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
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT 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, thats 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/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 596 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
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
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)1. K&R - Thanks for this cali, and thank you Lee Fang! I've been looking for this.
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.
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.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)3. Two words...
Judith Miller
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)4. The NYT and WaPo are and have been CIA rags since the late 50's.
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.