2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIvan Kaputski
(528 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.
Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system -- and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors.
A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.
"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)It did in fact go to Sanders. He got part of the proceeds, same as the other Senators.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The article is talking about events Sanders has attended since 2011, and how the DSCC sent money to Sanders....in 2006.
You'd think they'd spend some time talking about the time machine the DSCC is using to send money from 2011 to 2006.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Fundraising for his party. How commie of him.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)But how much of that money went to Bernie?
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)He got tens of thousands every year, the same as the rest of the Senators.
He has claimed over and over again he doesn't raise money from Wall Street banks. This information demonstrates that claim to be false. He hosted fundraisers, brought in and received money.
He is also benefiting from more Super Pac and dark money spending than Clinton, this despite his misleading claim "I don't have super pacs." In the last debate, he announced "we decided not to do a Super Pac." Such statements assume Americans neither know nor care about campaign finance law. It falsely implies that candidates directly form Super Pacs, when that is in fact illegal. It also ignores the fact that his campaign does in fact benefit from Super Pacs and authorized PACs. One Super Pac formed in order to promote Sanders is run by a former Sanders campaign Staffer.
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?
Indeed. Just a week before the interview, President Barack Obama's aides announced that he would accept support from a major Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, in his 2012 reelection race. Sanders defended the president's choice at the time.
"Should you be principled and allow your opponent to spend huge sums of money and you say, 'Well, I'm a principled guy and we're going to get outspent 5-to-1, and I'm going to lose the election?'" the senator asked.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-shifting-stance-on-super-pacs/Content?oid=2759783
The Atlantic reports, "Bernie Sanders Super Pacs."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/bernie-sanders-super-pac/420930/
Nor will he tell them not to spend money on his behalf. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/bernie-sanders-super-pac-nurses/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-super-pacs_us_56548429e4b0879a5b0c6ccd
Now, people may say a union super pac is okay and one funded by George Soros isn't. They are still Super Pacs, and Sanders has sworn time and time against that he "doesn't have Super Pacs"--a technically true statement for him, just as it is for Clinton, Bush, Cruz or anyone else because candidates do not form or "do" Super Pacs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
He also benefits from more dark money and Super Pac spending that any candidate in the race, in part because Karl Rove's American Crossroads is commitment to ensuring Sanders be the GOP's opponent in the general election.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/?_r=0
The problem is systemic. It's subverts democracy at all levels, and pretending it is about one candidate not taking "super pacs" or certain kinds of money (especially when there is evidence that claim isn't true) trivializes it. It takes a systemic problem and reduces it to an opportunistic political slogan. I find his statement incredible and that, combined with what I see as a series of empty campaign promises, is why I find him incredible.
---
Unsurprisingly, your response is to post a meme, the internet equivalent of the bumper sticker. You would do well to keep in mind you are not conversing with someone who is persuaded by sloganeering or memes.
One key difference between Clinton and Sanders is that Clinton doesn't pretend to be above the current campaign system. She doesn't repeatedly make claims that play to the ignorance of voters about campaign finance, or work to convince them that the issue is about personal integrity, when the candidate himself doesn't live up to those claims. Clinton abides by current campaign law and proposes to change it through the Supreme Court and legislation banning dark money.
Meanwhile, Sanders doesn't even follow existing campaign finance law.
The Federal Election Commission has asked the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to re-examine contributions from more than a hundred donors who appear to have given more than the legally permissible amount.
The vast majority of the donors gave several small contributions to Mr. Sanders for the Democratic primary that eventually totaled more than the $2,700 limit, according to a letter the election commission sent to Mr. Sanders on Thursday.
Such glitches are common in political campaigns, which are required to track small donors and begin itemizing their contributions when their total reaches $200. That can be harder when donors use slightly different variations of their names or contribute from more than one address. Mr. Sanderss campaign may choose to refund the excess contributions or re-designate the excess for use in a general election campaign, when candidates can accept another $2,700.
The FEC letter is here: http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
This is the second FEC inquiry into Sanders in this election cycle for failing to abide by simple reporting criteria. The first involved an affiliated PAC run by a Sanders staffer. Despite having been chartered in 2004, it failed to file the required quarterly disclosure of donors in 2015 and was fined as a result.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/04/bernie-sanders-campaign-finance_n_7724766.html
Here we have a candidate who repeatedly claims he doesn't raise money from Wall Street firms, when he clearly has. His campaign and associated PACs don't follow existing and all too meager campaign finance law, yet we are to believe he is the only one who will reform the system. The argument strains credulity.
I prefer a candidate who doesn't repeatedly make false statements about her fundraising and actually follows the law, while recognizing that the system needs to be changed. Whereas many Sanders supporters repeat his slogans and show no concern about what he actually does. Politicians will say anything, and the more people let them get away with it, the more empty claims they make. Sanders has built an entire presidential campaign around that very premise. Responses by his supporters here show they aren't concerned with his actual fundraising record or Super PAC and dark money expenditures on his behalf. Undeterred, you all continue to repeat the same slogans, even when presented with evidence that proves the claims false. Ultimately I believe that is because too many care far more about speeches than action, prefer a president who tells them what they want to here and accomplishes nothing than one who accomplishes a good bit but doesn't feed into their anger.
I find it unfortunate, but I can't convince others to care about accomplishments or policy. I will, however, point out false claims when I see them.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Those aren't the places where the economy is run from.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)The party also spent $60,000 on ads for Sanders, and contributed $100,000 to the Vermont Democratic Party -- which was behind Sanders even as he ran as an independent.
Among the DSCC's top contributors that year:
During that 2006 campaign, Sanders attended a fundraiser at the Cambridge, Massachusetts home of
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)on her suckling the Wall Street pig. Like she did at a fundraiser yesterday. She took time out from campaigning to visit her Wall Street buddies who had plenty of big checks for her. And her SuperPac, which is full of money from powerful interests and rich folk who own Hillary.
Any opinion on that? No, I don't suppose so.
However, you'll spend time pointing out the horrors of Sanders raising money for all Dem campaigns?
Not one nickel of that money, by the way--is in his Presidential campaign.
You think you've found some big "gotcha" on Sanders. OMG!!! Martha's Vineyard!!! But you fail to see your own hypocrisy.
If you're getting sooooo steamy over Sanders raising money for Democrats years ago--let's see the same level of outrage about Hillary, who was working it hard with her Wall Street buddies, just YESTERDAY--as she piled up corporate bribes that will go directly into her Presidential campaign.
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)Where is the "steamy" part you are accusing her of?
C'mon. It's just pointing out hypocrisy. Looks like some of Bernie's lines about "billionaires" are just for applause. I mean.....Rockefeller?! Holy crap, that's MONEY. That's gotta make you mad.....
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Yeah, real credible. Just like this line: "A Democratic lobbyist and donor.." So some schmuck who claims that Sanders was speaking where he congregates automatically makes Sanders a hypocrite? C'mon! Most of that money goes to the Democratic party, but you already know that (I hope). His net worth is under a million dollars: if he really is raking in the cash as this hit piece suggests wouldn't Sanders have a net worth similar to HRC? Under Senate rules Sanders and other senators can only keep $2,000 in speaking fees, which this rag fails to mention.
Just for applause? Hardly. He's been talking about mega banks since 2000:
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)many of the same donors."
Full quote,
"Sanders has based his presidential campaign on a fire-and-brimstone critique of a broken campaign finance system -- and of Hillary Clinton for her reliance on big-dollar Wall Street donors. But Sanders is part of that system, and has helped Democrats court many of the same donors".
Note that the fire and brimstone line means he's using it to rile people up, yet he's part of the same system.
And lol about the "picture". Bernie's campaign was asked about it months ago, and they blew it off. Tad Devine was asked about it to clarify for Capehart and said he wasn't sure it was Bernie, so just slamming CNN isn't credible.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Its great that he's raising money for the party and the charities he donates to, but where is the personal income statement that states he's bought and paid for by the corporations he wants to take down? He's part of the broken system that raises funds for the party (like all politicians), but it doesn't state that Sanders himself takes big bags of money home at the end of the day. Funny how fund raising for the party seems to bother a lot of Democrats.
"And lol about the "picture". Bernie's campaign was asked about it months ago, and they blew it off."
Why should the Sanders campaign address a completely fabricated story? Rather than check sources CNN rolled with the Capehart story until they found that Capehart was full of it. In short a news station is only as credible as the sources it uses. I can understand this from Fixed news, but CNN is supposed to report the news. Instead it relied on infotainment and that's why it should be slammed. BTW they're still talking about Hillary's emails. Should we believe what they say or does it only count if its only bad news for Bernie?
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)Rockefeller is quite the billionaire. But obviously, it's different if Bernie does it.
And definitely bring up Hillary in any capacity if Bernie has to answer a question. Re the picture, Bernie's campaign was the "source" for the journalists questions, but the campaign didn't even know if it was him. In case you haven't noticed, ALL campaigns deal with questions from the press. Bernie is not a victim.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)and are beholden to the billionaire interest. There is a reason why Clinton doesn't want to reinstate Glass-Steagall, wants 401(k)s for people who work at McDonalds, and wants to put laws in place that outlaw credit default swaps (this is locking the door after the horse has left the barn). So again, how much money did Sanders take home after doing all those fund raisers? How much money did Rockefeller put in Bernie's back pocket? I'll be here all week until you can answer that question.
Do you have a link that proves that the campaign didn't know if it was him? So far the only source was a widow of a person next to Bernie who claims that it was her husband and not Bernie. I did not see any story (other than those David Brock sites) that stated that the campaign started photo gate.
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)It the billionaires are for Bernie, it's good. If the billionaires are for Clinton, it's not good. It's just an applause line.
re; the picture. I saw Tad Devine on TV bumbling about it. He didn't know who it was for sure. And it was more than the widow, it was the roommates, too.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Taking money for the party = Hypocrite Senator lying out his ass.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND we're right back here to Capehart. Thanks for proving nothing. Its been fun chatting with you.
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)Haha, you don't care about BILLIONAIRES after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But all we hear is constant bullshit about BILLIONAIRES!!!! More exclamations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's such a PHONY issue. Thanks for confirming.
And Tad Devine is part of Sanders campaign. Capehart wasn't. Devine should have just answered the question. It wasn't hard; right???
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)I give a damn about how much money Sanders took home from those billionaires, which you have yet to answer. But do keep going on about how Sanders is as crooked as Clinton. It'll make you seem just as trustworthy as she is:
Capehart is still "reporting" that b.s. you're spewing now, hence this whole tirade you keep going on about the photos. Not hard to understand at all, really.
R B Garr
(16,979 posts)contact with billionaires is EVIL!!!!!!!!!"""" LL .A picture with a billionaire!!!!!!!"""""""!!!!!!!! ZOMG!!"""""
Bernie has contact with billionaires!!!"""""""" But that's okay now...
It seriously cracks me up that you are trying to bend the Revolution's rules for Bernie regarding billionaires.
Cracks me up that everything negative about Bernie has to be taken in context (in this case YOUR PHONY context), when there literally never is context for anyone else.
Sorry, but I can't take your silly setups seriously. I can't stand the phoniness. It' s a waste of time.
But LMFAO at your complete inanity about Capehart. I recognized people from this website harassing his Twitter. How embarrassing for you. Good Lord. All Devine had to do was answer a question. Every campaign is a asked a variety of questions. Just answer them. It's not a fucking conspiracy to get asked a question. If you saw the MSNBC show, Matthews even said that it wasn't a big deal, but it went to authenticity.
Quit harassing me with this inanity. I'm not going to engage with your phony Self-serving "gotcha' shit, so LMAO you are congratulating yourself over nothing. It's phony as hell and a waste of time.
sahel
(87 posts)lets be consistent, shall we? Back then Clinton opposed gay marriage, supported Dont Ask Dont Tell, welfare reform, repealing Glass Steagall and other financial regulation and supporting just about any foreign war that you could point a stick at.
You're happy to vouch for positions like those?
INdemo
(6,994 posts)direct contribution made to the Clinton foundation and huge speaking fees to Bill?
You need to contact Bill again and David Brock and get another script because this one you posted here is BS.
How many millions has Bernie Sanders received from these Wall St firms for Speaking fees?
http://nypost.com/2015/04/20/book-claims-foreign-cash-made-bill-and-hillary-filthy-rich
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ethics-approval-came-easily-at-hillary-clintons-state-department-115468
I challenge you to find a link that will show Bernie Sanders gave any speeches to Wall St firms and received a total of more than 2 million dollars or more
And show us proof where Bernie Sanders recieved contribution to his Senate Campaign..
CNN has it here that Bernie may have received some these funds to his campaign but no proof..
I have given you proof to back up may statements.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)quantumjunkie
(244 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Donkees
(31,454 posts)...Included in the exhibit was a work by Hugo Gellert (1892-1985), a Hungarian immigrant who came to the US in 1906 at age 14, titled Us Fellas Gotta Stick Together - Al Capone. It depicts Henry Ford, president Herbert Hoover, J P Morgan, and John D Rockefeller Sr sitting with none other than Al Capone, the celebrated Chicago gangster. The statement made through this work of art, that capitalism is a crime and the most successful capitalists are criminals, sent young art-loving Nelson into a state of panic. Such a charge, in the atmosphere of the Depression, when large numbers of hard-working people had suddenly lost their jobs and life savings, struck a popular response not only from the radical left but also from the conservative right, which had always viewed members of the Eastern money trust as little better than criminals in their unethical machination over the nation's money through the establishment of a privately owned central bank.
Gellert played a key role in organizing the Artists Committee for Action and the Artists Union, two pivotal institutions that greatly contributed to the instigation and perpetuation of the federally funded WPA art programs.
Donkees
(31,454 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,424 posts)Thanks for the thread, Donkees.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)dubyadiprecession
(5,722 posts)will be the least of our problems, bernie!
jalan48
(13,886 posts)She and the ex-President would give "speeches" and get millions (over $150 mil at last count) from Wall Street corporations. Who'd care? The Clinton's would just say that money would in no way affect their behavior. Guess what? The voters aren't buying their bullshit. No matter how many bullshit speeches they give.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This is a significant difference to me.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Not that you can. And sorry, uponit, but dscc fundraising events are not wall street events no matter how often the endlessly lying hill campaign spews their bullshit.