Will the Revolution Be Monetized? Bernie Sanders' 'Dark Money' Org

[lapucelle]

At a rally last week in Pittsburgh, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lampooned those who said during the 2016 presidential campaign that politicians must depend on "super PACs funded by billionaires" to win public office.

"We were told, 'Hey, Bernie, that's the way it's always been!'" he recalled to a chorus of boos. "'Don't you know that rich people are the people who control politics?'"

Sanders has decried the role of money in politics for much of his career — and, unlike his colleagues in Vermont's congressional delegation, he has mostly refused direct contributions from special-interest political action committees.

But as he ramps up his second bid for the presidency, Sanders is drawing support from a "dark money" nonprofit run by close associates and funded, in part, by anonymous six-figure contributions.

You can read the the rest here.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/will-the-revolution-be-monetized-bernie-sanders-dark-money-org/Content?oid=27314628

[Cha]

1. Well well well..

Say it ain't so!

Mahalo, lapucelle

[lapucelle]

2. Bernie Sanders's new political group won't have to disclose its donors

Our Revolution’s launch has been rocky. The New York Times reported that eight of the initial staff of 15 have resigned following the appointment of Jeff Weaver, who was in charge of Sanders’ presidential campaign, to run the group. The former organizing director, Claire Sandberg, specifically cited her fear that the group would “betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots-funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement.”

Weaver has pushed back against concerns that they would rely on wealthy donors, telling The Washington Post, “There’s no reaching out to the Koch Brothers or ExxonMobil. The truth of the matter is we’re going to rely primarily on small donations.”

But without releasing the identities of contributors, it’s hard for the public to know whether that really is true. A group that decries the influence of money in politics should know that donor disclosure matters. Even as a 501(c)(4), Our Revolution could set an example for other nonprofits that spend on elections and choose to reveal this crucial information. Without doing that, it’s just another dark money group.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/

[Cha]

5. How is that

"Transparency" that he demands from everyone else?

How is that not "elite"? And, all the other buzzwords?

Link to tweet

[BlueFlorida]

19. Bernie has peaked at 20-25%

He has to go negative to get any traction whatsoever. His tired message is not resonating. Electability is far far more important this time around that unicorn programs.

[Cha]

82. It's life or death..

[murielm99]

3. K&R

[LongtimeAZDem]

4. So, unless OR makes it's donor lists public, attacks on Biden's donors are moot.

[Cha]

6. Only fair.

[namahage]

11. Supposedly, they do.

https://ourrevolution.com/donors/

Because of our commitment to transparency, donors who have given $250 or more in a single year are disclosed voluntarily. In addition, annual contributions from a single source are limited to $5,000 unless approved by a majority vote of the Board of Directors.

The donor list provides names, but no information on amounts (other than they are $250 or greater). And a few donors in particular seem to invite interest:

Anonymous Anonymous
Downtown for Democracy

[ehrnst]

14. "Anonymous Anonymous" a donor name that just defines 'transparency." (nt)

[George II]

29. They don't give the amounts that each has contributed. Interestingly a quick rundown of the list...

....reveals that about 20% of their contributors also contributed to Sanders in the 1st quarter of 2019.

[Gothmog]

7. Our Revolution is a PAC

Last edited Fri May 3, 2019, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

[Skidmore]

8. Appears to be so.

Indefensible in light of all the lecturing of others, although I'd like to hear someone explain why this different.

[progressoid]

22. Technically it is a 501(c)(4)

[Gothmog]

23. This is the same structure used by Karl Rove

Rove’s dark money PACs are also 501(c)(4) entities

[progressoid]

31. And Stephen Colbert

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow

[namahage]

32. Crossroads GPS, anyone?

Surely, 501(c)(4)s have some troubling potential, as someone pointed out:

https://vtdigger.org/2016/08/22/sanders-new-group-exempt-campaign-finance-rules/

“Let’s talk about judgment,” Sanders said then. “Let’s talk about super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, money which is completely undisclosed. Where does the money come from? Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she’s going to bring change in America when she is so dependent on big-money interests? I don’t think so.”

But they're obviously above-board when they benefit certain people, amirite?

[ehrnst]

35. Interestingly, Rove's Crossroads GPS ran some anti-Hillary ads in some very targeted

markets, in very specific states, at very curious times during 2016.

It was almost like 2004 all over again...

In 2004, Republicans in several states helped Ralph Nader, then the Green Party candidate, in the hope that he would drive votes away from then-Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

That huge outlay of cash from Republican superpacs on attack ads to help certain non-republicans in the primaries certainly isn't requested by a candidate like Nader, but such a Candidate certanly would benefit - and those who build a brand on not accepting that money, can say that not a dollar of that filthy cash ever appeared in their campaign war chest. And nobody could ever offer any evidence that they altered their own spending on ads after seeing the effect these GOP funded ads were having in certain markets. NONE!

Even when their supporters start repeating the ads, and the "I don't take ANY corporate superpac money" candidate himself refuses to comment about the source of those ads, they could say that they remain completely above reproach.

[Cha]

89. Thank YOu!

[Gothmog]

90. Here are some facts

Link to tweet

[Cha]

91. Yeah, I always figured if

there was "deep diving" there would be all kinds of interesting things to be found..

Link to tweet

Mahalo, Goth!

[betsuni]

9. K&R

[pbmus]

10. The revolution will not be televised

[NastyRiffraff]

12. Oh dear oh dear

Bernie's halo is showing some tarnish.

[ehrnst]

13. "Status quo," I guess.

I'm sure that what Bernie is doing is TOTALLY different that those he raises money vilifying because REASONS.

According to Our Revolution's 2016 and 2017 IRS filings — the only ones the group has made available — it accepted four five-figure donations in its first two years from unnamed donors, including contributions worth $300,000 and $100,000 apiece. Both years, the organization raised about $3.4 million in total.

A spokesperson for Our Revolution, Diane May, refused to say who gave the big bucks. But when Beckel followed the bread crumbs to related FEC filings, he discovered that a super PAC operated by National Nurses United was responsible for the $300,000 donation. The union, which did not respond to a request for comment, had previously spent nearly $4.8 million on pro-Sanders advertisements during the 2016 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The $100,000 donation, as Politico first reported last fall, came from the Sixteen Thirty Fund — itself a shadowy 501c4 used by liberal donors to quietly move money to progressive causes.

Beth Kanter, a spokesperson for the fund, confirmed that it gave the money in order "to focus on consumer protection, financial regulation and defending the Affordable Care Act." She declined to identify the original source of the money.

[zaj]

15. I'm not championing Bernie, but.

I funny know if you can gain the power needed to fix the system without leveraging the system itself.

Billionaires bring power to the left too.

[Cha]

92. It's about Transparency.

[NYMinute]

16. I have always thought of Sanders as sneaky

and hypocritical.

He attacks the very things he engages in.

Our Revolution is a PAC and receives dark money donations which are not disclosed. The public has a right to know where this money is coming from and where it is going.

Saikat Chakarborti diverted about $800K for his own companies from a well-known campaign and he is also involved with Our Revolution.

Bernie should open up the books of Our Revolution or stop attacking other candidates for accepting PAC money. He should not have it both ways.

[BlueFlorida]

17. I agree with you

Bernie shouldn't have it both ways.

[SidDithers]

18. Wait. Isn't he Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) now?...

I thought he became a Democrat in order to run in the Democratic Presidential primary.



Sid

[lapucelle]

21. I'll be keeping my eyes on the Vermont newspapers.

They've been covering BS for decades and have no delusions concerning his tactics.

[TexasTowelie]

26. I saw the article last night and meant to post it, but got distracted.

Thanks for following up the article and posting it.

[Cha]

83. ..

[lapucelle]

84. Mahalo!

[Cha]

85. I thought of it because

of this.. Sorry!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=129099

[lapucelle]

86. The Revolution can be monitized in many ways, Cha.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287128591#post28

[Cha]

87. Oh yeah.. I have

no doubt

[lillypaddle]

20. K&R nt

[sheshe2]

24. Interesting reading, lapucelle.

Very interesting.

[CentralMass]

25. I need to time to read but it looks there are $$ from a Nurses Union and some progressive PAC with

The funds going to fight for progressive causes and candidates. My initial reaction is that this is the opposite of dark money. However i will read up on it more.

These people seem to have an axe to grind with thd Senator. However the founders of the acclaimed newspaper seem to be some very impressive women.

http://www.vermontguides.com/2000/10-oct/oct1.htm

[lapucelle]

27. It's the very definition of dark money.

501(c)(4): Also known as “dark money groups,” these make up some of the most relevant political nonprofits today. Technically deemed “social welfare organizations,” these groups can’t have political activity — such as making ads advocating for or against candidates — as their “primary purpose”; this has unofficially been interpreted to mean they must spend less than 50 percent of their activities on politics or elections. But they can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and organizations alike — without having to disclose who contributed that money. Here’s a disclosure form for Crossroads GPS, a conservative 501(c)(4) that spent more than $120 million on the 2012 elections — note the $22.5 million donation with no name attached. One thing to keep in mind when trying to track the political activity of these groups: (c)(4)s that spend money directly advocating for or against a candidate (an independent expenditure) or make electioneering communications must report that to the FEC.

Despite the unwritten rules, many 501(c)(4)s do engage in significant political activity, and since the Tea Party targeting scandal a few years ago, the IRS has been very timid about regulating this; in 2016, they are expressly forbidden from issuing new rules on political activity that would enable them to regulate it. To determine which activities constitute “social welfare,” the FEC has little guidelines and will only look at each case on an individual basis.

A common practice in the post-Citizens United world is to link a 501(c)(4) to an affiliated super PAC. This allows the super PAC to receive unlimited amounts of money without the true donor being revealed. They also can share staff and other resources, like American Bridge 21st Century and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, a liberal super PAC and its affiliated 501(c)(4), respectively.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/02/17/a-glossary-of-campaign-finance-in-the-u-s/#501(c)(4)

[CentralMass]

28. A Nursing Union and a Progressive PAC ?

Look at day one.
https://www.democracynow.org/2019/4/26/headlines/comcasts_top_lobbyist_holds_fundraiser_for_biden_in_philadelphia


As Comcast Lobbyist Hosts Biden’s First Fundraiser, Campaign Boasts of Support from “Top 1%”

"In other campaign news, Biden marked his first day on the campaign trail by attending a $2,800-per-person fundraiser in Philadelphia at the home of Comcast’s top lobbyist, David Cohen. Attendees included Daniel Hilferty, chief executive of Independence Blue Cross, the largest health insurer in the Philadelphia area. Senator Bernie Sanders criticized Biden for holding a fundraiser in the home of a corporate lobbyist. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, who co-hosted the Biden fundraiser, appeared on CNN this morning, and said the fundraiser attracted the top 1%."

[lapucelle]

30. Our Revolution

But without releasing the identities of contributors, it’s hard for the public to know whether that really is true. A group that decries the influence of money in politics should know that donor disclosure matters. Even as a 501(c)(4), Our Revolution could set an example for other nonprofits that spend on elections and choose to reveal this crucial information. Without doing that, it’s just another dark money group.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/

[CentralMass]

37. After rezding thae articld more i think that it a well written and honest article

That raises a valid concern.

Of note:
"Though Sanders orchestrated the launch of Our Revolution in 2016 and raised early money for it, he formally separated himself from it after critics raised concerns about the propriety of a sitting senator working so closely with a 501c4. According to Sanders spokesperson Arianna Jones, "the senator and his presidential campaign are not involved or coordinating" with it. She refused to say whether he found it appropriate for Our Revolution to accept undisclosed contributions and use them on his behalf.

Even if Sanders himself is walled off from the organization, its leaders are surely acquainted with his plans and goals. Its board consists entirely of 2016 supporters, surrogates and advisers, including Arab American Institute cofounder Jim Zogby, Texas political commentator Jim Hightower, the actress Shailene Woodley and former Sanders chief of staff Huck Gutman, one of the senator's best friends."

[namahage]

50. Yeah, I'm sure Sanders would not be involved with OR.

Interesting that "Bernie's running." pops up when you go to their site. What about all the other worthy progressives in the Presidential and other races?

His hiring of the president of OR as a co-chair of his campaign is, as well, probably just a curious coincidence.

[ehrnst]

33. We know who that donor is, at least.

With Our Revolution, not so much.

OR: "Financial Transparency! For everyone else! No need to know anything more, move along."

Several of the original staffers on OR quit when they found out that Jeff Weaver had set it up this way.

[lapucelle]

49. Yes, a nurses union.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=94206

[Hortensis]

88. Not the same. NNU is headed by some long-time activists

and Sanders supporters with a record of dirty politics, and that includes lying and disrupting, while cloaking themselves in the respectability of the nurses who belong to the union. The NNU was only formed a few years ago out of separate unions.

Making these very large donations through DARK MONEY routes keeps their members from knowing just how much of their money is going to him. Investigative journalists revealed it in 2016 by following the money.

Time Magazine did a series of articles about Sanders that discussed them in 2016.

And in 2019 for political reasons, specifically to keep it from functioning better, they oppose making needed improvements to the ACA, including improving coverages and lowering premiums. This, in spite of the reality that it would take several years after 2020 to pass and then fully implement MfA. Have their told their members, who tend to be very concerned about patient care, this?

[George II]

41. If a PAC participates in political activity but doesn't reveal the sources....

....of their contributions, that's dark money.

[lapucelle]

42. I'm curious as to how the number of donations factors in.

Can those numbers be spun?

[George II]

44. Some candidates like to blur the line between donor count and donation count, hoping...

...that the masses look at the larger number as representative of the number of supporters a candidate has.

[lapucelle]

45. Do you know anything about Good Jobs Nation's connection to Our Revolution? N/T

[George II]

46. My understanding is that there is a "dotted line" relationship between Our Revolution...

....and Good Jobs Nation, they share upper level officials. Also GJN is affiliated with the Sanders campaign.

Since you mentioned it, I just googled "good jobs nation our revolution" and see that Our Revolution is promoting a rally in Indianapolis with Good Jobs Nation and Sanders:

Bernie Sanders & Good Jobs Nation Rally on Jobs and the Economy - Indianapolis, Indiana

https://go.ourrevolution.com/page/event/detail/rally/wxt

They have a location but still no date or time.

[R B Garr]

56. Interesting, so Bernie is heavily involved in his groups

and is accepting their help. This hypocrisy is outrageous. Anonymous donors and dark money while criticizing other candidates is nothing but double standards and hypocrisy.

[George II]

60. It also may be a violation of Federal Law on the part of Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) committee...

They've filed as a "Social Welfare Organization". According to the IRS:

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.

This is the home page of their website, which is clearly directly participating in the political campaign on behalf of a candidate for public office:

[murielm99]

67. Breaking the law are we?

[George II]

68. Blatantly.

[R B Garr]

71. There is no excuse for this. It's intellectual dishonesty

at the very least, and if it’s against the law, it needs to be exposed. Great find, George! It’s like they think if they are accusing others, they don’t think anyone will question them.

[George II]

72. Even if it's not "against the law" (it probably is), it is proof that Sanders is accepting.....

....what is commonly called "dark money" - a group that does not disclose their contributors or magnitude of their contributions to the public is working for Sanders' campaign.

[R B Garr]

73. Yes. Good points, and another reason why we need to see

the FEC flags cleared from another campaign. Transparency, and it’s about time.

[lapucelle]

94. It is, by definition "dark money".

But as he ramps up his second bid for the presidency, Sanders is drawing support from a "dark money" nonprofit run by close associates and funded, in part, by anonymous six-figure contributions.

Our Revolution was organized as a dark money organization. Donors are not disclosed.

Bernie Sanders is back — kind of. A new group, Our Revolution, launched this week to continue the movement that his campaign started by raising and spending money to support “candidates in lockstep with Sanders’ ideals.” But it’s disappointing many who agreed with Sanders’ call for getting money out of politics because as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, the group would not be required to disclose its donors.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/

501(c)(4): Also known as “dark money groups,” these make up some of the most relevant political nonprofits today. Technically deemed “social welfare organizations,” these groups can’t have political activity — such as making ads advocating for or against candidates — as their “primary purpose”; this has unofficially been interpreted to mean they must spend less than 50 percent of their activities on politics or elections. But they can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and organizations alike — without having to disclose who contributed that money. Here’s a disclosure form for Crossroads GPS, a conservative 501(c)(4) that spent more than $120 million on the 2012 elections — note the $22.5 million donation with no name attached. One thing to keep in mind when trying to track the political activity of these groups: (c)(4)s that spend money directly advocating for or against a candidate (an independent expenditure) or make electioneering communications must report that to the FEC.

https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/02/17/a-glossary-of-campaign-finance-in-the-u-s/#501(c)(4)

From an August 2016 story in a different Vermont newspaper:

Sanders’ new group exempt from campaign finance rules

Sen. Bernie Sanders is building a political organization that will be able to avoid financial disclosure and influence policy from the shadows, a “dark money” strategy he has railed against for years, including on the presidential campaign trail.

The organization, called Our Revolution, will operate as a nonprofit 501(c)(4) — a designation that does not require disclosure of donors or spending because of its status as a social welfare organization. Political action committees, on the other hand, are under the authority and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Commission rather than the Internal Revenue Service, which oversees nonprofits.

snip=============================================

"]In recent years, 501(c)(4)s have been used by political interests to skirt disclosure rules while influencing public policy. While roughly $10 million was funneled into politics through 501(c)(4)s in the 2010 election, more than $50 million has flooded into the system this year, according to the Center For Responsive Politics.

Sanders frequently railed against this type of influence — often called “dark money” — during his presidential bid, including during a CNN debate in April when he questioned Clinton’s ties to such groups.

“Let’s talk about judgment,” Sanders said then. “Let’s talk about super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, money which is completely undisclosed. Where does the money come from? Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she’s going to bring change in America when she is so dependent on big-money interests? I don’t think so.”

The danger, according to Sanders, is that even though the money from a 501(c)(4) cannot be used to promote a particular candidate, the groups can produce “issue ads” to attack an opponent or influence legislation.

https://vtdigger.org/2016/08/22/sanders-new-group-exempt-campaign-finance-rules/

[mcar]

34. What?

This deserves much more scrutiny.

[UniteFightBack]

36. Hasn't it already been monetized with those stellar book sales? I'm surprised Bernie didn't put

out his book for free online.

[bloom]

38. It's hard tellin' how much the 'free' help that Bernie got from Russia was worth.

He may say he was able to run his campaign based on only small donations (in 2016) - but I wouldn't assume so.

[Cha]

39. Time to kick this with

all the concern about Biden getting donations from David L Cohen.

At least we know where it's coming from

[Gothmog]

40. Our Revolution is a dark money PAC

Link to tweet

[brer cat]

43. Informative read.

Thanks for posting, lapucelle.

[Hortensis]

47. It seemed strange to me that National Nurses United would

support with SO much money a farther-leftist candidate like Bernie Sanders with a long record of hostility toward the Democratic Party, the party that gave them the ACA. Yes, some support, but that much to one candidate whose no-achievement record from the very beginning caused virtually all other large donors to refuse to fund his campaign? Nurses tend to be stable, sensible, dependable. The size of the donations just seemed strange, inappropriately large.

All the healthcare workers I've ever chatted with, and there have been a fair number over the years, have been supporters of the ACA, usually strong. They'd be glad of further advances beyond that initial giant one, of course, but I never caught a whiff of the contempt and rejection Sanders' noisier supporters have for the ACA.

Well, the obvious guess why appears to be correct: Similar ideology in the organization's leadership. The NNU was formed by uniting several nurses' groups, and its executive director is Bonnie Castillo, who until 1991 was a member of the Communist Party. No crime in that, of course, and she's an activist who's done a lot of good work, including leading a strong union in an anti-union era. But it does suggest how the organization's donations came to be channeled in a direction that is most likely far more reflective of her ideology than of the large body of its members.

And the other officers, Deborah Burger, Zenei Cortez, and Jean Ross, are similarly farther-left oriented, noting that these are all women of impressive accomplishment. It explains why they strongly support Sanders' version of Medicare for All, in spite of the grim prognosis for both successfully passing something that extreme into law and not having it struck down by the courts, including by the conservative majority on SCOTUS. That is somewhat out of the norm because nurses overall tend to be committed to protecting, not just expanding, patient care. Also, large numbers of nurses are conservative; there are plenty of Republicans and Trump supporters among them in spite of everything.

They actively worked to elect Sanders and participated in farther-left activities in other ways. Okay.

Revealingly, and shockingly to me, though, last month they joined Sanders in refusing to support the Democratic house bill to protect the ACA from Trump's newest attempts to dismantle and to expand and shore up coverages and reduce premiums. The reason was that a better ACA might weaken political support for the Sanders' version of the MfA, which at best wouldn't be passed for another 3 years or so and couldn't be fully implemented for another 7 years. How many years do they intend to hurt people and even patients by opposing improving coverages and care through the ACA when we can?

Btw, they also positioned themselves on the side of the Sanders delegates against Nevada's Democratic Party after disruptions by Sanders delegates rising to rioting at the NV state convention, publishing an account of grievances that was both contradicted and otherwise not supported by investigative media reports at the time and that completely failed to mention any of a long list of egregious, even potentially criminal behaviors by some Sanders delegates.

So, in any case, there's some insight into how the NNU's extra-big money support for a candidate overall much farther to the left than their membership came about, and very likely continues.

[lapucelle]

48. This deserves its own OP.

It needs to be explained and discussed at length.

Thank you for your insight.

[Hortensis]

52. Also worth repeating that these were given as dark-money

donations. Who were the executives of NNU hiding them from?

[Cha]

70. Thank YOu, Hortensis!

[nycbos]

51. I am shocked SHOCKED to find gambling on here.

[namahage]

53. Bernie, April 2016:

https://vtdigger.org/2016/08/22/sanders-new-group-exempt-campaign-finance-rules/

“Let’s talk about judgment,” Sanders said then. “Let’s talk about super PACs and 501(c)(4)s, money which is completely undisclosed. Where does the money come from?

Bernie, August 2016:

Sen. Bernie Sanders is building a political organization that will be able to avoid financial disclosure and influence policy from the shadows, a “dark money” strategy he has railed against for years, including on the presidential campaign trail.

The organization, called Our Revolution, will operate as a nonprofit 501(c)(4) — a designation that does not require disclosure of donors or spending because of its status as a social welfare organization. Political action committees, on the other hand, are under the authority and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Commission rather than the Internal Revenue Service, which oversees nonprofits.

Sanders outlined the group’s charter in a July interview with USA Today. He also outlined the formation of two organizations in addition to Our Revolution. The other two are The Sanders Institute — which will focus on policy research and education — and a yet-unnamed organization that may focus on helping candidates craft media strategy.

[LongtimeAZDem]

54. Hypocrisy indeed

[George II]

57. Seems like we may have a problem here:

501(c)(4)

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6.


Our Revolution Home Page:

https://ourrevolution.com/



Click on the red bar across his chest:

https://go.ourrevolution.com/page/s/join-the-volunteer-army-ready-for-bernie-in-2020/?source=ws190219

[Skidmore]

59. k&r

for transparency

[Gothmog]

61. This is illegal-PACs cannot coordinate with campaigns

[Cha]

63. OMG.. are you still willing to "talk"

about it, BS?

Thank You, namahage

[Me.]

55. Not Walking One's Talk

[Cha]

64. No Kidding!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=94401

Link to tweet

[Me.]

66. ...

AlohaHoa

[BlueFlorida]

58. kick nt

[Cha]

62. "I find this whole virtue signaling around corporate donations and no PACs to be ridiculous as.."

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

77. Sanders Struggles to Retain Outsider Status

This is interesting https://politicalwire.com/2019/05/13/sanders-struggles-to-retain-outsider-status/

“Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator who came up through that state’s democratic socialist party, launched his insurgent campaign for president four years ago as an outsider challenging the Democratic machine.”

“Now, in this early stage of the 2020 presidential race, Mr. Sanders is a Democratic front-runner and newly minted millionaire, with high name recognition and $18 million raised in the first six weeks of his campaign, so far outpacing his rivals. His campaign today has the trappings of the very establishment he eschews, making it a challenge to set himself apart in a wide field of Democrats, including some who have sought to emulate his previous run.”

[Scurrilous]

65. ...

[Cha]

69. K

[ecstatic]

74. But IOIBDI

It's OK if Bernie does it. He and he alone is the decider on what's acceptable and not acceptable.

[Gothmog]

75. Deep dive into how Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign is benefitting from political infrastructure

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[George II]

79. So, in other words, he DOES accept money from Super PACs and organizations accepting "dark money".

[Gothmog]

80. Yep

Link to tweet

[samnsara]

76. im still trying to figure out what 'our revolution' is about

[revmclaren]

78. K & R .

This really needs to be investigated.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Cha]

81. Bernie Sanders, a Front-Runner With Financing to Prove It, Struggles to Retain Outsider Status

Link to tweet

[LibFarmer]

93. Lots of dark money in those PACs

Some of it in rubles