Bernie Sanders accepted pharma executives' donations prior to new pledge

[George II]

(ABC News) By SOO RIN KIM, ADAM KELSEYandLISSETTE RODRIGUEZ Jul 17, 2019, 5:06 PM ET

Bernie Sanders called on his fellow Democratic presidential candidates Wednesday to reject donations from health insurance and pharmaceutical industry executives during what was labeled as a "major address" in Washington, D.C., but an ABC News review of FEC records earlier in the day found that Sanders himself accepted some of the same types of donations earlier in the campaign cycle.

As part of Sanders' "No Health Insurance and Pharma Money Pledge," which his campaign previewed in a press release Wednesday morning ahead of the "Medicare for All" speech he delivered later in the day, the senator promised "to not take contributions from the health insurance or pharmaceutical industry."

The pledge specifically identifies "contributions over $200 from the PACs, lobbyists, or executives of health insurance or pharmaceutical companies," excluding what it terms "rank-and-file workers employed by pharmaceutical giants and health insurance companies." It additionally provides a list of "companies covered by the pledge," which are members of the America’s Health Insurance Plans association and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America group.

In a review of Sanders' publicly available campaign donation information, ABC News identified at least three contributions of more than $200 from two individual donors who could be considered executives at companies included on the list.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-accepted-pharma-executives-donations-prior-pledge/story?id=64390750

Lynn McRoy (VP, Pfizer) - $500, $250, $100, and $70
Schiffon Wong (Executive Director, EMD Serono) - $1000

[murielm99]

1. Good to know.

Thanks.

[Cha]

2. Good to know. What's up with that, BS?

[Tiggeroshii]

10. According to the article he is returning the .008% of the funds that came from these execs.

Hope all the other candidates can be willing to return all funds received from pharmaceutical execs as well.

[Cha]

17. Well, he'd have to, wouldn't he?..

[bluewater]

19. Why would they spread such an obvious smear attempt? ABC News should be ashamed.

Did they think we couldn't do the math or something?

$2700 / $40,000,000 x 100 = 0.00675% of the total funds raised.


"This pledge was launched today with our full knowledge that some money may need to be returned," Sanders campaign spokesperson Sarah Ford told ABC News. "We're glad to donate the three donations worth $2700 out of nearly $40 million received since launch."

ABC News fell flat on their corporate media face on this smear attempt, eh?

[Tiggeroshii]

23. The article is basically a right wing talking point.

[ehrnst]

51. Why, because it's factual? (nt)

[LanternWaste]

62. If it doesn't make the sacred cow look great, it's obviously a RW talking point.

[ehrnst]

50. Why is treating him the same as any other candidate "an obvious smear attempt?"

[ehrnst]

57. The "corporate media".... you mean like CNN? or CBS?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207856

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207639

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207612

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207609

or RealClearPolitics?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287206204

Or MSM?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287205961

Or CNBC?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287205862

or MassLive?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287204430

What separates "bad corporate media" from "factual corporate media?"

Lemme guess...

[ehrnst]

52. So it's not 'principle' of refusing money from corp execs... it's the % of one's total donations

that makes it wrong.

When did that change?

[bluewater]

3. $2,700 out of nearly $40,000,000 needs to be returned to be consistent. Nice try at a smear, ABCNews

"This pledge was launched today with our full knowledge that some money may need to be returned," Sanders campaign spokesperson Sarah Ford told ABC News. "We're glad to donate the three donations worth $2700 out of nearly $40 million received since launch."

Okie Dokie. $2,700 out of nearly $40,000,000 needs to be returned to be consistent.

Nice try, ABC News. Gotta love the corporate media, eh?

[George II]

4. It doesn't need to be returned. But one would think that one would examine his own receipts....

....prior to making demands of others. No other candidates are making similar demands of his/her opponents that I've seen.

[bluewater]

5. $2700 / $40,000,000 x 100 equals 0.0068 % of the money raised. What weak sauce! lol

The ABC News smear attempt is weak sauce.

lol $2,700 out of neary FORTY MILLION DOLLARS is what percentage? lol

Lets do the math..

$2700 / $40,000,000 x 100 = 0.0068 % of the money raised.



Man, ABC News really had to dig deep to come up with THAT smear attempt, eh?

[George II]

26. Do any of us know where the $27,833,630 of "unitemized individual contributions" came from?

[Blue_true]

29. Bernie is using that ploy again? Simply amazing, nothing has changed. nt

[ehrnst]

46. That hasn't been answered, has it....

[George II]

56. Nope. We don't know where about 80% came from.

[ehrnst]

45. So why even bother to give it back?

If, as you say, it's not a violation of the principle of refusing to accept corporate donations - buecause it doesn't really "count" as a corporate executive donation unless it's over a specific %. At least for Senator Sanders.

I guess it's always different for Senator Sanders.

[awesomerwb1]

59. Maybe if you post this 10 more times

your point would come across better.

[LanternWaste]

63. Right. It's never the actual principle, merely the degrees of difference

Right. It's never the actual principle, merely the degrees of difference that allow us plausible deniability.

That's how we rationalize our sacred cows as sacred.

[HerbChestnut]

6. They knew about the $2,700. Hence the statement above.

And really, $2,700 out of $40,000,000. Come on. You're better than this, George.

[bluewater]

7. It's 0.0068 % of the funds raised. lol

ABC News smear attempt, plain and simple.

[Tiggeroshii]

12. That is all this is indeed. Sad to see.

[bluewater]

14. This ABC News smear attempt is laughable.

Just shows how low the corporate media will sink, eh?

[Tiggeroshii]

15. There are no limits to what crap the corporate media will try and sell...

Absolute contribed garbage

[ehrnst]

53. Because they treat Bernie like any other candidate? That's a smear?

Why is that?

Why do different rules apply if it's Senator Sanders?

That's something that Trump supporters believe about Trump...

[Cha]

8. Yeah, BS should pay more attention to his

own campaign and not worry about other Candidates who are doing better than he is.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[sheshe2]

21. Is there an actual breakdown of who received what?

It almost seems to me that it is implied that Dems split that $40 million. Pretty sure Repukes got the lions share.

Also pledges obviously aren't worth the paper they were written on. See the unity pledge.

[ehrnst]

44. "The corporate media." Is that like the "fake news" that Trump talks about

when the "enemy of the people" prints things he doesn't want to read?

Sounds very much like a right wing talking point.

[ehrnst]

58. "Gotta love the corporate media, eh?" Looks like somebody certainly does...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207856

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207639

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207612

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207609

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287206204

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287205961

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287205862

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287204430

[Eric J in MN]

9. Which he'll return. NT

NT

[betsuni]

11. Why is Bernie obsessed with the idea that if a candidate receives more than $200

from someone working for a corporation they must be hopelessly corrupt?

"Enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly."

[eilen]

13. Campaigns cost money, they are expensive

I would not make such a pledge.

[mcar]

16. OK for me but not for thee

[Voltaire2]

18. The campaign already identified the three donations that will be returned.

So it is not ok for anyone. Unless of course you want your candidate to take donations from the private health insurance industry and big pharma. But why would you want that?

[George II]

32. But that's the problem - there were FIVE contributions from "big pharma", not three.....

....why not the other two?

Why? Because they were under $200, which goes to the idea of "give me small contributions". His "pledge" is to not accept any OVER $200. So someone in "big pharma" can give 14 contributions of $199, which won't violate the pledge. That's a total of $2,786, just below the $2,800 maximum, and none of them exceeds HIS limit of $200.

Slick.

[ehrnst]

38. What if a candidate was saying that other candidates taking those donations were "corporatist"

while they were taking them?

Why would you want to vote for someone like that? Even after being outed, and them giving them back after the fact.

[NurseJackie]

20. The more you know...

[SouthernProgressive]

22. Who cares.

The problem is the manner in which Sanders did this in the first place.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended, good for Bernie.

Thanks for the thread George.

[ehrnst]

39. Of course, good for Bernie!

He returned some of those donations after a news organization found out about them and reported it!

[SidDithers]

25. Of course he did...

Thread about his challenge to other candidates from earlier this week:


Bernie Sanders to 2020 Democrats: Reject private insurance and pharma donations



Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Brings to mind the old saying....."Do as I say, not as I do". n/t

[George II]

28. Yeahbut, it wasn't much!

[ehrnst]

55. Apparently the "principle" of not accepting any money from Corporate Execs

is different for Senator Sanders.

In his case, it doesn't apply if it's under a certain % of donations...

[Eric J in MN]

30. If someone says, 'I quit cigarettes'

...do you call that person a hypocrite for having smoked?

[Tarheel_Dem]

33. Whaaat?

[ehrnst]

37. If they were saying that other smokers were unethical and corporatist whilst they were smoking

while calling themselves the only ethical and non-corporatist one of the bunch, well, yes.

[Eric J in MN]

60. The way Elizabeth Warren did Big Dollar fundraisers last year

...but now criticizes Joe Biden for doing Big Dollar fundraisers.

===
“In the first 24 hours of his presidential campaign (welcome to the race!), Joe Biden raised $6.3 million,” Warren wrote. “How did Joe Biden raise so much money in one day? Well, it helps that he hosted a swanky private fundraiser for wealthy donors at the home of the guy who runs Comcast's lobbying shop.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/440917-warren-swipes-at-biden-for-swanky-private-fundraiser
===

[ehrnst]

61. Um... first off, a quick check of a calendar shows that "April" isn't "now,"

And Warren stated that she would not be holding any more such Primary fundraisers as of Februrary...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-donors-fundraising.html

“That means no fancy receptions or big money fund-raisers only with people who can write the big checks,” Ms. Warren said in a morning email to supporters. “It means that wealthy donors won’t be able to purchase better seats or one-on-one time with me at our events. And it means I won’t be doing ‘call time,’ which is when candidates take hours to call wealthy donors to ask for their support.”

Also, you may want to avoid this in the future:

Whataboutery:

the practice of responding to a difficult question or problem by raising another difficult question or problem, in order to move attention away from the original question

[Gothmog]

31. From my twitter feed

Link to tweet

[Cha]

34. Thanks, Goth

[Vegas Roller]

35. Oh. My. God.

More evidence of hypocrisy.

[ehrnst]

36. Well of course if Bernie did it, it must have been completely above board.

Anyone else, however....

[aidbo]

40. Y'all are desperate to make Bernie look bad!

[ehrnst]

41. By Y'all, do you mean ABC news? (nt)

[aidbo]

42. Them too!

[ehrnst]

43. Who else, and why would reporting on Bernie's donations be "desperate to make Bernie look bad?"

Is he exempt from being treated like any other POTUS candidate is by the press?

[aidbo]

47. The desperation is in implying that there is anything bad about him returning..

..a tiny fraction of his donations because they were made prior to his pledge not to take them.

[ehrnst]

48. Where does ABC news "imply" that "returning the donations was bad?"

Who else here said that him returning the donations "is bad? Why would ABC or anyone on this thread be "desperate" to "make him look bad?"



It seems that you are seeing things that are not there. Why do you think that is?

Why do you think they should treat Sanders differently than say, Cory Booker?

[George II]

54. Accepting contributions like that, regardless of the magnitude, and then demanding everyone else....

...refuse such contributions is making himself look bad.

[George II]

49. Did he accept money from pharmaceutical executives? Yes. Did he demand that all the other...

....candidates refuse such money? Yes.

[aidbo]

64. Is he giving the money back? Yes.

[George II]

65. AFTER it was revealed that he accepted it and AFTER he insisted others not accept any.

[aidbo]

66. Your desperation to make this a thing is amusing.

[Cha]

67. It's not anyone else who

makes BS "look bad".