Bernie Sanders headlined Democratic fundraising trips for super wealthy donors on Martha’s Vineyard and in Palm Beach at least annually since 2011 according to a CNN story I saw online this morning (link here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/index.html). About a quarter of the big contributors on these trips were from the financial sector.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m actually glad to see Sanders helped raise money for the DSCC. One of my critiques of Sanders is that he’s poisoning the well by running *against* the rest of the Democratic Party. A Democratic presidency needs a Democratic Congress to accomplish anything, and it’s hard for me to see how railing against the establishment – including almost every other Democratic elected official, interest group and the DNC – helps with the longer game. So, I’m happy that he participated in raising money to help Democratic candidates.
But, these trips to nice places with big donors sure do make his attacks on Hillary seem hypocritical. Will the media call for Sanders to release the text of any remarks he made at these gatherings?
they’re so quick to criticize the splinter in their neighbors eye while ignoring the beam in their own eye.
Didn’t Jesus also say : “Judge not lest you be judged” ?
Just sayin that now he’s painted himself into a box.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Accidentally hit the minus on my little phone keyboard
I’ve been called worse 🙂
Fred Rich LaRiccia
….it’s ‘As you judge, so also will you BE judged”, i.e. if you judge according to strict and unforgiving standards, that is how God will view your actions at the appropriate time. Jesus was pushing a live and let live, try to find the best in others, agenda.
This would appear to apply to Mr. Sanders in this context.
Sanders dares to speak up against money in politics?
Just wait to see the reaction, especially if he pulls ahead of Hillary Clinton. As long as Bernie is behind Hillary, he can be dismissed as the voice in the wilderness. But if Bernie pulls ahead, they’ll turn wild on him.
On the other hand, a presidential campaign is really the only time everybody is paying attention, above and beyond politicians, lobbyists, activists, and the press. If we don’t speak forcefully about the money & politics nexus, and finally reach through to the American people, nothing will ever change.
Bernie may have his head handed to him, but here’s to hoping he sticks to this subject.
I’m happy that he’s taking on powerful interests.
It’s when he turns that into an attack on Hillary Clinton and other fine Democrats that I part company with him.
Newt Gingrich was exposed as the charlatan he is when he sanctimoniously pursued Bill Clinton because of Mr. Clinton’s alleged marital infidelity while betraying his own marital vows multiple times.
Bernie Sanders has been harping about the fees Ms. Clinton received, and now we know that he did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. It isn’t the act that is wrong — there is nothing wrong with receiving such fees in a corrupt political system that requires that practice to survive. It is the hypocritical attack concerning that behavior that is wrong. Mr. Sanders made that attack, Ms. Clinton did not.
Such hypocrisy hurts the movement many of us support, and Mr. Sanders should stop these attacks NOW because of that.
The exact same thing? Speaking at a fundraising event for one’s party compared to taking many millions in direct donations and many millions in speaking fees from the industries that one has often helped throughout a long career . . . the exact same thing?
Sanders calling big names and donors? Saying they exercise undue influence?
Making paid speeches a campaign issue?
Oh the hypocrisy! The outrage!
How is democracy to survive, if the rich and powerful aren’t allowed a larger say? One commensurate with the cash they give left and right, to Democrat and Republicans alike…
Is there some part of “It isn’t the act that is wrong” that is hard to understand?
@doubleman: Yes, the exact same thing. From the piece cited in the thread-starter (emphasis mine):
Yes. The same thing, from where I sit. Big-pocket donors who give large amounts of money, and who expect and get access to elected officials in response to that. Bernie Sanders does it and Hillary Clinton does it. Those donors have access to the Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton that I lack, and they have that access because they have discretionary wealth that I lack.
Access in exchange for cash. That’s what is corrupt, that’s what matters, and it is wired into our political system. Yes, I want us to change that. Yes, Bernie Sanders wants to change that. Yes, Hillary Clinton wants to change that. Mr. Sanders is no less dependent on that corrupt mechanism than Ms. Sanders.
@andreiradulescubanu: The hypocrisy is NOT Mr. Sanders appearing at these events. The hypocrisy is his recent choice to attack Ms. Clinton while he does the same thing.
@both:
Yes, the rules are bad. Yes, the rules need to be changed. No, it is not legitimate to attack a fellow Democrat for playing the game by those rules WHEN YOU DO THE SAME.
Sanders does not need to attack Clinton. All he needs to do is criticize paid speeches where candidates are paid in millions, criticize Wall St as source of political donations, criticize SuperPACs, and to point out that the Sanders campaign is funded by small donors.
It’s Clinton who feels guilty and interprets all these as attacks on her impunity.
Every minute Sanders speaks about the ills of money in politics is a minute well spent. He’s speaking to an audience he would never reach as a small Senator from Vermont.
Let them both disclose transcripts from speeches to donors. I bet there’s a significant difference between what Sanders and Clinton say in those closed speeches.
Whatever he needs to do, what he IS doing is criticizing other politicians for doing EXACTLY what he does, which is raise money however they can.
Barack Obama famously ran on small donors, we were all oh-so-excited by the “long tail” of his contributions. That had no discernible influence on the policies he carried out after being elected. I know, I know, Bernie Sanders is “different”.
Every independent voter that Bernie Sanders turns against Hillary Clinton during the primary because of this rubbish, and who sits out the general election because Mr. Sanders is not the nominee (which he almost surely will NOT be) is hurting all of us and helping the GOP.
If this is the hill you feel strongly enough to die on rather than compromise, then so be it. I have different priorities than you.
As much as I despise our current system of campaign financing, I find the prospect of four or eight years of Ted Cruz (or, worse, Donald Trump) even worse. Do you think this line of argument from Bernie Sanders is, in the long run, to help or hurt the effort to overturn Citizens United?
I think that we need to elect one of these two people. I think we need to do everything we can to reverse the obscene wealth and income concentration that has been accelerating for decades. I think that turning more people against Hillary Clinton hurts that effort far more than whatever gains it hopes to achieve.
The time to speak about all these issues is the primary, because it is now that people are paying attention. This is what creates the excitement and the energy.
And unless you speak of things that matter during a campaign, here’s a dirty little secret: in that case, nothing ever changes.
The goal of all this exercise is to effect change, and to change people’s minds. That is the first goal.
We really should be emphasizing how extremely bad Marco Rubio would be for the country because he would be really bad. The last thing we want is for the reaction to Rubio’s winning the nomination to be, “Phew! They chose a reasonable guy to be their nominee.” This will be the reasonable guy that foments wars, busts the budget with tax cuts, enforces economic inequality, and rolls back all the other kinds of inequality.
It’s as if Cruz and Trump were decoys.
One is supporting a group that supports him, the other is Clintonesque.
Sanders talks about the ills of big donor’s role in politics, so he fights this by bring in big donors into politics.
I watched the debate rerun last night with my son, I definitely heard Sanders words in a different light after reading the article.
By the way, that was an awesome debate. Two candidates going toe to toe is a good watch.
Doesn’t campaign for the Democratic Senators? He’s not a real Democrat!
Does campaign for Democratic Senators? He’s a corporate tool?
Sanders held a couple discrete events for which tickets were sold to donors. Hillay made glad-handing Wall Street a way of life. Intelligent people can understand degrees of difference.
I’m not what you mean by “discrete”, other than “only those with great wealth need apply”.
I’m not objecting to the fund-raising activities of either candidate. I’m objecting to Mr. Sanders attacking Ms. Clinton for hers.
It’s not his fault that Hillary Clinton chose to enrich herself to the tune of millions for making a few speeches.
Perhaps, knowing that she may run for President in a short span of time, she should have recognized the conflict of interest and made a different decision.
Alternatively, she could release her transcripts from these corporate events, clear the air and allay all our concerns. If she released the transcripts and all they really do say is “cut it out,” then it would be a huge, giant plus for her campaign.
discrete: separate and distinct.
If I applied bean’s logic, I would not be permitted to attack those who enable alcoholism because I have a beer on the occasional Friday. Bernie on occasion partook of the system to benefit the Democratic Party (remember when the Hillary attack was that Bernie didn’t belong in a Democratic race?). Hillary exulted in it.
I was thinking, as I wrote my response, “maybe he means the other kind of ‘discrete’ — it’s one of those homophones that I have a hard time distinguishing except by context. I’m still not sure I buy your argument, but I at least understand it better.
I just don’t see what we gain by attacking Ms. Clinton this way. And, by the way, given the broad brush that Mr. Sanders is painting with right now, I’m not sure how far off Ms. Clinton was in asking whether he belongs in a Democratic race. By the standards he is applying, who is left?
I like Mr. Sanders far more when he reminds me of what he believes. I find him more convincing when he tells me what he proposes to do differently.
I, frankly, wish he would say rather more about who he proposes to raise taxes on and by how much, and rather less about this moral purity stuff.
Not a couple of events.
And I don’t blame him for fundraising; it’s what any pol at the national level must do in our system. I blame him for pretending to be above it, and criticizing other Democrats for doing it – it’s hypocritical.
Intelligent people – so in other words, not most of the Sanders voters I see out there – also know that competing in a NY Senate race, or running a serious race for President is an altogether more expensive proposition that getting reelected in VT. Hillary should have raised more money than Sanders.
“Intelligent people – so in other words, not most of the Sanders voters I see out there…” I’ll keep that in mind next time I read about how divisive Bernie’s supporters are. Thanks for clarifying.
We had a well-known, well-qualified candidate, while the Republicans were in disarray and deeply divided. And what do we do? We fragment, too, with a lot of Dems who should know better backing a no-hope 74-year old socialist who is running against the Democratic Party, Democratic interest groups, Democratic donors and practically every Democratic incumbent. Nominate Sanders, and instead of a 50-state strategy, it’s a frickin’ 5-state strategy.
So, do I think Sanders’ supporters are making a dumb call? Yeah, I sure do. We could be running against the Republicans right now, instead of doing the Republicans’ work for them.
Why don’t we stick to talking about the issues, rather than labeling people dumb, etc.
Disgraceful. Hateful. Vile. That comment has no place on BMG.
may feel really good. You must have gotten such a delicious rush with the “not most of the Sanders voters I see out there” line.
Did that feel really good? I bet you really enjoyed it.
Alas, though, you convince precisely no one. I earnestly hope that, in the future, you will never agree with me so that I never have someone on my side of any argument making comments like that.
Since you must be getting the same rush out of that smack on me.
.
…because the Clintons are held to different standards. We MUST resist the temptation to attack the character and values of a solid Democrat like HRC. Support Sanders if you prefer his stances on the issues, but I just finished reading Killing the Messenger by David Brock. Having been on the inside at one point he makes the compelling case that almost all of the non-policy questions and critiques leveled against the Clintons originated in the Republican Noise Machine, which deliberately tried and often succeeded in co-opting the mainstream media. This includes working behind the scenes to sow doubt about her progressive credentials among Democrats. The attacks about Wall Street ties, lack of progressivism, etc. are inaccurate, unacceptable and HAVE TO STOP!
There’s Richard Mellon Scaife, etc.
I just got push polled for Sanders! I don’t know who was behind it, but they asked me several computerized questions and then gave me Bernie’s pitch. BBC Polling or some such organization.
This is NOT an accusation against the Sanders campaign. Usually the tactic is used on behalf of desperate a$$holes. Sanders isn’t desperate or an a$$hole. I’m stumped.
From what I read in the article, this is DSCC fundraising. This was not his fundraising for his own Senate campaigns. It was appearing at an event that the DSCC was hosting and invited senators from the Democratic caucus to speak at. I don’t see how that undermines his criticism. The problem with the Clintons is their active cultivation of a donor base on Wall Street.
I get it–you support Hillary and want to take pot-shots at Bernie Sanders. But the situations are not analogous, and it’s just disingenuous to present them as such.
“In 2006, when Sanders ran for the Senate, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pumped $37,300 into his race and included him in fundraising efforts for the party’s Senate candidates. 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: Goldman Sachs at $685,000, Citigroup at $326,000, Morgan Stanley at $260,000 and JPMorgan Chase & Co. at $207,000.”
Bernie Sanders didn’t raise that money. He didn’t accept that money. The Democratic Party spent that money.
I suppose he could have said stop, but that’s very different than being paid millions to make a few speeches or raising hundreds of millions for your campaign or your campaign’s personal Super PAC.
None of these arguments help you, or your candidate, and your personal attacks on all Bernie supporters — because they support a candidate you do not — illustrates someone who needs to take a step back and a very, very deep breath.
He headlined DSCC fundraisers.
I don’t blame him for doing it, but I do accuse him of hypocrisy.
it about big money in politics.
Sanders has made it part of his “platform” for lack of a better word. So if you are fighting against big money in politics, then why would you be active and even defined a prolific in bringing in big donors?
You admit losing the argument once you start blaming someone else, yes it doesn’t change what Clinton has done. It is specifically pointing out Sanders role with big money in politics.
I don’t mean that there are not similarities, in the sense that (say) Brown vs. Topeka Board of Ed and Bush vs. Gore were both decided by the Supreme Court. It’s just wrong, and not convincing, to try to reduce things to their similarities for the sake of an argument.
This particular talking point makes me embarrassed for the people who advance it.
Hillary Clinton raises money from big donors on Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders raises money from big donors on Wall Street.
Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders think our campaign finance system sucks and that Citizens United was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
with me by cherry picking similarities.
But I guess that doing so is the entirety of the argument.
Hillary Clinton gets paid by big donors on Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders works with the Democratic Party on fund raisers that include donors from Wall Street.
All depends on your point of view.
I despise the corrupting influence that Wall Street has on our government. I do not think the source of that corruption is some alien force field that affects only those individuals who spend their time on a particular street in a particular city.
I think, instead, that the source of that corruption is that we live in a culture where wealth and power are synonymous, where those with wealth have access to our government that those without wealth lack, and where the influence of that disparity has exploded as the disparity itself has exploded. I do not think that every person who controls great wealth is evil or corrupt. I do think that those who control great wealth and are corrupt are more likely to do harm than those who are corrupt and do not have great wealth.
I think that when a Democratic politician participates in fund-raising activities soliciting ONLY the very wealthy for YEARS, it is hypocritical for that candidate to then attack another candidate for doing the same. It is NOT analogous to having a glass of wine over dinner at home (I think the “glass of wine over dinner” is analogous to the twenty-dollar-a-pop solicitations that Mr. Sanders, like Mr. Obama before him, is rightfully proud of).
I think the more apt analogy is having a regular four-martini-a-person “19th hole” celebration at the local golf club, and then attacking a fellow club member during a hard-fought mayoral race because that person drinks with friends at a local bar on Tuesday nights.
It seems to me that to the extent that “big money” gifts are corrupting, it makes little or no difference whether or not they are from “Wall Street”. When we attack Ms. Clinton’s “Wall Street” donors, do we include George Soros? When our nominee enters the general election against a GOP nominee that will surely have the backing of conservative activists like the Koch brothers, are we more likely to win because our candidate steadfastly refuses to “play the game”? Do we think that those who carry the flag of the late Richard Mellon Scaife will sit out this campaign if we nominate Bernie Sanders instead?
I think we need to win this general election. I think blocking today’s GOP from appointing two more clones of Mr. Scalia or Mr. Thomas to the Supreme Court is FAR more important than whatever distinction there is between those who Hillary Clinton solicited and those who Bernie Sanders solicited.
I fear that our Democratic primary is once again turning into yet another circular firing squad as we allow our passion to be distracted from our common vision and goal.
If Bernie Sanders somehow wins the Democratic nomination, he will require EVERY DOLLAR HE CAN RAISE from EVERY SOURCE HE CAN FIND. That is the unfortunate nature of today’s political system. Hillary Clinton knows that, Bernie Sanders knows that, and I suggest that most of us who’ve been through a few campaign cycles know that.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am NOT ready to sign up for eight years of a Ted Cruz administration because I insist that my guy accept only “clean money”.
in the cacophony of chaos we call democracy 🙂
Fred Rich LaRiccia
As much a recognition as I can think of that this program is dead and in need of a severe overhaul and reform. But he won’t tie two hands behind his belt either, the discussion of ideological purity obscures us from a fight about implementable policy and governance, which frankly the candidates are having in a more substantive way than their surrogates on BMG.
As have most of these silly threads this past week and a half. Hillary has played lose with ethics, Bernie doesn’t care to know anything about foreign policy. Both glaring weaknesses that are fairly minor compared to the extremism, racism, sexism, homophobia and indifference to working people exhibited by every single Republican running for President. So let’s focus on what these two would do as President and how they will go about doing it.
Still not sure how I’m going to vote, and your summary is pretty much identical to my mindset. Bernie and Hillary are largely setting a good example; would that their supporters all followed it.
I’m just not convinced that Ms. Clinton has played any looser with ethics than anybody else. What I am very convinced of is that the right-wing smear machine has spent far more money telling us that she has done so. Should we have taken down Ted Kennedy in 1972 because of his ethics? The same right-wing smear machine certainly told us so innumerable times.
I think that when the same machine is turned on Bernie Sanders (or any other nominee), it will rather quickly create the same perception for that candidate.
I very enthusiastically agree with your last sentence.
…”On our worst days, the two of us are 100 times better than anything the other side offers.”
As a Bernie supporter, If HRCs win the nomination, I will vote for her. My biggest concern is if Bernie wins, will the HRC supporters vote for him? Lighten up and stop doing pro bono work for the corporate media and repukes!
and without question, I’m supporting the Democratic nominee. I haven’t heard Clinton supporters would abandon the general if she is not the nominee.
I have heard that from Sanders supporters though, that makes me nervous. Hopefully all agree to come out for our nominee in the general.
I chalk it up to the usual campaign cool-aide drinking.
It will pass, but some people are really making themselves look foolish.
not form. Argh.
I don’t think its generally representative of voters, though there is the issue of whether the youngest voters energized by Sanders will stay in the game (I think they will, but we’ll see).
.
Polling does not seem to support that. Last polls I saw indicated sizeable majorities of Democrats are enthusiastic about both candidates.
…but five months or more exposure to the Republican nominee is usually enough to scare most people into voting smart. Not something I’m worried about.
I am not so worried about Democrats abandoning the nominee as I am worried about unenrolled voters choosing Bloomberg. He is as bad on economic issues as the GOP candidates, good on social policy and I don’t know about his foreign policy views but his knuckles do not drag on the ground when he walks so he will look pretty good to many Americans.
I haven’t seen that, but maybe I missed it.
If he were to run one result would be to remind people what being pro-Wall Street ACTUALLY looks like as opposed to the false meme being attached to HRC in this regard.
I think.
Republicans to their base: Pay no attention to our close affiliation with the investment bankers, huge corporations, and multinationals who supply significant financial support to our campaigns, and we will fight for traditional marriage, we will be staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment, fiercely opposed to all abortions, and promise to halt illegal immigration. Which, by the way, means your wages will remain flat, the middle class will continue to get hammered out of existence, and the .1% that funds our campaigns will continue to thrive.
Democrats to their base: Pay no attention to our close affiliation with the investment bankers, huge corporations, and multinationals who supply significant financial support to our campaigns, and we will fight for marriage equality, we will be staunch opponents of the NRA, fiercely in support of abortion rights, and promise a path to citizenship for all immigrants . Which, by the way, means your wages will remain flat, the middle class will continue to get hammered out of existence, and the .1% that funds our campaigns will continue to thrive.
Really, it sounds like YOU have heeded the advice to “pay no attention” because if you had you would realize that BOTH remaining Dem candidates for POTUS have advocated universal health care, rising wages, more $ in the pockets of middle and working class voters, etc.
The Clintons have raised over 115 million dollars from Wall Street since about 2002. It is the system and it certainly isn’t only them but this is an awful lot of money. It seems impossible to me that donors are giving this amount of money without asking for anything in return. Ask Trump about this!! An exorbitant amount of money to win elections and to be reelected and that’s why the average amount of time a lawmaker spends dialing for dollars is 4 hours a day.
Without campaign finance reform we will not be able to address the real issues facing America–income inequality, racism, the decline of the middle
class, climate change, etc. Without campaign finance reform the government will continue to put the needs of wealthy corporations above those of average Americans.
Both candidates have raised a lot of money schmoozing the very wealthy. Both think Citizens United was wrongly decided. Both think campaign finance reform is necessary.