Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:31 AM Jan 2016

New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not “Top Beneficiary of Outside Money”

The New York Times caused a stir by publishing a classic man-bites-dog style campaign finance story in its Friday editions titled “Bernie Sanders Is Top Beneficiary of Outside Money.” The article charges that despite his fiery campaign rhetoric against Super PACs and big money in politics, Sanders has gained much more from Super PAC spending than his Democratic opponents.

“In fact,” the Times reports, “more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.”

While more money has indeed been spent on a certain type of campaign spending in support of Sanders, the article leaves the wrong impression by suggesting that pro-Sanders Super PACs have outpaced outside groups supporting Hillary Clinton or Martin O’Malley. If that sounds confusing, that’s because the Times article hinges on a technicality in campaign finance law.

When total Super PAC spending is measured, Clinton groups are leading the way.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/

key paragraphs:

To debunk the claim that the nurses are outspending all pro-Clinton outside groups, one merely has to look at six months of spending and limited independent expenditure disclosures by the primary pro-Clinton Super PACs Correct the Record and Priorities USA Action. Doing so finds that pro-Clinton outside organizations have spent well over $2.2 million during this campaign cycle on staff, consultants, research, advertising, communications, advocacy, and other campaign-related expenses. If you add in pro-Clinton independent expenditures from Planned Parenthood, the Service Employees International Union, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Human Rights Campaign, the pro-Clinton total rises to more than $2.6 million.

That pro-Clinton outside money number is likely to rise dramatically after new disclosure reports are released this weekend. The Super PAC disclosures will reveal the last six months of spending in 2015. And given reports that Clinton Super PACs are sitting on a war chest that is estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars raised from wealthy individuals, corporations, and unions, the comparison to the nurses union, which raises its cash from working nurses, may look quite strange in only a few days.

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New York Times Gets it Wrong: Bernie Sanders Not “Top Beneficiary of Outside Money” (Original Post) n2doc Jan 2016 OP
Hmmmm... first the ridiculous WaPo piece, and now THIS. It's ALMOST like they want someone AzDar Jan 2016 #1
That war propaganda rag going ape-shit now, huh? Nyan Jan 2016 #2
Thank you doc! SoapBox Jan 2016 #3
Yeah that post/article is a real piece of work, ain't it? n2doc Jan 2016 #4
That explains the timing of the claim. n/t hootinholler Jan 2016 #5
 

AzDar

(14,023 posts)
1. Hmmmm... first the ridiculous WaPo piece, and now THIS. It's ALMOST like they want someone
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:36 AM
Jan 2016

else to win...

Nyan

(1,192 posts)
2. That war propaganda rag going ape-shit now, huh?
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:37 AM
Jan 2016

They're losing their mind and not even trying to make a good argument.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
3. Thank you doc!
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:44 AM
Jan 2016

I see some of The Bots are all over that other post.

The Entrenched Powers are freaking out...they like their big money, big power, big war status quo with that Wall Street candidate.

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
4. Yeah that post/article is a real piece of work, ain't it?
Fri Jan 29, 2016, 10:52 AM
Jan 2016

Kind a reminds me of a certain Judith Miller's work....

Krugman has another 'shill for Hill' op ed in the same paper today. Sanders 'only cares about money' and 'we have been making slow steady progress on progressive issues'. Somehow when I look back over the past 24 years, it has been two steps backwards, one step forwards, most of the time. On the few issues where progress has been made, the PTB have been dragged kicking and screaming down those roads, until they saw that they couldn't stop them and jumped on board at the last minute.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»New York Times Gets it Wr...