Is Sanders Hypocritical about Super PACs and the Citizens United Decision?

[Underhill]

Here is FEC filing for National Nurses United for Patient Protection, which is the independent expenditure-only (Type O) lobbyist Political Action Committee (Designation B) for the union National Nurses United: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=C00490375&tabIndex=3

This super PAC raised more than $2 million in 2015 (obviously not from union dues), and disbursed about half of that amount, mostly on advertising and other types of support for Sanders.

Such fundraising and independent expenditures on political campaigns by unions and corporations is legal as a direct result of the holding in Citizens United, which Sanders relentlessly complains about, wants to "overturn," and says that any Court nominee of his will somehow make overturning it "one of their first decisions".

Overlooking the idiocy of that promise, what's not hypocritical about his thanking this super PAC and referring to it as "one of the sponsors" of his campaign? This is precisely the sort of "system" that he claims "undermines" the "foundation of American democracy".

And he is right. What is idiotic is expecting someone to work at a disadvantage within the system as it is now. So his opponent has adds 24 hours a day slamming him in every conceivable way and you expect him to somehow complain about those few who support him?

He has to get elected to do anything. Like him or not, he is stuck with the political system as it is today and has to work to get elected in it.

 

[LittlePinky82]

And he is right. What is idiotic is expecting someone to work at a disadvantage within the system as it is now. So his opponent has adds 24 hours a day slamming him in every conceivable way and you expect him to somehow complain about those few who support him?

He has to get elected to do anything. Like him or not, he is stuck with the political system as it is today and has to work to get elected in it.

And before citizens United they wouldn't be considered a super pac. This puts unions at a disadvantage as well with having the regulations. That rely on working people to donate and they might not have huge backings from people with lots of money. Money equals speech under citizens United and it shouldn't. We need to hear more from people, like working nurses, so they're as equal as the upper classes in their speech. I dare think without citizens United we wouldn't have the issue we have with super pac and access. Money shouldn't equal speech. But it does and it's one of the downfalls of people who want to be a union. You need money for access and it shouldn't be the case. Union dues can go to things that should be and not your speech. And you pointed before to $2 million. That's not that much compared to other pacs out there. It seems their time is more valuable than their cash.

 

[Underhill]

And before citizens United they wouldn't be considered a super pac. This puts unions at a disadvantage as well with having the regulations. That rely on working people to donate and they might not have huge backings from people with lots of money. Money equals speech under citizens United and it shouldn't. We need to hear more from people, like working nurses, so they're as equal as the upper classes in their speech. I dare think without citizens United we wouldn't have the issue we have with super pac and access. Money shouldn't equal speech. But it does and it's one of the downfalls of people who want to be a union. You need money for access and it shouldn't be the case. Union dues can go to things that should be and not your speech.

The whole notion that money equals speech is dangerous. Everyone should, have a voice. It's called the vote. It's called petitioning. But the notion that money is speech is essentially saying that those with money have a voice and the rest of us do not. This runs directly contrary to the entire notion of a democratic republic.

 

[metis]

Why shouldn't Ben Franklin's company have been allowed to print pamphlets and posters in favor of the representatives he wanted to be elected?

What do you see as the harmful effect of the super PAC that has spent a million dollars advertising for Sanders?

As discussed in Citizens United, one of the primary problems with the BCRA was the definition and exclusion of "media" corporations and unions, so as not to infringe the First Amendment. ReligiousForums.com might be considered a "media" corporation. Anyone here who opposes the decision striking down that law can abide by the provisions of the law anyway, by voluntarily silencing one's electioneering communications on these boards.

Citizens United did not strike down any disclosure laws.

Citizen's United made following the money all but impossible to follow if a group wanted to hide it through various maneuvers, and this has been repeatedly verified through different sources. It is only after an election is over whereas more of it has to be disclosed, but by then it's too late if one wants to take that into consideration as a possible factor in terms of how they may want to vote.

When a entity donates millions of dollars to a particular candidate, for example, doncha think they expect something back in return? Do you think they're that stupid just to throw money into an election cycle for nothing? As I mentioned, Levin and McCain, one Democrat and one Republican, although there's more on both sides of the aisle, do believe that basically unlimited money such as this can have a major influence, not only on elections, but on also what happens after an election.

Donating money is no more "free speech" than I am George Clooney, and that was the previous three SCOTUS decisions concluded, and I believe it was Justice Kennedy who said a year or so prior to CU that it would be reckless to allow this to be done, but I have no clue as to why he changed his mind. Also, the minority opinion was scathing, and rightfully so, so maybe read that if you get a chance.

It is not that all donations are bad, although I do tend to feel that they poison the well more than I would prefer, but when one sees the massive amounts being spent on them, which forces candidates to spend enormous amounts of time trying to raise money to try and match it, there is nothing to be gained democracy-wise through CU, but there's a hell of a lot to lose. And, btw, some of this donation money can and has been from businesses in other countries, and do we really want them to be influencing our elections? Not imo.

 

[metis]

As noted above, short of a constitutional amendment that will never happen, the only way to cure the problem that Sanders claims "undermines" the "foundation of American democracy" is for politicians is to denounce those corporate and union super PACs.

So Levin and McCain didn't know what they were talking about, nor did three previous SCOTUS decisions? Hey, a change in the composition of the court could change this in short time.

 

[LittlePinky82]

The whole notion that money equals speech is dangerous. Everyone should, have a voice. It's called the vote. It's called petitioning. But the notion that money is speech is essentially saying that those with money have a voice and the rest of us do not. This runs directly contrary to the entire notion of a democratic republic.

I agree. Unions are important. People working together, even as a non union, is important. Money being your access is bribery.

 

[Nous]

And he is right.

Who is right about what?

What is idiotic is expecting someone to work at a disadvantage within the system as it is now.

I haven't seen where Sanders has ever mentioned the advantages of super PACS and the Citizens United decision. He only takes advantage of these advantages without speaking about it.

 

[Nous]

Money equals speech under citizens United and it shouldn't.

The Court did not create any new system about money and speech. Someone has pay for you being able to speak your message here.

 

[esmith]

I agree. Unions are important. People working together, even as a non union, is important. Money being your access is bribery.

I don't know about that. At least if I work in a non-union shop I don't have to worry about my money going to a political figure or idea I don't support.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All he has to do is denounce their spending on his campaign.

What more do you want him to do? He has no official super PAC, he has turned down large donations, and complained about Microsoft's involvement in the Iowa caucus, even though they gave 17,000 dollars towards campaigning for him.

 

[Nous]

Citizen's United made following the money all but impossible to follow if a group wanted to hide it through various maneuvers, and this has been repeatedly verified through different sources.

Provide those sources.

When a entity donates millions of dollars to a particular candidate, for example, doncha think they expect something back in return?

It doesn't matter what a donor wants if the elected official is not corrupt.

As I mentioned, Levin and McCain, one Democrat and one Republican, although there's more on both sides of the aisle, do believe that basically unlimited money such as this can have a major influence, not only on elections, but on also what happens after an election.

So you're afraid that the National Nurses United are going to influence Sanders in some way, if he is elected.

That might happen. That's why he should denounce them and their activities, rather than thanking them.

And, btw, some of this donation money can and has been from businesses in other countries.

I guess you know that because disclosure laws are working.

 

[esmith]

Does Sanders really want to win? It would seem that if he did he would be going after the Hillary on more issues than her ties to Wall Street.

 

[Nous]

What more do you want him to do?

What I would prefer is that he cease with his hypocrisy where he he happily enjoys and encourages the fruits that he condemns other candidates for partaking of.

I would also like for him to stop misleading the burger-flippers whose vote he's trying to get by telling them that he's going to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court who will "overturn" Citizens United as "one of their first decisions."

 

[Nous]

So Levin and McCain didn't know what they were talking about, nor did three previous SCOTUS decisions? Hey, a change in the composition of the court could change this in short time.

As you may or may not know, on another board I (et al.) discussed the issue of the future overturning Citizens United somewhat extensively. I can't imagine how such an opportunity might fall into the Court's lap. (It's much easier to imagine a case where Heller could be overturned.) This is besides the fact that many justices and judges do abide by stare decisis when there is no compelling reason not to.

So what kind of challenged law might entail the overturning of Citizens United?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would also like for him to stop misleading the burger-flippers whose vote he's trying to get by telling them that he's going to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court who will "overturn" Citizens United as "one of their first decisions."

So Sander's supporters are "burger-flippers?"

 

[Revoltingest]

Does Sanders really want to win? It would seem that if he did he would be going after the Hillary on more issues than her ties to Wall Street.

Considering that someone so unlikely is doing so well, I'll
wager that he knows what he's doing regarding campaigning.
Perhaps he avoids some issues because commentary could
adversely affect his eventual campaign against the Republican.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I don't know about that. At least if I work in a non-union shop I don't have to worry about my money going to a political figure or idea I don't support.

Hence why I said and non union.

 

[LittlePinky82]

The Court did not create any new system about money and speech. Someone has pay for you being able to speak your message here.

Yes it did. As its been pointed out under CU this union committee is now considered a pac where it was not considered a pac in 2009 when they were created. Also, pacs in general it's harder now to keep track of records with where money comes from.

 

[LittlePinky82]

What I would prefer is that he cease with his hypocrisy where he he happily enjoys and encourages the fruits that he condemns other candidates for partaking of.

I would also like for him to stop misleading the burger-flippers whose vote he's trying to get by telling them that he's going to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court who will "overturn" Citizens United as "one of their first decisions."

It's not hypocrisy. As was pointed out to you he's already turned down big donations. Even you have pointed out they've already given $2 million. That's not a big number. Their time seems more valuable. So you've shown your bias and nothing people say will get you to see otherwise. And sanders has long since been against citizens united. Are you? Sorry I'm mobile so I couldn't get them together. So men like the former head of the naacp is a burger flipper? Sanders has people of all ages supporting him. Please. And what's wrong with being a burger flipper? Elitist much?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hence why I said and non union.

I wish Dollar General was union. I worked in their distribution center, and actually lost my job because my FMLA paperwork was somehow lost somewhere over it going from the hospital, to the third-party company that handles medical leave, and Dollar General, and because my paper work wasn't there, because they didn't have anything on file, my leave was not approved and I lost my job. Fortunately, the state did rule my termination was wrongful, and I got a phat unemployment check out of it.