2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUnion super PAC helps Sanders and he won't tell them to stop
(CNN)Bernie Sanders declined to disavow a super PAC spending money on his behalf in an interview with CNN on Monday and contradicted a statement his campaign made about the political entities he has long spoken out against.
Sanders drew a distinction between National Nurses United For Patient Protection, a super PAC that has spent at least $569,000 backing him, and those super PACs backing other candidates during an interview with CNN's Brooke Baldwin.
"What I have said over and over again is that I have not and will not raise a nickel for a super PAC," Sanders said. "I am the only Democratic candidate who does not have a super PAC. I will not have a super PAC. They are nurses and they are fighting for the health care of their people. They are doing what they think is appropriate. I do not have a super PAC."
Sanders is correct that he has not raised money for the nurses super PAC, which is affiliated with National Nurses United, the first national union that backed his campaign. But in past statements, Sanders and his campaign aides have gone farther than saying the Vermont senator simply would not raise money or coordinate for a PAC. They have also said he would not take a super PACs help.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/bernie-sanders-super-pac-nurses/index.html
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)But nice try. It's also nurses. Not exactly in the same league as Goldman Sachs, no? Are you going to throw nurses under the bus now?
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)But according to the Federal Election Commission, that isn't the case. An FEC spokesman told CNN on Wednesday that National Nurses United For Patient Protection is, in fact, a super PAC, despite being established in 2009, before the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that led to the proliferation of super PACs.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/bernie-sanders-super-pac-nurses/index.html
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Will you throw women under the bus?
think
(11,641 posts)that make people concerned.
And y'all know that....
mcar
(42,372 posts)Getting quite a lot of criticism on this board just a short while ago.
think
(11,641 posts)Shouldn't we be talking about the banks & multinationals whose impact on the elections actually concerns most people?
That's what is at the core of the Citizen's United fight and everyone knows that.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Donors and unregulated expenditures. The Corporate Media LIES.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)BootinUp
(47,187 posts)Fact is, its another case where Bernie has overstated something and will not work in his favor in a tight race where he would have to be explaining it all the time.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)So yes, with those words, he has "disavowed" their independent expenditures. That was only 4 days ago. Does CNN think he needs to repeat his wishes over and over?
Furthermore, for all we know, they may have already stopped at this point. But if not, what else is he supposed to do? I guess he could sue them, but their independent expenditure activities are legal, so I don't know how much luck he'd have with that.
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)His opponent in a race (a close race) would want him to have to explain it every time he brings up his super pac purity.
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I am horrified by this.
Bernie is dead to me.