Sanders' Shifting Stance on Super PACs

[George II]

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783

Sanders' Shifting Stance on Super PACs

By PAUL HEINTZ @PAULHEINTZ

Few things differentiate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from his presidential rivals more than his aversion to super PACs — or so he'd like you to think.

The Vermont independent can barely get through a speech or a campaign email without denouncing his opponents for relying upon unlimited contributions to the quasi-independent fundraising entities.

"I don't have a super PAC," he wrote supporters last week. "I don't go to fundraisers where millionaires sit around the room and say, here's $5 million for your super PAC. That's not my life."

No kidding! Hard to imagine too many rich capitalists jonesing to donate to this wealth-redistributing democratic socialist.

But Sanders hasn't always ruled out super PAC support. And, like many of his foes, he's likely to get a little help from a super PAC run by a friend and former campaign aide.

When Sanders last ran for reelection, in 2012, then-Seven Days political columnist Andy Bromage asked if he'd "ever accept help from a super PAC."

"I certainly would prefer not to," Sanders responded, calling it "a hypothetical question."

"But we can chat about it if, six months from now, many, many millions of dollars are coming in attacking me," he said in the February 2012 interview.

"If it was a last resort?" Bromage pressed.

"That's something we would look at," Sanders said, adding that he hoped he wouldn't have to.

Ah. So the senator opposes super PACs unless they're necessary to win?

But Sanders isn't being entirely straight when he says he doesn't have a super PAC. By law, such entities can't directly coordinate with the candidates they back, so many are run by close confidantes and former aides well acquainted with the candidates' strategy and message.

Such is the case with Collective Actions PAC, which is operated by Rep. Chris Pearson (P-Burlington), who previously served as Sanders' campaign coordinator and press assistant. Founded in January 2014 as Draft Bernie, the PAC maintains the Run Bernie Run Facebook and Twitter accounts and, according to its website, plans to invest in online advertising.

more.......

[djean111]

1. That's okay. Whatever it takes.

This is me, not being a Purist!

[hootinholler]

2. Nice to hear from camp weathervane

[immoderate]

3. You call that "stance shifting??"

Is it serious?

--imm

[BainsBane]

6. You prefer "evolving"?

[virtualobserver]

8. get back to me when he starts raising funds for that SuperPAC.

Hillary is raising funds for her SuperPAC.

Bernie has said that he wants nothing to do with that.


People who support Bernie are not likely to come within a million miles of hitting the $2700 for direct donations.

[BainsBane]

10. That is not what the article says

He has key staffers, current and former, running those PACs and Super PACS.

Elon Musk, Bill Maher, Ben and Jerry, and the other rich people who support Sanders have, i'm sure, already hit that number. I'm pretty sure his supporters skew more affluent than Clinton's.

[virtualobserver]

15. Nonsense, the article does not say "He has key staffers, current and former,.....

.....running those PACs and Super PACS. "

One PAC, started by a former staffer....that's what it says.

The article states that Bernie does not raise funds for this PAC. They are an independent PAC.

Hillary does raise funds for her Super PAC. Not very independent in actual practice.

[BainsBane]

30. That article discusses one Super Pac run by a former staffer

This discusses a PAC run by his current field director. That PAC was fined for violating the already, exceedingly meager reporting requirements required by law. http://www.timesargus.com/article/20150704/NEWS03/707049936

Bernie said he wouldn't "take money from Super PACS." No candidate takes money from Super PAC. He knows the law and his counting on his supporters not knowing it. The FEC lists a slew of PACs and Super PACs for Bernie, under Bernie, Sanders, and Bernard Sanders. Here are two: 1) Bet on Bernie 2016 http://www.pledgesanders2016.com/
Billionaires for Bernie. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/

Those Super PACS are raising and spending money on Bernie's behalf, and now it turns out one is run by a former staffer. He's full of talk but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. He's not a fucking revolution. He's a politician who tells people what they want to hear.


Yes, Hillary raises money for the PACS. She doesn't tell her followers she is above it all. She abides by the law as currently written and proposes what needs to be done to change the law. Bernie raises money every time he speaks, when he appears on Bill Maher and meets with his Hollywood supporters. He didn't come to Minneapolis because weren't an early voting state. He must have come for donation reasons. There would be no other point.

Candidates--all candidates--have to raise money under the current system. The difference is that Clinton doesn't pretend she is special for following the law. She just follows it. And her authorized PAC actually filed their campaign forms according to legal requirements, unlike Bernie's authorized PAC.

[virtualobserver]

32. The PAC run by his current field director is just that....It is not a SuperPAC

Bernie is not against PACS.

I'm sorry but anyone can start a SuperPAC, they are independent.
Unless Hillary raises funds for a SuperPAC, which she does

We will see how much money these SuperPACS raise.
I guess we will find out if Hillary is beholden to Lloyd Blankfein, or if Ben and Jerry will be able to influence upcoming ice cream legislation.

[bvar22]

17. They don't ask for Bernie's permission,

and he doesn't actively fund raise for those American individuals who wish to contribute to his campaign through Maher's Pac or any other. Believe it or not, Bernie is not responsible for every American's decisions and behaviors.

I could start a Super Pac today for Bernie without his knowledge or permission.
So far, my Super Pac has $5.00.

[DanTex]

4. Hmm. So are the Bernistas going to abandon their saviour now?

Or are they going to stop bashing Hillary for having Super PACs supporting her?

My guess is that they are so inured to hypocrisy that they just keep doing the same thing. All the way up to the point where he concedes the nomination. And then they'll wonder how he could possibly have lost.

[Big Vincenz]

9. OK, Hillarite.

[JaneyVee]

11. How about Sandroid?

Thumbs up or thumbs down?

[BainsBane]

14. .

[NanceGreggs]

23. Works for me!!!! n/t

[Spazito]

43. Bye bye, troll...

You trolled poorly, very poorly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=324893&sub=trans

[virtualobserver]

18. Get back with us if he ever starts raising funds for that SuperPAC....

like Hillary does with hers.

[arcane1]

26. I can never get enough of the mature name-calling and hyperbole.

Middle School Underground should be the new name

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. Nnnnnnope and nnnnnnope.

[BainsBane]

5. I think the Super PAC claims

are concerning. People site them over and over again because Sanders pronouncement depends on their not knowing campaign finance law. But then we find out he has aides running PACs and Super PACs. Why then should I believe what he says?

At least Clinton doesn't pretend to be holier than thou. She's a pol, and she doesn't pretend to be a revolutionary. She also doesn't promise the moon. I don't trust that either.

[bvar22]

19. Is you post factually correct?

No.
Those weren't aides.
Those were former aids.

I don't take responsibility for my former employees actions.
Do you?

[arcane1]

27. Your concern is noted n/t

[BainsBane]

31. Your lack of concern is noted. nt

[BooScout]

7. I smell a hypocrite....

...and his name is Bernie.

[Sheepshank]

12. Sanders seems to understand something his followers are attempting to ignore

campaign money will make a difference...a huge difference in not just getting the word out, but also in defending ones self.

[portlander23]

13. Mr. Sanders has been consistent in questioning whether any candidate can prevail without the billionaires

Mr. Sanders has been very circumspect with regard to denouncing Mrs. Clinton’s super pac and her raising large money donations from industry.

“I understand where she is coming from. [But] I will not have a super PAC,” Sanders, who last month launched a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “...I don't think we're going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kinds of money that we need to run a strong and winning campaign.”

Although Sanders did not criticize Clinton about her tacit support for an allied super PAC, about which The Washington Post’s Matea Gold reported last week, he nonetheless stressed — without naming names — his belief that the American political system gives outsize influence to millionaires and billionaires. He said a central consideration for Supreme Court nominees should be their position on the Citizens United decision.

As he stated in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, he’s not certain that it is possible to win a presidential election without the support of industry and the very wealthy:

“Here are my concerns … and it should be the concern of every American. Can somebody who is not a billionaire, who stands for working families, actually win an election into which billionaires are pouring millions of dollars?”

This is perhaps the most significant question of the current election. On this point, Mr. Sanders has been clear that he is not going to encourage super PACs nor is he going to seek funding from the billionaire class. He is also correct that it is an open question whether or not he can win with this strategy.

As other posters have pointed out, Mr. Sanders, nor Mrs. Clinton, can actually prevent anyone from setting up a super PAC. In fact, Collective Actions PAC is not the only PAC that has been announced with the goal of supporting Mr. Sanders:

… a super PAC called “Billionaires for Bernie” was filed Wednesday with the Federal Election Commission by Eric C. Jacobson, a Los Angeles public interest lawyer, to support Sanders’s presidential bid.

As things stand now, you cannot draw a direct line between large money interests that have contributed to Mr. Sander’s unaffiliated PACs or to his campaign and any campaign positions he has assumed, with perhaps the exception of labor unions. In contrast, Mrs. Clinton has encouraged PACs and has sought large money donations. Just as an example, you can draw a direct line between her large money contributors and her non-stance on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Mr. Sanders may reveal himself to be a hypocrite at some point in the future if he is found to be encouraging or coordinating with any of these PACs. At this point, he has been consistent. He has also refrained from criticizing Mrs. Clinton who obviously is not assuming the same strategy. It may be the case that Mrs. Clinton’s fundraising strategy is the only viable one given the influence of money in elections.

This article does not point out anything inconsistent or damaging to Mr. Sanders. Again, if he should change his strategy or his positions in response to large donations, then we should revisit this. If the goal of this post was to chasten supporters of Mr. Sanders, I don’t think it’s effective. On the contrary, it underlines the difficulty Mr. Sanders is assuming with his “pure” approach to fundraising, and highlights Mrs. Clinton’s unfavorable entanglements with donors to her campaign and unaffiliated PACs. If I were a supporter of Mrs. Clinton, I would not be eager to draw comparisons between the candidates on this issue.

The question is whether or not America has gone so far down the road to Oligarchy that any candidate can win without the corrupting influence of large-money donations from billionaires and corporate interests. If Mr. Sanders prevails, we’ll know the answer.

[George II]

16. "I will not have a super PAC" - In fact he DOES and he DID when he proclaimed that!

[bvar22]

20. Bernie has a Super Pac?

I can't find it.
Please tell me where it is so I can donate.

[George II]

25. Its in the article.

[bvar22]

33. Oh.

You mean the one run by FORMER staff members who are no longer involved in Bernie's staff?
Is there some legal limit imposed on American who want to start funding Pacs?

Is that an official Bernie PAC, because I only want to donate to the Official Bernie Pac that those in this thread claim to exist.

[portlander23]

29. Mr. Sanders has pledged not to accept the help of super PACs and he has not

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 10:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Mr. Sanders has pledged not to accept the support of super PACs or billionaires, and he has not. He has in no way coordinated with or encouraged the formation of any PACs, which can not be said of other candidates with the exception of Jill Stein and perhaps Martin O'Malley. As has been pointed out in this thread, he is not in control of any third party creating a PAC, and he has been consistent in denouncing any support from PACs.

Do PACs exist that intend to support Mr. Sanders? Yes.

Does Mr. Sanders have a PAC? No.

Does any candidate have a PAC? No.

Do other candidates encourage PACs and walk up to the legal line of coordinating with them? You bet.

Can one equate the existence of a pro-sanders PAC with Mr. Sanders encouraging a PAC or welcoming its support? Well, you have taken this position, and you're certainly free to continue to present it. I don't think anyone else has a misunderstanding of what Mr. Sanders' position is.

[George II]

36. He does have a PAC, "Progressive Voters of America PAC"

http://aattp.org/sen-bernie-sanders-pac-raising-money-progressive-southern-candidates/

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ PAC Raising Money for Progressive Southern Candidates

As long as Citizens United v. FEC is the law of the land, progressives should do all they can to make it work for their candidates. That is exactly what Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plans on doing through his PAC, Progressive Voters of America. His strategy includes fundraising for state-wide progressive prospects in some of the reddest of the red states. The senator’s first volley: “There is no shortage of billionaires willing to bankroll extreme right-wing candidates. We have to respond.”.................

[portlander23]

38. Leadership PAC vs Super PAC

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Progressive Voters of America is a leadership PAC that is affiliated with Mr. Sanders. This is not a Super PAC. Leadership PACs predate the existence of Super PACs and serve a different purpose. Leadership PACs cannot spend money for their affiliated politician's campaign; it can only be used to fund other candidates. This PAC was put together to cobble together funding for progressive candidates running in the South. By definition this group cannot spend money in support of Mr. Sanders short of paying for travel expenses. It can't run issue ads to influence elections. Money contributed to a politician's leadership PAC can be given to other candidates' campaigns.

Super PACs (a.k.a. independent expenditure-only committees) were created as a result of the Speechnow.org v. FEC and the Citizens United v. FEC cases in 2010. Super PACs are distinct from Leadership PACs in that they are prohibited from giving to any political campaign, but rather they can spend unlimited sums in advocacy for or against a candidate independently from any campaign.

Mr. Sanders has been consistent that he will not accept the assistance of any super PAC, recognizing that this puts him at a grave disadvantage in spending, but free from the influence of big-money interests.

If you want to argue that leadership PACs or any type of political action committees are sketchy, I'll grant you that, but conflating a leadership PAC with a Super PAC that can spend indiscriminately is either ignorant or dishonest.

In a recent interview with Vox, Mr. Sanders has stated support for publicly funded elections:

The first thing that I want to do is overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which is a total disaster. Free speech does not equal the ability of people to buy elections, and what I've said is if elected president of the United States, any Supreme Court nomination I make will make it very clear that he or she is going to vote to overturn Citizens United.

Second of all, I think what you want to do is at least make sure that candidates who are running will have as much money as their opponents, who may have unlimited sums of money. Thirdly, I think there are various ways — and we're going to come out with a position on it — various ways that you can approach the issue. One way which I find intriguing is that you basically provide $100 for every citizen in the United States of America, and you say to that person, "Here's your hundred bucks, you can make a contribution, you can get a $100 tax credit if you spend $100 on any candidate you want." I think that would democratize very significantly the political process in America and take us a long way away from these Super PACS controlled by billionaires who are now buying elections.

Mr. Sanders has also sponsored a bill to create constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and criminalize super PACs:

SECTION 1. Whereas the right to vote in public elections belongs only to natural persons as citizens of the
United States, so shall the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence the outcome of public elections belong only to natural persons in accordance with this Article.

SECTION 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to restrict the power of Congress and the States
to protect the integrity and fairness of the electoral process, limit the corrupting influence of private wealth in public elections, and guarantee the dependence of elected officials on the people alone by taking actions which may include the establishment of systems of public financing for elections, the imposition of requirements to ensure the disclosure of contributions and expenditures made to influence the outcome of a public election by candidates, individuals, and associations of individuals, and the imposition of content neutral limitations on all such contributions and expenditures.

SECTION 3. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to alter the freedom of the press.

SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the 2 power to enforce this Article through appropriate legislation.

A further explanation of this language can be found here.

While I prefer the Move to Amend language, there is no doubt that Mr. Sanders has been very consistent in his views regarding campaign finance and the corrupting influence of billionaires and large-money interests in the political process.

Again, if the goal of your post was to chasten supporters of Mr. Sanders or to paint him as a hypocrite, I don’t think it’s effective.

I don't know that she's supported any specific language, but Mrs. Clinton has recently backed an amendment to overturn Citizen's United. She's also echoed Mr. Sanders' assertion that any justice she would nominate to the Supreme Court would have to share the opinion that Citizen's United was a bad decision. I commend her for this, and it is my hope these statements reflect her convictions and not mere election season promises. I don't believe I've seen a source quoting support for publicly funded elections from Mrs. Clinton.

There is a key difference here in that Mrs. Clinton is not eschewing Super PACs nor large donations from powerful interests in her run for the White House.

Frankly, Mrs. Clinton may be right- it might not be possible for anyone to be elected president without accepting the corruption in the current campaign finance system. It may even be the case that her intention is to accept money from wealthy donors and dismantle the current system in spite of it. My assumption is that Mr. Sanders is more likely to live up to that role. That said, like Mr. Sanders, I will not condemn Mrs. Clinton for the existence of corruption that already exists in the system, but I can't pretend that accepting the support of super PACs and large donations from big-money interests does not give me pause. Money in politics is corruptive.

Mr. Sanders has made his position clear. He's running the campaign without Super PACs and without large-money donations. I hope it turns out that it is possible for a candidate to win the White House without those sources of funding.

[immoderate]

39. LOL!

--imm

[Armstead]

21. Oh this is so tiresome

So if Bernie gets realistic about the need to raise money, he's a hypocrite.

If he avoids any campaign contribution over $5, he's called an unrealistic ideologue who doesn't understand the political system.

Personally I'm totally comfortable with Bernie getting some donors with big bucks funding his campaign, or running Pacs. I'm also totally comfortable -- in concept -- with Hillary doing the same thing.

The issue is one of scale, focus and nature of the backers, and what they expect in return.

I feel a lot more comfortable with Ben and Jerry or some wealthy movie star contributing to his campaign because they believe in what he stands for. I feel a lot more nervous about Hillary going to the bigwigs at Goldman Sachs and other corrupt oligarchs and raising really big bucks in exchange for God-Knows-What atrocities they are looking for.

[bvar22]

24. Well Said!

It is clear that there are some unprincipled people trying everything they can to damage Sander's meteoric rise in the polls.

[bvar22]

22. Please go to the original link and read this piece.

I'll leave it up to you to determine what kind of piece this is.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783

[winter is coming]

28. I guess some folks can always be relied on to go for the cheap shot. n/t

[Babel_17]

34. Need to see a list of the the large donations from special interests, or even medium sized donations

Pretty sure that's what most people are hoping for in their candidates, and have found in Sanders, the lack of large donations signifying a cozy relationship with monied interests.

Perhaps a thread showing the comparisons between candidates would help define this issue. If anyone reading this has one handy, please post it. Thank you in advance.

[Not Sure]

35. Nah na-na boo-boo...

stick your head in doo doo.

Sorry about that. I was compelled to offer up something as substantive as the thesis from the OP's article.

[AtomicKitten]

37. How about 'splaining the BIG MONEY from Wall St., MIC, and polluters filling Clinton's coffers.

SuperPACs are tangential, or at least they are supposed to be. Clinton is coordinating with one of hers which is really emblematic of how she does business which is any goddamn way she feels like it regardless of the rules, regardless of protocol, regardless of the law. And some of your wonder why her candidacy is a no-go for many of us.

edited for link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

[Lil Missy]

40. OH MY GAWD! HIS CORRUPTION IS STAGGERING! OBVIOUSLY HE WILL CHEAT ON HIS COUNTRY!

[BooScout]

41. K&R