No But Priorities USA Action among others are. Priorities USA Action was created to funnel large amounts of money into Obama's campaign. Now it is serving that purpose for Hillary. It is her big SuperPAC in this race. Sorts alone has given 7 million in this cycle to the PAC for her. Many others have given 1-2 million. All of this to the SuperPAC with the goal of electing Hillary. That is her PAC. Bernie took a total of 1.5 million from a PAC of nurses. The nursing PAC was not created nor do people donate to it with the purpose of electing Bernie Sanders.
I will yield a important point here. I assumed that National Nurses United had more than 1.5 million to spend and tags they were spreading their money around in key states on local candidates. But they aren't. Up to now this SuoerPAC has only put money into other organizations for progressive causes and haven't made independent contributions to a candidate. But they are to Bernie. They are unlike Hillary's several PACs or Jeb's Right to Rise which are shell superPACs created to funnel large donations to a single candidate in order to avoid campaign finance restrictions. Those are the candidate's SuperPACs. The Nurses United PAC is not like that to me. It exists to advocate for expanded Medicare and worker's rights. It has decided this cycle that Bernie represents that. Maybe I'm just off here but I completely see what Bernie is saying. He doesn't have a SuperPAC like Priorties USA Actions (Hillary) or Right to Rise (Jeb). These SuperPACs are out there soliciting funds for these candidates. The SuperPACs belong to them this cycle.
Nothing wrong with being mistaken. What should be troubling is the inability to name a Republican equivalent who gets a pass from the main stream media and members of their party like Hillary.
White House: Obama 'regrets' his filibuster of Supreme Court nominee President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday, though he maintains that the Republican opposition to his effort to replace Justice Antonin Scalia is unprecedented. “That is an approach the president regrets,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. ADVERTISEMENT Obama and the Democratic senators who joined him in filibustering Alito “should have been in the position where they were making a public case” against the merits of his nomination to the high court instead, Earnest said. “They shouldn’t have looked for a way to just throw sand in the gears of the process," he added. As a senator from Illinois, Obama and 23 other senators attempted to stage a filibuster to block a confirmation vote on Alito, one of former President George W. Bush’s picks to serve on the bench. http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...grets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee
Glenn Beck: God Brought About Scalia’s Death So America Would Vote For Ted Cruz One of Ted Cruz ‘s biggest supporters think there’s a very powerful force behind the Texas senator’s bid for the White House, and it’s responsible for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death during an election year. On Tuesday, conservative radio host and vocal Cruz backer Glenn Beck asserted on his talk show that God brought about the death of Scalia so America would “wake up” and vote for Cruz. Speaking in the voice of the heavenly father, Beck told his audience, “You’re welcome. I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, look at how close your liberty is to being lost.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/17/g...merica-would-vote-for-ted-cruz/#ixzz40WfG4v6D
I don't see a material difference. money is fungible. at best he was being dishonest and making a semantics argument.
Wait a minute. There are plenty of super pacs that decide which candidate to give money to each cycle. It was created to get around contribution limits. Bernie claiming he's not beholden to big money is absurd
Of course it is. If he's viable today, there's big money behind him. Doris gets as left as he can. He's supporting Sanders.
Of course there are. My point is that one of these massive large-donor SuperPACs, that exist just so individual contributors can throw huge sums behind a candidate through the fund, is not funding Bernie. A SuperPAC made up of union employees is. I would argue the latter is the intent of PACs. The former is just getting around campaign finance restrictions.
Unions aren't individual large donors? If the individual union members wanted to give money to Bernie in large numbers they wouldn't need a super PAC in the first place. This is a way for the select few in charge of the Union to buy influence. I guarantee you that a good percentage of their members have no desire to give money to Bernie, but they don't have that option.
Regardless, no one is giving 5 million to the nurses Union so that they can I've that to Bernie. It isn't happening. My company has a PAC. I contribute to it. They give money to candidates - democrat and republican. That PAC is not Hillar's PAC. It isn't Rubio's. It is actually my PAC and my colleagues PAC. It puts money toward our interests. Rise for America exists in this cycle to funnel large donor money - in excess of what would be allowed through individual donation - to Jeb Bush. That is his PAC. I'm surprised that I see a clear distinction here where others don't.
Theft from employees and they can raise funds for donations. My guess is they sit down with Soros' people. Just being cynical. There isn't a non-sleazy Union on earth.
