No Billionaires for Bernie: Alone Among Democratic Frontrunners, Sanders Gets No Cash From Wealthies

[Uncle Joe]

Wealthiest Americans

Not a single billionaire to date has donated to Sen. Bernie Sanders' run for the 2020 Democratic nomination, according to a new analysis, making him unique among primary frontrunners.

(snip)

"True to his campaign promise to take on the top one percent," Forbes reporter Giacomo Tognini, who broke the story, wrote, "Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has not received any donations from billionaires."

Tognini's reporting is based on FEC data through August 1 which shows South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg in front of the rest of the field with 23 billionaire donors to date. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) comes in second with 18; Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is in third with 17. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), currently polling at around one percent, is fourth with 15 billionaire donors and former Vice President Joe Biden, the polling front runner, wraps the top five with 13.

(snip)

A key difference between Sanders and his fellow candidates spurned by the billionaire class, in addition to being a top-tier contender for the nomination, is the Vermont senator's dominance in small dollar funding. As Common Dreams reported on August 2, Sanders has an overwhelming lead nationwide when it comes to generating individual donations.

(snip)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/06/no-billionaires-bernie-alone-among-democratic-frontrunners-sanders-gets-no-cash

[TexasTowelie]

1. Very interesting.

I am bound to come to some conclusion.

[Uncle Joe]

2. It is what it is.

[George II]

3. Inasmuch as there are only 500 billionaires in the United States and the individual.....

....contribution limit is $2800 regardless of a person's wealth, he's not really winnowing down the contributor pool by very much.

Not taking contributions from billionaires is cosmetic at best.

[lapucelle]

7. Does this mean he has a blacklist of billionaires that he won't accept small dollar donations from?

Is there a difference between "won't accept" and "hasn't received"?

And what about the Ben and Jerry guy? He might not be worth a billion, but I bet he's worth 100 million. Isn't he a co-chair?

[LiberalFighter]

43. Someone is trying to make a non-issue an issue.

A progressive Facebook group is pushing Sanders in my state. S/He (most likely he) seems to think it is a big deal. Still pushing it even though I pointed out the flaw.

[LiberalFighter]

44. I created this graphic

[link:

Link to tweet

?s=20|

[George II]

45. Bazinga! It's so simple, isn't it? Why do people ignore simple, legal facts?

Like you say, people are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue.

If each of the 23 billionaires that contributed to Buttigieg contributed the maximum, their total would be a mere $64,400.

[NurseJackie]

4. LOL!

Next thing you know he'll be boasting that he refuses to accept money from CORPORATIONS!!

[George II]

8. There are 230 million Americans who are voting age, and he's rejecting 500-600 of them.

Big sacrifice, dontcha think?

[NurseJackie]

11. Heh heh ... Not really.

[Uncle Joe]

12. If you believe billionaires only have influence with campaign donations,

I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

I believe 3 of them own as much wealth as the bottom half of the nation.

[George II]

13. Those three billionaires can contribute a grand total of $8400 combined.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Correct, insofar as campaign contributions are concerned

but that doesn't change my point.

Money is power and there is all manner of way in our society to exert your influence if you have enough.

[George II]

15. So how do you know that no billionaires are using their money and power....

....to support BS' campaign?

Hint: you don't.

[Uncle Joe]

16. I don't know if any billionaires are trying to exert their influence for Bernie behind the scenes

but I do know Bernie has by far dominated in the number of contributors and his average I believe is around $19.00

?

I also know that Bernie is the most aggressive candidate in taking on their stranglehold on American political and economic society so I believe the odds that any of them are covertly helping Bernie to be most minuscule.

Of course I can't entirely eliminate the possibility but I wouldn't bet on it.

[George II]

17. But you would bet on billionaires exerting their influence on the campaigns of other candidates....

...over and above the legally allowable $2800 contributions (or $5600 if contributed as a married couple)?

[Uncle Joe]

19. Yes, if their prime objective were to best protect their own over sized economic and political power

over our government and in turn the nation at large.

This is not to say all billionaires would but I believe many if not most would.

[George II]

35. If that's the case, why would they support candidates that have a higher progressive rating....

....than Sanders? Doesn't seem logical, does it?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. Lol. We are at the point in the argument where they pretend individual donations ....

.....to presidential candidates is the only influence billionaires have on our economy and system of government.

Don’t bother, Uncle Joe. It’s a ridiculous argument not worth having.

I don’t know if you have ever seen this. It’s worth a read if you haven’t. It’s been years since I read it. I will have to take another look.

It’s a bit dated but nothing has really changed. When people talk about demographics or blue walls that will save us I just shake my head. This money is never going away no matter the demographic change. We see it with the current healthcare debate. These people will always be able to manufacture consent - by hook or by crook.

https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/estatetaxfinal.pdf

SPENDING MILLIONS TO SAVE BILLIONS

The campaign of the super wealthy to kill the estate tax

Members of a handful of super-wealthy families have quietly helped finance and coordinate a massive campaign to repeal the estate tax.

These families – the members of which own the first and third largest privately held companies in the United States and hold about a 40 percent share in the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart – stand to save a whopping $71.6 billion if their bid succeeds.

They have relied on their fortunes, the resources of their companies and their business connections to marshal a massive anti-estate tax juggernaut that has reported nearly a half-billion dollars in lobbying expenditures ($490.3 million) since 1998.

The families also have helped finance outside groups that have spent millions on fear-mongering ad campaigns intended to sway public opinion against the estate tax. These ads have shamelessly retailed myths that the estate tax is responsible for wrecking small businesses and family farms, and that regular Americans should fear a crushing tax bill when their loved ones die.

In fact, only about one-quarter of one percent of all estates will owe any estate taxes in 2006. And the American Farm Bureau, a member of the anti-estate tax coalition, was unable in 2001 to cite a single example of a family being forced to sell its farm because of estate tax liability – and that was back when the exemption level was only a fraction of what it is today.

[Vegas Roller]

20. That proves nothing

Even if he got $2800 from every billionaire, his average will at most go up to $19.50

It is just an empty talking point like the entire BS campaign.

[Uncle Joe]

23. Do you believe campaign contributions are the only way a billionaire can influence both

public opinion and politicians in office?

[Vegas Roller]

24. You can't have it both ways

Either their contributions are significant or they are not.

On one hand you are saying Bernie not having any billionaire contributions is highly significant. On the other hand you're saying they would exert influence whether they contribute or not.

It is empty rhetoric that doesn't compute.

[Uncle Joe]

25. Their campaign contributions are only significant insofar as a gauge

as to where their interests are.

It's not 100% but it isn't insignificant.

[George II]

33. Why would billionaires exert their money and influence on the campaigns of more progressive....

....candidates and not Sanders?

Here are the top Senators' progressive rankings (according to Progressive Punch):

1 Warren, Elizabeth
2 Markey, Ed
3 Harris, Kamala
4 Gillibrand, Kirsten
5 Merkley, Jeff
6 Booker, Cory
7 Sanders, Bernie

Two mentioned in the OP (Harris and Booker) are ranked higher than Sanders. So if they're doing so for them, it would make sense that they're exerting their money and influence on Sanders' campaign, inasmuch as he's closer to them ideologically than the two they're supporting.

[George II]

28. I agree, I don't think that. So why do you think they're doing it for other candidates.....

...(undocumented, of course) but not for Sanders?

Ever hear of Citizens United?

[Blue_true]

34. Your OP was on donations. But you seem to be trying to jump to other stuff like

lobbying. There are progressive lobbies that lobby Congress on behalf of everyday Americans. Maybe a good OP would be pointing them out and encouraging people to contribute money to them.

[LanternWaste]

46. I dig how you move the goalposts so deftly...

...from simple donations to the greater issue of lobbying and influence.

I get it, though; the premise of the former was undercut rather quickly so an entirely new angle was necessary to maintain the pretense of a higher moral platform.

[George II]

37. Even if he was offered the maximum $2800 from every billionaire in the country....

...(estimates have been 500 to 600, let's use 550) that would be only $1,540,000. Considering that if he stays in to the end he'll receive $250M, he's rejecting 0.6% (less than one percent) of his total take. Not a huge sacrifice - he had to give back more than that in his last campaign.

[sheshe2]

29. You know this how?

Not a single billionaire to date has donated to Sen. Bernie Sanders' run for the 2020 Democratic nomination, according to a new analysis, making him unique among primary frontrunners.

Because analysis told you so?

[George II]

38. Funny thing, the article says this:

"Tognini's reporting is based on FEC data through August 1", but FEC data is only available through June 30 - candidates file their financials quarterly. The next due date is September 30.

No one other than the actual campaigns (not the FEC) knows what has been contributed between July 1 and August 1.

[sheshe2]

39. shazam

Thank you George!

[questionseverything]

27. heck i hope a couple of them are...then maybe all of us can have healthcare!!!!

instead of the few

[Blue_true]

32. Bingo. nt

[blm]

5. Omg! Elizabeth Warren dropped out?

[Uncle Joe]

6. No, Elizabeth got two of them.

[Blue_true]

36. Do you mind explaining why that is a bad thing?

Do you know anything about the history and past activism of those billionaires? To just throw something like that out as red meat is not right.

[sheshe2]

40. Two of what?

Billionaires?

Link please.

[Agschmid]

48. The link is below, I would note one of Warrens was an Obama cabinet member...

So clearly she is evil 🦹‍♀️ - Susan Pritzker

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2019/08/05/here-are-the-democratic-presidential-candidates-with-the-most-donations-from-billionaires/#1be2451e4c15

[Tarc]

9. Gotta bean-count wherever possible, I guess.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Sometimes it pays to count your beans.

[Vegas Roller]

22. Fi fi fo fum

I smell the blood of a billionaire.

[OilemFirchen]

18. ... yet. (n/t)

[Uncle Joe]

21. That's true.

[SidDithers]

30. commondreams...nt

Sid

[Blue_true]

31. Truly a meaningless piece of trivia.

There are many very good rich people out there. Maybe the concern should be the character of the person the money comes from.

When I contribute to a candidate (always democrats), I do so expecting nothing in return. I don't even respond when their staff ask for opinions. Most people who contribute are like me.

[Agschmid]

49. Yup.

[BootinUp]

41. I noticed there's a lot of non-billionaires who

Aren’t backing him either.

[Amimnoch]

42. Don't care at all.

With what’s at stake it’s absolutely foolish for any candidate to refuse funding from legal sources thus harming their own chances and the chances of the party to prevail against this fascist shift our country is taking.

The whole notion that candidates are “bought and paid” for as a result of campaign support is absurd in the very least, excepting those few instances where there is evidence of quid pro quo as a result.

I think it’s more telling of the very flawed personal character of those who do have such low esteem of the integrity of the majority of our candidate base than it is of the character of our candidate base itself.

If it’s legal, and there’s no evidence of quid pro quo, then the disgusting insinuation and condemnation is absurd. Period.

I refuse to question the character of any candidate that accepts legal and transparent funding, without any indication or evidence of quid pro quo, and will not allow my support be swayed by such ridiculous notions.

[SouthernProgressive]

50. Maybe Tim Ryan should be at the top of your list. Or Castro.

None have received donations from a billionaire.

Another interesting point, for the most part, both of those I mentioned are polling about the same distance from Sanders as Sanders is to Biden.