Chicago Trib Editorial: "Bernie Sanders is wrong. This election's not for sale."

[DCBob]

Berrnie Sanders is furious at the sight of the richest Americans spending billions of dollars on this year's elections, a development he believes is turning American democracy into a sham. "We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected," he says.

Actually, we are talking about a system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests do not determine who gets elected. Sanders may think billionaires are buying elections. But any who have that purpose are finding that elections are not for sale at any price.

Ask Jeb Bush, who entered the campaign with a solid record as governor of Florida, a lot of support among establishment Republicans and one of the most famous family names in American political history. Thanks to his deep-pocket donors, he also had more money than King Midas.

Jeb and the super PAC supporting him spent some $150 million, far surpassing any of his GOP rivals. But he quit the race last month after finishing way back in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Ben Carson also discovered that money can buy a lifetime supply of zilch. The $51 million he spent in Iowa and New Hampshire worked out to a staggering $2,154 for every vote he got. Ted Cruz spent just $472 per vote. Donald Trump spent $87 (and just $12 million in all).

More: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-campaign-spending-sanders-koch-trump-edit-0315-md-20160314-story.html

I also recall the failed campaigns of the billionaires Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorina, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot. Clearly money has a role but alone cannot buy an election... but for Bernie it's a valuable soundbite.

[reformist2]

1. What an asinine editorial. Without billionaires behind you, you can't even play the game.

The fact that Bernie is breaking through is the exception that proves the rule. And we shouldn't use his success as an excuse to say that there's nothing wrong with the campaign finance laws after all, since every once in a blue moon one of the people's candidates actually makes it.

[Ferd Berfel]

3. That's Our local paper

and it gets worse.

The trib is a RW rag

[truebrit71]

15. Barely useful to wrap fish....

...

[closeupready]

17. Yup. Always was. Still is, surprisingly.

Not.

[DCBob]

4. Well thanks for the clear and concise comment.

[DCBob]

7. Ok.. I see you wrote more.

I agree with you that we still need much more work reforming campaign finance regs but the article makes a good point that many billionaires have failed to win. Bernie's sound bite needs to be more nuanced.

[Ron Green]

2. Almost ALL elections are for sale. It's a complex web of influence,

including the Chicago Tribune and other media, and even some DU posters - present company excluded, of course.

[DCBob]

5. For sure money has too much influence..

but I am encouraged that many billionaires have failed to buy the elections they wanted.

[MADem]

6. Even George W. Bush had to "win" at the Supreme Court.

And his "deddy" lost to a "hick governor from Arkansas" ( for the irony-impaired) in a three way race with another stinking rich guy.

How did Sanders win his Senate campaign against a VT Repubican billionaire in 2006? Sure, he got lots of help from the Democratic Party (including Senator Clinton's HILLPAC), but he wasn't one of those "richest Americans," now, was he?

[JonLeibowitz]

14. *ahem* LOL! This is too funny!

MADem's previous comments on the Chicago Tribune's RW bent:

7. The Tribune?

They lean well right-the only reason they endorsed BHO is because he was a local and they thought it was good for the city/state. They were great fans of George W. Bush. I've got to laugh at some of the definitions in the piece, certainly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1490151

47. LOL!! This isn't an obscure reference...to anyone who has been around for awhile.

Keep pushing, though! Double down on your right wing editorial, written by a right-wing journalist, "lionizing" an addled actor who is, owing to his tough guy, gun nut movie persona, adored by the right wing!
...
Don't quote obvious right wing sources, at least without explaining why you're using them (like, perhaps, to illustrate what idiots the right wing can be)--there's a start.

Most Democrats know this already.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1490790

59. He's not "betraying his conservative stripes...."

He's drumming up support for the guy that HE believes--rightly or wrongly--is the easiest for his conservative favorite to defeat.

It's not rocket science!

And, to quote YOU:

You might want to re-read these things before you hit 'post'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1491094

81. No, he's touting Sanders so his conservative favorite will presumably face a weaker candidate.

Not sure why you're having a tough time with this concept. It's as old as ancient fables.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1491314

If their columnists such as John Kass are right wing, and the paper itself is right-wing why don't you call them out here as well as elsewhere?

[MADem]

16. Not sure what point you're struggling to make with all those quotes.

I'm not the "call out cop" for conservative newspapers or journalists, so I don't understand why you're trying to assign that task to me. If I observe conservatives behaving in a particular fashion, I'll take note of it.

Your suggestion of some sort of dichotomy is simply not supported.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. My point: If they have such a RW bent, why not point out how that might contribute to bias here?

[MADem]

19. Isn't that what you're doing? I wouldn't want to step on YOUR toes!

Like I said, it's not my assignment to be the curator, here--even if that's what you'd like.

You seem to be doing a fine job of it -- if you want the position you've created, take on the task and knock yourself out!

[beedle]

8. of course the ELECTION is not for sale

they don't care who wins the election. All politicians have to finance their elections, so it's far more efficient to buy the politicians, that way you don't have to take a chance that something strange happens and the "wrong' politician gets elected .. you buy them all with campaign financing and 'revolving door' opportunities.

Of course, that's why they hate Bernie so much, it forces them to look into buying elections where the chances of getting caught raise significantly.

[angrychair]

9. Talk about "missing the point"

He was never talking about money itself literally being the deciding factor in winning an election. He has always been talking about the corrupting influence of money on the process. The ability of unlimited funds in the process to influence the topics and the outcomes, in both little and big ways.
That is part of the rub. People are always trying to draw attention to how, with certain candidates, it is hard to show specific or large-scale influence or corruption. It doesn't have to be large scale, it can save or achieve millions or billions in profit to drag your feet a little here or there, change the conversation to something totally unrelated to financial outcomes (social issues) or tweak a law here or there can influence that millions or billions in profits.

That is how unregulated and unlimited campaign funds influences politics. No one has to buy the presidency to have control.

[DCBob]

10. I agree money has too much influence... anyone can see that.

But if it doesn't actually buy the election then the influence is not nearly as great. I simply do not agree that just because Wall Street has given money to Hillary she will automatically make decisions favorable to them. For sure they will have more access and she will usually answer the phone when they call but I do not believe she will just give them what they want.

[Peace Patriot]

12. A very good summary of what $$$ really does, angry chair!

Thanks!

[Avalux]

11. Some people pretend to know what they're talking about. Like the author of this editorial. n/t

[Doctor_J]

13. The trib was right wing before right wing was cool.

Probably one of the most conservative rags in the US. Would you like to guess who was the first democrat they ever endorsed for president (they have been in print since 1847)?


Barack Obama, 2008

[MADem]

20. Sweet home, Chicago.

All politics is local.

[Lucinda]

21. Interesting reading!

Thank you!

[question everything]

22. Sometimes it is nice to sift through the hot rhetoric (nt)