

55. All I can do is repost it:

See Hillary's cash on hand as of Sept/15
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
$14.9 mil cash is from outside groups.
$32 mil is in her campaign

Cash on Hand $32,995,172 + $14,938,881 = $47,934,053 Total cash that Opensecrets tallies



That cash from outside groups is for the cause of electing Hillary Clinton president

If Opensecrets can add it up, it saves me and most reasonable folks time.

Bernie has $27 mil cash in that column
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000528

So what do we think is the more important financial statistic -

a) that Clinton had $48 mil to Bernies $27 mil in cash at that point in time.
or
b) that a Super PAC of nurses shows spending a few thousand dollars more on Bernie than his super PACs have because the Super PACs have not filed all their financial info.

[pnwmom]

61. "Outside groups" doesn't equal "Super pacs." And Super pacs

don't park money in her campaign accounts. If you think they do you should report her to the FEC.

Did you miss the part in your first link where it says 1% of campaign funds came from pacs?

[Jarqui]

93. When opensecrets goes to the trouble of adding

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
Campaign Committee Cash on Hand
+ Outside Groups Cash on Hand
======================= to produce and display
Total "Combined Cash on Hand" for a candidate

I think they're trying to tell us something about the cash available to the candidate's campaign

If you truly don't like it, maybe you can set up your own campaign finance website and straighten opensecrets out.

$14.9 mil "cash on hand" dollars for "outside groups" happens to match a rough tally of the bank accounts of the pro Hillary Super PACs. And they list them as
"Campaign & Outside Committees Targeting Hillary Clinton"
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
and below that are the pro and anti Super PACS

[morningfog]

41. No coordinating with SuperPACs, unless you are Hillary

giving the law the finger.

[pnwmom]

43. She isn't. There isn't a bit of truth to the idea that she has SuperPac

money sitting in her bank accounts. That's just nonsense.

[morningfog]

45. She coordinates with Brock and correct the record.

Old news. She's saying fuck the law. It's so disingenuous for to claim she'll fight to change to law while being the most egregious offender.

[tazkcmo]

36. Saved for the General.

She's keeping her powder dry for a shoot out that will never come. She can't even win a real election (NY Senate seat doesn't count. Too easy) with real candidates and yet she's the most qualified to be president? lol

[pnwmom]

46. Then those SuperPacs can donate their funds to Bernie.

And he won't stop them any more than he's stopping the Nurses Union.

[tazkcmo]

48. Sweet! n/t

[Gothmog]

52. Clinton Camp: GOP Attacks On Hillary Show They'd Rather Face Bernie In Fall

Why is Karl Rove running attack ads on Clinton in Iowa? The GOP really wants to run against a weaker candidate http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-karl-rove-attack

The Hillary Clinton campaign on Tuesday said that recent attacks from conservatives show that Republicans are hoping Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will win the Democratic nomination because they believe he would be easier to beat in the general election.

In a Tuesday evening statement, the Clinton campaign's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mentioned an ad from the Rove-aligned super PAC American Crossroads, which accused Clinton of being in Wall Street's pocket. Palmieri said the ad suggests that Republicans want to face Sanders in the general election.

"While Senator Sanders tries to make a case on electability based on meaningless polls, Republicans and their super PACs have made clear the candidate they’re actually afraid to face. The Sanders argument falls apart when the GOP spokesman is trying to help him and the Republicans run ads trying to stop Hillary Clinton in the primary," she said in the statement.

Karl Rove is running an attack ad against Clinton in the Iowa primary. Rove is doing this for one purpose which is to weaken the strongest candidate

The GOP and super pacs are helping Sanders in this race

[Jarqui]

57. The GOP would like to see them bash each others brains out and

drain their funds.

They were going after Hillary until Obama took the lead in '08

HIllary's pac has run ads against the GOP in 2016 campaign

Nothing new here.

It has little to do with the money Sanders and Clinton have or have spent.

[frylock]

110. Oh noes!! Karl Rove!

I can't believe people around here are still afraid of Turd Blossom.

[Jarqui]

94. Looks like someone had similar issues with the article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511088856

[madokie]

6. This screaming Hey look over there isn't working

all I still see is Hillary when I 'look over there'

I suggest that you spend a tad more time in trying to show us why we should vote for Hillary rather than continually trying to cram why we shouldn't even consider voting for Sanders down our throats.

I read what you post for what it is, comic relief. It never pans out, when the dust settles its always, every time, shown to be a partisan hit job rather than truth. My o My

[pnwmom]

10. Your attempt at distraction from the FEC report fails. As all your attempts

at distraction do.

[stevenleser]

12. That's what you get whenever you raise a point unfavorable to Bernie

They never answer the question.

[madokie]

25. What does Hillary bring to the table

except more of the same?

I'd rather have the real thing not a Bernie lite. I'd just about as soon as have a puke as that

[stevenleser]

75. Again, moving the goalposts instead of addressing the criticism of Bernie. nt

[madokie]

95. I've heard the criticism of Bernie and it's been proven to be bunk

I'm asking you a question and you come back to me with this. What does Hillary bring to the table beside more of the same shit that got us in this mess to begin with.

I haven't move shit, I want to know what it is that is so great about Hillary.

[NurseJackie]

26. It's easier to hide the question.

[dorkzilla]

63. It’s fucking tiresome

“Bernie clips his toenails in the living room and doesn’t vacuum afterward!”

“Bernie once farted in an elevator!”

So, tell me why I should vote for Hillary in the primary and not Bernie.

“Because his supporters are MEAN!!!"

That last one really cracks me up. So many times I’ve read people saying “I was going to vote for Bernie but his supporters are so awful I’m going to vote for Hillary. It matters little that she is constantly evolving and has a lot of baggage, and that polls show Bernie kicking the ass of every GOP candidate, I am not going to vote for the person who has the same outlook as I do because of his horrid supporters”.

[madokie]

73. You know the thing is

I'm old, retired and spend a lot of time here and I've yet to see an asshole Bernie Sanders supporter. I've read a couple that appeared or said they were Sanders supporters that were but when I did a search to see where they go here and what they say I find that they're really hillaryites. When the trail leads back to the den you can just about guarantee thats where the fox lives. Projection is what it is and I've seen a lot of that directed towards us of Obama supporters. I don't even want to get started and I'm about too if you get where i'm coming from.

Bernie Sanders will win this one and he will be our Next President. Too many people both Dem's and 'CONs like what he says and agree with him for him to not win the general election come November. I've yet to hear a republiCON say they'll vote for Hillary but I've heard a shitpot of republiCONs say they'll vote for Bernie. if Hillary somehow makes it to the General there will be 'CONs coming out of the wood work and out from under tombstone to vote against her. And that can be taken to the bank.

Hillary Clinton will never get elected President of the USA. If I was a betting man I'd bet the farm on that.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. I knew it! Those goddamn nurses have created

a nurse-ocracy. The entire system is rigged for the benefit of nurses.

[pnwmom]

19. What is worse about Super-pacs funded by the League of Conservation Voters

and Planned Parenthood than by the Nurses union?

Priorities USA has continued to husband most of its money for later in the campaign, however, in anticipation of a major general election battle with Mrs. Clinton as the nominee. Several other liberal groups have spent money on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, including Planned Parenthood’s political arm and the League of Conservation Voters. But those expenditures totaled only $847,000, according to spending reported to the elections commission through Monday, less than the amount spent by the nurses’ super PAC, National Nurses United for Patient Protection.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Those fucking nurses are going to be the end of

our republic.

One of Clinton's big pacs is priorities usa.
Unlike "nurses" its backers are the wealthy elites.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00495861&cycle=2016

I'd prefer a nurse-ocracy to a kleptocracy so I'm voting with the nurses.

[pnwmom]

30. Priorities USA is saving most of its funds for the general, according to this article.

The OP is about SPENT funds, not saved funds.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. I'm sure you think that is an argument of some sort.

[Art_from_Ark]

32. Me, too

A nurse-ocracy, where everyone gets decent and affordable health care, is far better than a country owned and operated by kleptocrats.

[Plucketeer]

100. For that matter

what a horrific development if Unions wielded real clout as to who took the Oval Office! Surely we lesser sorts would suffer untold disadvantagementarinism at the hands of a truly progressive and working-man friendly president. Our best hope is that Dame Hillary entertains many more folks who can afford a dinner that costs more than the wife and I spend on food in a year - thereby keeping us safe from the outlandish, pye-in-da-sky proposals of a demented ol' whacko who clearly suffers from Maple syrup syndrome.

[eridani]

15. Typical HRC supporter math--counting Republican superpacs as actual Sanders supporters n/t

[pnwmom]

21. You misread the piece. The nurses union has spent more on Bernie

than the combination of funds Planned Parenthood, the LCV, and the other Super-Pacs have spent on Hillary.

This is separate and apart from the much larger sums that conservative pacs are spending in attacking Hillary.

[tazkcmo]

51. Only in a Clinton World

is support from a Nurse's union a bad thing.

[pnwmom]

53. Only in Bernie world is Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation Voters

part of the "establishment."

[AlbertCat]

92. Only in Bernie world is Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation Voters

part of the "establishment."

Did you make that up all by yourself?

The "establishment"?.... not the real establishment without quotes?

Let's see.... PP was established from 1916 to 1942, and the LCV was founded in 1968. They sound pretty established... without quotes... to me.


Did you mean "the man"?

[pnwmom]

117. No, I didn't make it up. That is the term used by the Bernie campaign,

in trying to disparage PP's endorsement.

[eridani]

121. There are organizations that bother to poll their members before endorsing, and those that don't

Top-down "leadership" is establishment and nothing else.

[Uponthegears]

16. Note to self

Hillary Clinton believes that working class Americans who come together for a common goal of bettering their lives (we call them "UNIONS&quot , are just like Goldman Sachs and Citibank coming together to put their favorite lunch speaker in the White House.

Gosh, it makes me want to lock arms with Charles Koch and sway back and forth singing the chorus of "We Shall (okay we already have) Overcome."

[pnwmom]

18. What is worse about Super-pacs funded by the League of Conservation Voters

and Planned Parenthood than by the Nurses Union?

Priorities USA has continued to husband most of its money for later in the campaign, however, in anticipation of a major general election battle with Mrs. Clinton as the nominee. Several other liberal groups have spent money on behalf of Mrs. Clinton, including Planned Parenthood’s political arm and the League of Conservation Voters. But those expenditures totaled only $847,000, according to spending reported to the elections commission through Monday, less than the amount spent by the nurses’ super PAC, National Nurses United for Patient Protection.

[DanTex]

23. Because LCV and PP are part of the "establishment"! Pay attention!

[Uponthegears]

34. The short answer

is . . . HOLD IT . . . let's wait a sec for the short answer because this reply is just TOTAL diversion.

Hillary's attack machine is spreading this story to "try" to show that Bernie is a hypocrite because he points to Citizens United, corporate use of PACs to control election, and Hillary's corporate bankrollers at the same time a union PAC is out spending money on his behalf.

HOWEVER, that would be hypocrisy ONLY if a union PAC and a corporate PAC should be looked at the same way.

THEY AREN'T.

YOU and the rest of the Hillary supporters pushing this story (if you actually believe that they are the same) are poor excuses for Democrats OR (if you don't believe they are the same) are bottom of the barrel political opportunists who CANNOT WIN a battle of ideas and have centered your entire campaign on "Blinded by the Right" character assassination.

. . . now back to your "Oh I am soooo clever, I'm with Hill" reply . . . Bernie isn't criticizing Hillary for taking money from groups of PEOPLE. His answer, and mine, is "nothing."

Now let's get back to his REAL criticism . . . her cozy relationship with the oligarchy.

[pnwmom]

50. Hillary's spent SuperPac money, according to this report, is mostly from Planned Parenthood

and the League of Conservation Voters. The Priorities USA SuperPac money is being saved for the general.

And if Bernie's the nominee, those Dem pacs will be spending it on him.

And the NYTimes report, based on the FEC data, is in accord with Newsweeks article a few weeks ago.

http://www.newsweek.com/super-pac-spending-2016-race-410356

12/31/15

On the Democratic side, front-runner Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have affiliated super PACs, but neither has spent much on advertising, mail or phone campaigns thus far. The former first lady and secretary of state is, however, attracting far and away the most advertising dollars from opposing groups—$4.5 million from the Republican Party and Tea Party–aligned committees attacking her campaign. Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders has asked his supporters not to form a super PAC, though the labor union National Nurses United hasn’t played along, and is doing some advertising on his behalf. And Krumholz thinks Democrat-backed super PAC spending will pick up mightily in a general election, which is bound to be more heated than the party's primary. "I doubt once we enter the final heat of the race there will be much daylight" between the two parties, she says.

[Uponthegears]

81. Is it even possible

for Hillary supporters to stop this garbage?

You gutter campaign is busted. You tried to portray Bernie as a hypocrite. YOU FAILED.

Now you want to pivot and turn this into a discussion about whether Bernie will take "establishment" PAC support IF he gets the nomination ("Oooh, Oooh, Oooh, we got ol' Bernie now. If he says 'I won't accept their support,' we'll say 'HA! Bernie is going to take on the Koch Brothers with a cap gun. We told you he was unelectable' If he says, 'I will accept their help' we'll say 'HA, we TOLD you Bernie was just like Hillary'" -- wink, wink, sweep MILLIONS of dollars of speaking fees from the .1%ers under the rug).

It's all semantic BS.

It's a campaign based 100% on character assassination.

It's 2008 all over again.

Trot out Hillary's platform. Tell us how she will get any of it passed through a TeaOP HOR. Most of all, TELL US HOW ANY OF IT MORE REFLECTS THE VALUES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAN WHAT BERNIE HAS PROPOSED.

If you can't, be honest enough to say, "YES, we are running as Republican-lite because we believe that a majority of American do not share the values of FDR and we only care about winning the GE"

[navarth]

96. This.

[Skidmore]

27. I don't understand where you got that

from reading this article.

[DanTex]

22. As usual, the facts here aren't going down too well with Bernie fans.

[tazkcmo]

35. Good for Bernie!

We need to move forward and heal as a party so that Sen Sanders can concentrate on the GE. Sec Clinton can do more for the party by conceding now than she can do by continuing the charade. $4 million is what? About 12 speeches? Pffffft.

[livetohike]

38. Cracks in Bernie's shining armor? One day his supporters will realize

he is a career politician, and one who is learning to play the game.

[AlbertCat]

97. he is a career politician, and one who is learning to play the game.

he is a career politician, and one who is learning to change the game.


there...fixed it for you.



(how can you be a "career politician" for 30 years and be "learning" to play the game? It's not a game BTW!)

[livetohike]

102. This is his first national race. The "game" is indeed a game. There are rules and these errors the

campaign is making regarding the use of logos, data base breeches, infiltrating workers from the Culinary Union while they are working are all things that are magnified on the national scale.

Running a mayoral campaign or Congressional campaign in a small state would not get this level of scrutiny.

[AlbertCat]

103. Oh please!

Hillary lost the last primary.

She's only won 1 Senate seat in her entire career.

First Lady and SoS was handed to her.

She thought this would be too (even after losing the last one.... like Obama was just a place holder for her)


Who's "learning" again?
(Well, since her campaign seems like the last one, she's not "evolving" a lot)


BTW.... the "small state so he's just a country bumpkin" meme is a GOP meme trotted out last June? July?

[livetohike]

105. VT is a small state. Can't even accept that fact?

It's 49th in population and that is a fact. In Sanders' last Senate race he received 207,848 votes.

In 2000, Clinton received 3,747,310 votes.

She won her seat with no previous experience as a candidate. She worked for that victory, it was not handed to her.

[AlbertCat]

106. VT is a small state.

Yes it is!

And WY is a huge state...with less people in it. It's also not particularly liberal or progressive.

Y'see.... it HOW the state is run, not its size or population.

What's your point?

(I suppose no one from RI could ever be president)

[SidDithers]

39. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Gothmog]

47. Republicans Take Their Sanders Advocacy to the Next Level

This ad was designed to support Sanders just as McCaskill's ads against Todd Akin were designed to do http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-28/republicans-take-their-sanders-advocacy-to-the-next-level

Add Republican operatives to the list of strong Bernie Sanders supporters in the Democratic primary, along with progressive activists and young voters.

A super-PAC founded by Republican billionaire Joe Ricketts is making its first foray into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, spending $600,000 on a television ad in Iowa calling Sanders "too liberal," according to The New York Times.

The ad then spotlights two of the policies that have helped fuel his rise in the Democratic primary—his calls for "completely free" college education and more taxes on Wall Street and the "super-rich."

"It's exactly the same thing we did with Todd Akin," said Caitlin Legacki, who served as communications director to Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's during her successful campaign in 2012. "They're clearly trying to use the exact same playbook."

Four years ago, McCaskill spent nearly $1 million in TV ads calling Akin "too conservative" in an effort to promote him, rather than his two opponents. He won the primary, then McCaskill trounced him on Election Day.

"More than anything that should be a concern for Democrats, because you don't make those kinds of investments in support of a candidate from another party unless you believe there's a good reason for it," Legacki added.

[mucifer]

54. I'm A Pediatric Hospice Nurse Proud to Support Bernie!

[hueymahl]

56. How very Third Way of you

To use union support to impinge the credibility of a liberal candidate. Can't have those pesky progressives interfering with Party Control.

[SamKnause]

58. The Republicans went after the teachers.

I guess now it is the nurses turn.

But it appears it not the Republicans at fault this time.

If you support Wall Street vote for Hillary.

It is really that simple.

I am proud of these nurses.

3 of my nieces work in the medical field.

2 are nurses.

1 does medical transcription.

Wall Street doesn't care anything about them or their families.

Bernie, and apparently a lot of nurses do.

[frylock]

111. Conservatives are always at the root..

doesn't matter what jersey they may sport.

[mcar]

59. K&R

[gordyfl]

60. OK, so it's David Brock versus

the ‘Most Trusted’ Professionals’ Union In The Nation.

I prefer the candidate with the backing of the nurses.

[pnwmom]

62. No, its Nurses vs. Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation Voters. nt

[Armstead]

65. That's a sloppy and distorted article

The writer seems more intent on drawing attention with a misleading headline than actually reporting the facts objectively.

It's disingenuous to include that Rove's GOP PAC attacking Clinton as part of Sanders' campaign.

And the $1 million raised by a nurses union hatrdly compares to this: "Clinton has indeed helped raise money for a super PAC: Priorities USA Action, a group originally formed to help re-elect President Obama and now run by a former Clinton campaign aide. The group has raised more than $40 million since the beginning of last year, including seven-figure contributions from the kind of billionaire financiers Mr. Sanders delights in lampooning on the campaign trail. A research and rapid-response super PAC, Correct the Record, founded by the Clinton ally David Brock and funded by wealthy liberals, has also taken swipes at Mr. Sanders in recent days over his record on gun control."

[Eric J in MN]

66. 'New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not Top Beneficiary of Outside Money'

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

Clinton’s campaign has benefited from Super PAC spending that has been disclosed as both independent expenditures and non-independent expenditures. In the piece that ran on page A17 on Friday, the Times narrowly considers pro-Clinton independent expenditures — which total about $847,000 — while leaving out other spending.

[n2doc]

70. And the real nail in the coffin

To debunk the claim that the nurses are outspending all pro-Clinton outside groups, one merely has to look at six months of spending and limited independent expenditure disclosures by the primary pro-Clinton Super PACs Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action. Doing so finds that pro-Clinton outside organizations have spent well over $2.2 million during this campaign cycle on staff, consultants, research, advertising, communications, advocacy, and other campaign-related expenses. If you add in pro-Clinton independent expenditures from Planned Parenthood, the Service Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-Clinton total rises to more than $2.6 million.

That pro-Clinton outside money number is likely to rise dramatically after new disclosure reports are released this weekend. The Super PAC disclosures will reveal the last six months of spending in 2015. And given reports that Clinton Super PACs are sitting on a war chest that is estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions, the comparison to the nurses union, which raises its cash from working nurses, may look quite strange in only a few days.

[SoapBox]

72. ^ This! ^

Thank you doc!

The article is crap.

[dorkzilla]

82. New disclosures which they’ll under-report

and run a correction at some later date, blaming some lower level staffer.

[pnwmom]

76. It didn't get it wrong. The article specifically focused on independent funds

spent by Super Pacs, not funds controlled by the campaigns.

[Eric J in MN]

78. Correct the Record raising soft money & letting the Clinton campaign control spending is worse. NT

NT

[frylock]

112. Shocking!

[fbc]

67. Awesome! the one person who will work to end Super PAC spending gets the most!

ironic, isn't it?

The oligarchs are being defeated by their own weapon.

[Not Sure]

69. Oh my god, you're right!

I've been deluded all along! That's it, I'm throwing my support to Hillary. Because she doesn't believe in SuperPACs. She'll work hard for us to keep things just the way they are, because everything is awesome!

[bread_and_roses]

74. The nurses are coming! The NURSES are coming!

Do you really want to get into who is raising money for which candidate? And who those donors represent? Because I think it's a safe bet that nurses rank a lot higher for ordinary people than HRC's Bankster and Billionaire good buds.

[pnwmom]

113. The nurses spent the money on him; Planned Parenthood and the League of Conservation

Voters on Hillary.

Oh yeah, PP and the LVC are part of the "establishment," according to Bernie.

[joeybee12]

77. the excuses ought to be good

Knr

[R B Garr]

79. Thanks for pointing out his hypocrisy and gimmicks.

He's not for getting money out of politics, after all. It's just more bait and switch, which was very predictable.

[thesquanderer]

86. re: "lift Mr. Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election"

The phrase "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind...

[AlbertCat]

101. "be careful what you wish for"

Yes and the GOP's strategies have been so right and worked so well in the last two presidential elections. Go Romney!

[karynnj]

99. It takes very clever parsing of words to make this happen

Note they are comparing just liberal groups -- ignoring super PACS related directly to the candidate. Note they list Planned parenthood and LCV -- they don't mention Brock's group or other HRC aligned groups.

The most troubling thing is that they are smearing long existing issued based organizations that are incorporated to allow them to take political sides (ie they are NOT 501Cs like churches and synogogues) with corporations or billionaires putting huge amounts of money into superpacs, where there is legitimate fear that they could be buying elections.

When Bernie or others including Wellstone, Kerry and Feingold have spoken against the money in politics, they were not speaking of Planned Parenthood, LCV, or the Nurses (or any union) pac .

[SheenaR]

104. The same people recommending this

which is clearly out of proper context, are the same people who flipped out about people recommending the "O'Malley says to vote for Sanders" piece.

Whatever.. Yeah. Bernie wouldn't let the Red Hot Chili Peppers give him money, but he is just raking in the PAC money.

[AgingAmerican]

107. Projection

[MoonRiver]

108. Bwahahaha!

Hypocrisy some?

[riversedge]

109. Bernie Sanders-the canditate who harps daily against the eveils of Super Pacs Wins. whow!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cha]

118. Thank you for this, pnwmom!

[RobertEarl]

119. Wonderful news!!

And Bernie's hands are clean!!

H must be jealous.

[William769]

120. Kick & very highly recommended!

[w4rma]

122. Trying to pretend that union money is the same as bankster money is why I cannot support Hillary.

It's consistent with Hillary's record and the record of the biggest union buster in America that Hillary worked on the board of supervisors for.