Bernie Sanders posts a record $46.5 million February fundraising haul

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Sanders’s campaign announced they’ve raised $46.5 million in February, the largest monthly sum any Democratic candidate has raised so far this cycle. It will ensure Sanders stays competitive as the campaign shifts from the early states to a national primary — a change that calls for substantial money to reach voters in multiple states with ads.

In addition to the ads the Sanders campaign is already running in Super Tuesday states, the money will help fuel a large Sanders ad buy in states beyond next Tuesday’s contests: The campaign has announced ad buys in five states voting on March 10, as well as four large states voting March 17: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio.

(snip)

Link to tweet

Being flush with campaign cash is critical during this stretch of the primary; it’s the moment the Democratic primary will shift from revolving around the small, retail-style politics of the early states to a so-called “tarmac campaign” where candidates are flying to multiple states to do big rallies, and must rely on ads to get their messages to voters.

(snip)

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/1/21159991/bernie-sanders-february-fundraising-haul

[AGeddy]

1. As Bloomberg has shown us, money often isn't enough

[beastie boy]

2. Can anyone explain to me how Bernie's money is different from Bloomberg's money?

Both are controlled by their respective campaigns and both use it to buy speech. Both spend it to gain unfair advantage over competition.

What fucking difference does the source of their money make?

[Uncle Joe]

3. I simply can't believe anybody doesn't know the difference,

more like not wanting to know.

[msongs]

4. can't or won't? nt

[beastie boy]

6. Sounds like you know. Care to elaborate?

[Uncle Joe]

7. Each dollar that has been donated to Bernie (or any other candidate for that matter)

is an expression of support or voice of and in Bernie's case from a record number of people.

Bloomberg's money is solely his own and a reflection of no one except himself, it's just a bullhorn.

[beastie boy]

9. I didn't ask how peoplechoose to express their support. I asked what difference it makes

whether it's Bloomberg or Sanders who buy speech with the dollars they have. Whether it's expression of support for Bernie from his supporters or expression of support for Bloomberg from himself, the money is being spent to buy speech in order to drown out their competitors. How is THAT different?

What I am saying is that money, whether it is an expression of support or otherwise, is being used by both campaigns to suppress the speech of the less fortunate (or as you might say, less popular) candidates. Do you disagree that both Sanders and Bloomberg use money to buy speech in the same way? How is one exchange of speech for money different from the other? Is it the money, or the speech, or the exchange?

[Uncle Joe]

10. Donations to any candidate as expressions of support are political speech by the people.

Bernie's campaign is being bolstered by the speech of the people.

The only things suppressing the speech of the "less fortunate" candidates are Bloomberg's attempt at buying the election with his bullhorn of billions and those "less popular" candidate's messages not resonating with enough of the people; in lending their voice aka; dollars to the cause.

Every candidate buys commercials with U.S. dollars however where that money came from most assuredly makes a difference in the in the makeup of voices or lack thereof.

[beastie boy]

11. Once the donations are made, they become the means to buy political speech by a campaign.

"The people" completely lose control over it. It becomes the tool of the candidate, to use as HE pleases.

It's ironic that you mention Bloomberg in the context of buying speech. You call it "buying an election". According to you, the money Bloomberg spends is supposed to represent himself alone. Yet, Bloomberg has many more supporters than himself, and Steyer, for instance, who also spends his own money, not enough supporters to stay in the race. So this is a clear case of money not being representative of popular support, or, as you call it, "the makeup of voices". Proof positive that there is no correlation between money spent and the makeup of voices.

The reverse is also true: Biden raised half of what Sanders raised, yet he is ahead in popular vote. Again, no correlation between money and the makeup of voices.

I would suggest the only correlation between money and speech in an election is purely transactional: how much speech the money can buy. Period. Not where money comes from, not the candidates' platforms, not how well money represents the aforementioned makeup of voices. There is just no evidence for that.

So Bernie's money is not remotely equivalent to the speech of the people. Claiming otherwise would be taking Citizens United a bit too literally.

[msongs]

5. Poor Bernie - the multi millionaire rakes in the big bucks for Himself then bad mouths the

influence of money in politics

[RandySF]

8. I wonder how much of it they will have to give back after the FEC sorts through it.