Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:42 PM Jan 2016

NYT Gets It Wrong: Sanders Not The Top Beneficiary Of Outside Money


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. 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.

The newspaper calculated totals using only “independent expenditures” spent by Super PACs. If the Times had taken into account all pro-Clinton Super PAC campaign spending from this cycle, outside money spent in support of Clinton is more than twice the amount spent in support of Sanders.

<snip>
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT Gets It Wrong: Sanders Not The Top Beneficiary Of Outside Money (Original Post) cali Jan 2016 OP
K&R - Thanks for this cali, and thank you Lee Fang! I've been looking for this. 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #1
Somehow money from nurses does not have the same odor that money from billionaires has. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #2
Two words... Fumesucker Jan 2016 #3
The NYT and WaPo are and have been CIA rags since the late 50's. Zen Democrat Jan 2016 #4
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
1. K&R - Thanks for this cali, and thank you Lee Fang! I've been looking for this.
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:49 PM
Jan 2016

I just KNEW the Time article was a gross distortion, and needed to understand what
all the fuss was about.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
2. Somehow money from nurses does not have the same odor that money from billionaires has.
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 03:49 PM
Jan 2016

We all know that Clinton collects huge donations from powerful, rich people who want something back for their money.

What do nurses want back?

It does not compare.

Zen Democrat

(5,901 posts)
4. The NYT and WaPo are and have been CIA rags since the late 50's.
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 04:03 PM
Jan 2016

Anybody ever read Carl Bernstein's book "The CIA and the Media" which establishes that the print and TV/Radio media is full of CIA operatives? It's a must read in these days.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»NYT Gets It Wrong: Sande...