That's where $$$ gets dangerous to democracy.

....who complains about Super PACs the most and "challenges" the other candidates to refuse support from them. He did it again yesterday on CNN - another challenge that he has no intention of complying with himself.

That has been leveled is specifically about the 40 individuals who contributed the $2,800. See the list here (includes people like transgender former military officer Jennifer Pritzger, an heiress to the Hyatt fortune).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/12/21/here-are-the-billionaires-backing-pete-buttigiegs-presidential-campaign/#13c307c5fc6e

The PACs are a separate issue entirely. Both the charge and this “PAC” explanation are completely spurious with respect to the attack that Sanders made during the debate.

No one knows who or how many have contributed to the various PACs. Thanks, Citizens United. as to who gives $2800, who cares.

Your $2,800 will be forgotten.
Theirs won’t be.

But their donations to a candidate are what people seem to keep talking about

the wealthy can send $2800 directly to a bunch of candidates around the country, stacking the deck.

Most importantly, the wealthy can contribute tons of soft money.

That Billionaire's 2800 isn't very important, but the 2800 he gets from a couple thousand of his buddies is pretty influential.

Most of them aren't, they're just good at sales

I mean. We're on Candid Camera, right?

When they disproportionately line up behind a specific candidate there can be reason for concern about the nexus of those relationships.

If not, then your 2800 ... is probably less important to your Prez candidate ... than someone who did.

Certainly if you were a Republican it would be to Donald Trump.

It's way beyond the dollar amount.

Billionaires have lots of wealthy friends who listen to them. They own wine caves and waterfront mansions that can host events raising a million in a night. They are more likely to donate to a SuperPAC in the present or in the future.

If it were just some isolated billionaire writing a check, you might have an argument. But, obviously, that's now how it works. The billionaires are part of the big-donor circuit.

I'm going max out as well, most likely, but none of the candidates are thinking "I should really make a good impression on DanTex and not do anything to piss him off otherwise the money tree might dry up." It's being willfully naive to act like there's no such thing as the "wealthy donor class".

That's kind of my point

Pete and Biden do have more billionaire donors. And the larger truth is that Pete and Biden are the preferred candidates of the wealthy donor class, and are relying on that class to fund their campaigns.

So the fact that they donated $2800 is irrelevant. For all we know there could be billionaires who give to Our Revolution.

What does make a credible difference, I think, is the fact that Bernie (and I believe Warren) are not doing closed-door fundraisers with high dollar donors. That, IMO, is a stronger argument than the number of billionaires who made individual donations.

For a billionaire to throw weight behind a candidate without donating the $2800 would just be strange, maybe even perceived as shady. I mean, yeah, someone could host a big dollar fundraiser in a mansion, but then the actual person hosting the fundraiser doesn't donate. Possible, I guess, but that's not how it's done. As insignificant as the $2800 is financially, it serves as sort of a stamp of approval.

I agree with you that the stronger argument is the closed-door fundraisers rather than the billionaires who make individual donations. I guess Bernie thinks the billionaire thing is more "catchy" or whatever.

That's why Bernie's "40 billionaires" argument seems a little ridiculous to me.