A really good Twitter thread explaining how stupid the fundraising fight is

[Recursion]

Link to tweet

?s=20

Really worth reading.

The dishonesty about this subject infuriates me, particularly crap like candidates "pledging" not to take money from SuperPACs, which is illegal to begin with.

[betsuni]

1. Perfect.

[Sloumeau]

2. recursion, I just posted a link to this post in the Biden2020 Forum

Thank you so much for this posting. That tweetstorm by Old Lady Dem is amazing!

[Recursion]

3. Oh glad to hear that

And, yeah, this is a great set of Tweets. People get so worked up about campaign finance and don't bother to learn how it actually works.

[KitSileya]

4. Another important point in the thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/oldladydem/status/1209165772666417152

It's about down ticket races too - A President Sanders would be unable to do anything if Congress turns red, and if the repukes get 34 state legislatures and the governorships in those same states, they could literally change the Constitution. If Senator Sanders thinks that protests outside Congress wiuld have any effect, he's incredibly naive. 2020 is a census year, for crying out loud.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. In 2016 cycle Hillary raised $278 million for DNC & States. Sanders raised zero $0.00.

From the tweet thread in the OP.

[Hav]

6. Perfect summary, easy for all to understand

That was indeed a good and illuminating read.
Kind of interesting how rules are bent, twisted and circumvented. Gaming the system yourself beyond the intentions of the laws while accusing the others of corruption who are fighting for a level playing field is quite the brazen play.

[comradebillyboy]

7. YES!!!

[NYMinute]

8. This! K&R

[PatSeg]

9. Wow

That really puts things into perspective. Thanks for posting.

[PhoenixDem]

10. K&R nt

[Hortensis]

11. Dishonesty, hypocrisy, and outrageous irresponsibility in an

existential election year infuriate me too.

Warren, though, seems to have gotten carried away by what she's in the middle of. Hopefully the backlash to this shocking behavior will restore some perspective and cause her to look out and around. She's not an extremist or other whackjob. She knows and must care that the damage Republicans have done to progressive government so far is nothing to what they'll do if they appoint another flunky to SCOTUS, and of course just have another 4 years to tear our institutions apart from the inside.

Sanders is just being what he is and will continue no matter the consequences. In 50 years he's believed it doesn't much matter which of the only two parties can win takes power. His contempt was so profound he didn't even bother to vote through the civil rights era, by his own claim didn't even vote for Medicare; first vote was for himself. (!)

So, I expect better from Warren, and I watch and wonder at the poll numbers for Sanders.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

12. It's a silly thread. Pretending bundlers aren't a thing.

[Cha]

14. No.. this "...Warren and Sanders are trying to portray Dems as corrupt.."

is Ridiculous..

Here's ol BS surrogate Shaun King swooping in with his attempt to one upmanship EW.. More Ridiculousness..

Link to tweet

[ismnotwasm]

13. K&R

[PatSeg]

15. Wow, that was really informative

Thank you so much for posting.

[R B Garr]

16. Such an excellent thread! Thanks for posting how the

information scam is being perpetrated.

[wiley]

17. Can you assemble the entire thread?

That would be great!

[NurseJackie]

18. When some dishonest candidates make that meaningless "pledge," what they're really doing...

The dishonesty about this subject infuriates me, particularly crap like candidates "pledging" not to take money from SuperPACs, which is illegal to begin with.

When some dishonest candidates make that meaningless "pledge," what they're really doing is insinuating that they are somehow different from OTHER Democrats and that OTHER Democrats are breaking the law by accepting money from PAC's.

It's a clever and not so subtle way to make false and unsubstantiated accusations without actually having to call anyone out specifically.

It's almost the same as the candidate who pledges to not take corporate donations (also against the law) but accuses OTHER Democrats of "accepting corporate donations" simply because a secretary at Novartis or a truck driver for Exxon has made a personal donation. When the secretary lists his employer as Novartis, the dishonest candidate wants us to believe that it's a "corporate donation".

I hate dishonest candidates.

[Gothmog]

19. From the Hoarse Whisperer

Link to tweet