Sanders drops line attacking Super PAC's from speech...uh oh

[psychprofessor]

Well, don't color me surprised, but it's been revealed that Bernie actually is supported by a Super PAC.

Politico is now reporting that Sanders has dropped his line of attack against Super PAC's in his stump speech:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/bernie-sanders-drops-super-pacs-attack-216088

The omission of the line [against Super Pac's] went unnoticed by the 700-person audience, but it comes at a noteworthy time for Sanders: one day after the Sunlight Foundation noted that the National Nurses United union was using its affiliated super PAC to back Sanders with nearly $570,000.

Interesting turn of events, indeed.

[This account no longer in use.]

The Super PAC is independent from the Sanders campaign, no? I will give Sanders the benefit of the doubt here, just as others have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt so many times.

[psychprofessor]

The Super PAC is independent from the Sanders campaign, no? I will give Sanders the benefit of the doubt here, just as others have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt so many times.

So will I - and it's a nurse's organization. I just think the whole issue of Super PAC's is a non-issue. Not sure why he tried to question Clinton about it in the first place.

[Beet]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[This account no longer in use.]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

[MM876]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

Well that's just a flat out lie. Based on individual expenditures. perhaps, but based on actual spending and objective reporting, that's wrong.

Who would legitimately compare a few nurses' union dues to George Soros?

And he hasn't dropped the line. This is back from NOVEMBER, when they started supporting him, and he's still fighting against Super PACs.

The media has been trying to dig up dirt on Sanders and they haven't, so now they're trying to Swiftboat him by making stuff up, like the issue with Sanders and the Civil Rights-era photograph. It's not surprising, but if you buy into this stuff because you have a prejudice with no regard for the facts, then you're just wrong.

[Lief 🗽]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0

[MM876]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/438tby/new_york_times_gets_it_wrong_bernie_sanders_not/
https://mobile.twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/692926274545795073

The author basically admitted to using deceptive information and then tried to justify it in a pathetic and half-hearted manner.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie doesn't have a SuperPAC.

[Lief 🗽]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/438tby/new_york_times_gets_it_wrong_bernie_sanders_not/
https://mobile.twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/692926274545795073

The author basically admitted to using deceptive information and then tried to justify it in a pathetic and half-hearted manner.

"The Intercept"? Seriously? Try and find a source that isn't the left-wing equivalent of Breitbart, LOL

[Beet]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/super_pac_money_how_political_groups_are_spending_to_influence_the_2016.html

Bernie has net benefited from Super PACs, Clinton has been net attacked.

[Stockdale for Veep]

Super Pacs are like the 3-point line. You may hate it. But in order to win, you have to utilize it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Super Pacs are like the 3-point line. You may hate it. But in order to win, you have to utilize it.

Bernie is not utilizing SuperPACs. He opposes all of them.

[HillOfANight]

Super Pacs are like the 3-point line. You may hate it. But in order to win, you have to utilize it.

Bernie is not utilizing SuperPACs. He opposes all of them.

How is he opposing them if he refuses to disavow one because he approves of its message?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/260754-sanders-campaign-honored-by-500k-support-from-super-pac
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/bernie-sanders-super-pac-nurses/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Super Pacs are like the 3-point line. You may hate it. But in order to win, you have to utilize it.

Bernie is not utilizing SuperPACs. He opposes all of them.

How is he opposing them if he refuses to disavow one because he approves of its message?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/260754-sanders-campaign-honored-by-500k-support-from-super-pac
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/bernie-sanders-super-pac-nurses/

That's completely false. They're not a SuperPAC.

[MM876]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/super_pac_money_how_political_groups_are_spending_to_influence_the_2016.html

Bernie has net benefited from Super PACs, Clinton has been net attacked.

That's not the same as using Super PACs through shady connections, and definitely not the same as soliciting Wall Street money.

[Pyro]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

[Oak Hills]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

Not to mention most people inclined to support Sanders would see a very relevant difference between a superPAC funded by wealthy donors and one funded by a labor union. I mean come on.

[Ebsy]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

Not to mention most people inclined to support Sanders would see a very relevant difference between a superPAC funded by wealthy donors and one funded by a labor union. I mean come on.

I don't see why just because a special interest (which unions are) agrees with you makes it any less suspect, especially when your entire campaign is being run against "the corrupt campaign finance system."

[MM876]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

Not to mention most people inclined to support Sanders would see a very relevant difference between a superPAC funded by wealthy donors and one funded by a labor union. I mean come on.

I don't see why just because a special interest (which unions are) agrees with you makes it any less suspect, especially when your entire campaign is being run against "the corrupt campaign finance system."

Couple of reasons:
1. Sanders hasn't solicited donations to the PAC
2. The PAC is run by a union, which you must realize is ideologically different than big donors
3. The PAC doesn't accept money from donors, it is run by union dues
4. The PAC has spent a fraction of what has been spent by the other PACs, which is extremely relevant in terms of the influence they've held this election cycle.
5. Bernie Sanders has had no correspondence with the PAC, which cannot credibly be said for the other candidates' PACs

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

Not to mention most people inclined to support Sanders would see a very relevant difference between a superPAC funded by wealthy donors and one funded by a labor union. I mean come on.

I don't see why just because a special interest (which unions are) agrees with you makes it any less suspect, especially when your entire campaign is being run against "the corrupt campaign finance system."

It's a relevant point because Democratic primary voters are quite comfortable with unions and very uncomfortable with economic elites. Democrats do not believe that "Super PAC's" are terrible simply for philosophical reasons, they dislike Super PAC's because they're utilized by corporate interests, whether amenable to the Democratic Party or not. Further, the political action taken by, say, the SEIU pales in comparison with the tremendous amounts of money funneled into various PAC's and Democratic primary voters recognize this.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

Not to mention most people inclined to support Sanders would see a very relevant difference between a superPAC funded by wealthy donors and one funded by a labor union. I mean come on.

I don't see why just because a special interest (which unions are) agrees with you makes it any less suspect, especially when your entire campaign is being run against "the corrupt campaign finance system."

Couple of reasons:
1. Sanders hasn't solicited donations to the PAC
2. The PAC is run by a union, which you must realize is ideologically different than big donors
3. The PAC doesn't accept money from donors, it is run by union dues
4. The PAC has spent a fraction of what has been spent by the other PACs, which is extremely relevant in terms of the influence they've held this election cycle.
5. Bernie Sanders has had no correspondence with the PAC, which cannot credibly be said for the other candidates' PACs

6. PACs are definitely not SuperPACs. They were allowed before Citizen's United, and you can give a maximum of $5000 to a PAC in a year, which is less than you can give to a candidate (primary + general election), and much less than the $8 million that George Soros just gave Hillary's SuperPACs.

[IceSpear]

Karl Rove's super PAC is heavily supporting Bernie.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Everybody would have given Sanders the benefit of the doubt if he wasn't posing as The purest than pure Progressive.

[Shadows]

I am so repulsed by the attitude of Hillary hacks & some right wing people here. Just because they're guy or girl is a dishonest corrupt guy so everyone else has to be.

Rarely seen such lowball cheap attacks where people don't even acknowledge the right & the wrong