Karl Rove’s super-PAC, American Crossroads, spent $100 million trying to defeat the Democrats in 2012. According to Steven Law, Crossroads CEO, “American Crossroads and Bernie Sanders helped Nevada caucus-goers see right through Hillary Clinton … that one-two punch [Crossroads and Sanders] shaved Clinton’s 50-point lead a year ago to a slim, single-digit win.” Crossroads also funded a TV ad for the Iowa primary that features Sanders’ talking points insinuating that Clinton has been bought by Wall Street. How to explain this?
Sanders Keeps Silent
The Daily Beast asked the Sanders campaign for a comment on this and other super-PAC spending aimed at helping him defeat Clinton, but the campaign did not respond. Why not disown these Wall Street-funded super PACs that Sanders rails against? No, Sanders is not colluding with Karl Rove. He doesn’t need to.
|
To be clear, conservative spending for Sanders does not indicate corruption. That’s missing the point. It indicates that conservatives want him to knock off or at least weaken Clinton. Of course, they’d prefer to run against Sanders. There’s also a question of why he will not condemn this particular kind of political interference from Big $$ and Wall Street. Is it OK for Wall Street to buy elections as long as they are helping Bernie?
This page just presents some missing facts, and asks why. It makes no accusations. The facts are correct, and they are ominous. The right is not mistaken to support Sanders.
|
But no candidate can control a super PAC and he does not want to admit he has super-PACs (like the nurses, $1.7 M) helping him, and especially not a dozen far-right super PACs.
Officially, as of today (2/26/16) “outside organizations” (mainly super-PACs) have spent $4.3 million against Clinton and $0.83 million supposedly against Sanders. Just watch this Ad by the conservative ESA Fund, which spent $0.77 million of the so-called anti-Sanders money. That ad presents Sanders’ position in glowing terms that would appeal to any Democrat, thereby helping Sanders against Clinton. Even in the final frame where it pretends to be anti-Sanders, it only says he’s “too liberal for Iowa.” Again this is music to Bernie’s ears. After, all he calls himself a socialist.
| Almost all of the $6.8 M “outside money” (mainly super-PACs) supporting Sanders is super conservative, while nearly all of the $6.7 M of “outside money” supporting Clinton is progressive. |
Why are Republicans backing a socialist?
There’s no evidence of anti-Sanders spending by Republicans, only spending that helps him. Why is that? It’s really too obvious, but just to be clear, Republicans really, really, really want to run against a big-government, atheistic socialist. It would be a dream come true. Especially a socialist with a Trotskyite past, who is a member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which recently joined a conference in New York aimed at cooperating with the Communist Party USA.
Even short of Sanders’ nomination, strengthening Sanders now weakens Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Criticisms from the left may stick and reduce Democratic turnout. In addition, campaign money that Clinton spends now to fend off Sanders is that much less her campaign will have in the general election.
DSA’s flier about this conference asks, “How can we build a stronger democratic socialist movement … capable of taking down the capitalist system?” The first substantive line in their constitution states, “We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit.” All the little right-wing websites are busy digging up this ammunition, and I’m sure Karl Rove and his gang already have it all neatly organized.
follow on: faceBook | Twitter (new—be the first)
What do Democrats think about Sanders’ chances?
When elected Democrats endorse Bernie or Hillary, their careers are on the line. The presidential candidate has “coattails,” and a presidential win helps them get re-elected. And the more Democrats elected, the more they can accomplish and the more popular they become with voters. Few politicians will risk their job by helping a loser get nominated.
Top level elected Democrats are betting 12 to zero (governors), 40 to zero (senators) and 154 to 3 (congressmen) that Bernie would more likely be a loser and/or carry fewer of them back into office with him. That’s 206 to 3, or 98.5% that think Clinton’s the stronger candidate. Combine that with 100% of the Republican money, and you have one heck of a strong prediction.
So why don’t the polls reflect this now?
Simple. Now Republicans are all rooting for Bernie and holding their fire. And they’re all attacking Hillary. But when the Koch Brothers super PAC and and top Republican Party operatives start spending the $1,500+ million that they plan to spend, things will change.
The reason Hillary taps all the money she can for her campaign is because she knows what she’s up against. She’s suffered through it for decades. And no, that was not liberal money (like Bernie’s) being spent against her, it was super-conservative money. They know who their most dangerous enemy is, and elected Democrats know who will be best for their re-election.
See prior post (3k+ likes): Clinton’s Wall Street Money Is Mostly from Progressives
Some numbers as of Feb. 27, 2016
Conservative super-PACs that are “For Sanders” are listed as “anti-Sanders,” because they pretend to be “anti” (see The Daily Beast) in order to avoid the bad publicity for him that comes from Wall Street money. Here’s a good example of how they do it. Of course, Sanders is not in touch with them or asking them for help.
| $776,201 | For Sanders | Conservative super PAC | ESA Fund |
| $1,754,124 | For Sanders | Liberal super PAC | National Nurses United |
| $44,909 | For Sanders | Conservative super PAC | Future45 |
| $607,160 | Against Clinton | Conservative super PAC | Future45 |
| $1,066,318 | Against Clinton | Conservative super PAC | Tea Party Majority |
| $113,495 | Against Clinton | Conservative super PAC | American Crossroads |
| $2,508,085 | Against Clinton |
Other conservative PACs
and Super PACs |
Republican National
Committee, etc. |
| $6,870,292 | For Sander & Against Clinton |
Mainly Super PACs | Total |
No candidate has, or can control, as super-PAC. That’s not allowed. But of course they can and do coordinate by reading the press. For example National Nurses United will read Sanders’ positions in the press and see his talking points and will support those. The same goes for super-PACs that support Clinton. There is also $6,748,244 “Outside Money” for Clinton, very nearly as much as for Sanders (see OpenSecrets.org). But almost all of the “outside money” for Clinton is progressive, and almost all of the “outside money” for Sanders is far-right conservative. (see also NYT)
This article so eloquently puts into words what I have been trying (and failing) to articulate for the last couple of months. Bernie Sanders is not evil and his ideas *sound* good. However, I have never had a good feeling about him and haven’t really been able to put my finger on “why”. Your article did that for me. Thanks and I will also be sharing this.
Did Hillary pay for this article?
Thanks for asking, but nope. I’ve been building this site since 2003. I’ve never gotten a cent from, or communicated with the Democrats. But really, just check the links and you will find htat most of it comes from OpenSecrets.com (which seems to be Pro-Bernie), and a few other standard pubic sources.
The one key part of the article is this “But no candidate can control a super PAC . . ” Bernie has absolutely no control of any spending other than what he raises directly online and is beholding to no one in their support. Anyone that accepts PAC or SupePAC money into their campaign is technically expected to reciprocate in some way later. The PAC’s expect it and so do the candidates. Bernie has stated that he will not accept their PAC money “into his campaign”. By acknowledging it some blogs and pundits could then imply that he condones it and is “using” it. I Bernie is doing the right thing by completely staying away from the question.
You say “Bernie has absolutely no control over spending … ,” and this is true. But he smears Clinton for spending that she has absolutely no control over for exactly the same reason, and you don’t mention that.
And Sanders is accepting super-PAC money into his campaign (see table above), and he is smearing Clinton for having Super PAC money that he clearly would accept if he could get it. That is the $8 million from Soros who used to fund MoveOn, his main base of support. He should avoid ad hominem (character assassination) attacks, especially when he will not come clean about his own support. He should also disown the $4.4 million in reactionary super-PAC money that is supporting him.
This is only technically true. Sanders has made it clear he does not want any SuperPAC support. The Nurses also claim their PAC isn’t really a PAC and any money spent to support Sanders is purely from union dues, not from any outside sources.
Sanders has not said money isn’t important to win elections. If he had, he’d not be raising so much money online. He is saying that once you take money, you’re unlikely to bite the hand that feeds you and be responsive to the person who gave you the money instead of the voters. In his case, he’d be responsive to millions of his donors and the Nurses PAC. Not the finance industry, or the fossil fuel industry, or the prison industry. Most voters can live with that for a Democrat.
Sanders is as much a politician as anyone else, but he is the least of all the evils.
Thanks for a very thoughtful response. This is the kind of discussion Democrats need, rather than the ad hominem smears that have become common.
== But this misses the point a bit. Nothing in the post suggests Sandars deliberately took tainted money. The main point is that extremely well-informed reactionaries are loving him. Obviously Sanders is anything but conservative, so this should make us stop and think. Put this together with the fact that almost no Democrat wants to run on his ticket, and you have a huge red flag. Fortunately, most Democrats are understanding this.
== Second, as you say, this is technically true, and what Sanders says is not technically true. No candidate controls a super PAC and none can reject support from one. So he ends up with extreme conservative super PAC support. He should just be honest about it.
== This “least of evils” theory is completely mean spirited. Sometimes it’s right, but we have had many genuinely good people as Democratic presidents and even Ike was not evil. I do not believe Roosevelt put Japanese Americans in concentration camps because he was evil. I’m sure he thought he needed to in order to keep the support he needed to fight the Nazis — a greater evil. The pressure on him came from a huge segment of the public. Good people are often forced to choose what is, or what they think is, the lesser of the two evils. Making that choice does not make them evil. We all make mistakes, but that does not make us evil.
== Neither Sanders nor Clinton is evil.
Thank you Steve for such an intelligent and well thought out article that outlines the facts. May I share this?
Many thanks for the encouragement. Yes of course, I should have said it’s fine for anyone to share or use the material. –Steve