Bernie Sanders

This One Tweet Illustrates Why Bernie Sanders' Crusade Against Campaign Financing is So Silly

Jeb Bush said what?

|

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was on the television just now, declaring victory in Iowa, which is currently a dead heat between Sanders and Hillary Clinton with 94 percent of votes in. Watch the blog for a write-up of the Democratic race coming soon. But in the meantime, here's a tweet from Fox News that inadvertently undercuts Sanders' quioxitic campaign against money in politics:

Super PACs supporting Jeb Bush spent more money than Super PACs for any other candidate. Right to Rise, a pro-Bush Super PAC spent up to $25,000 per vote Jeb Bush got. Why? Because campaign spending has very little influence on actual election results. Instead, attempts to curb money in politics are actually attempts to limit dissident speech in politics, which the real world application of "campaign finance reform" ideas bears out.

So, yeah, Sanders doesn't want billionaires' money now. What he actually means is he doesn't want them to spend it to support speech that might question his plans to take their money and waste it on a massive exercise in signalling interest for the poor while actually doing nothing to alleviate it, and actually contributing to the problem.

Advertisement

NEXT: Idaho Working to Ban Powdered Alcohol

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If anything, elections have gotten a lot more accessible to crazies like Sanders with Citizens United. Clown.

  2. You keep mocking Sanders and you won’t get invited to the parties with the rest of Reason

    1. I don’t get invited because I smell. Or so I assume.

  3. “This one tweet…”

    Ugh.

    1. ^^This…in spades. Hell, I only clicked on it so I could come post this comment.

  4. Someone give that man a laxative,stat.

    Or better yet an enema.

  5. What he actually means is he doesn’t want them to spend it to support speech that might question his plans to take their money and waste it on a massive exercise in signalling interest for the poor while actually doing nothing to alleviate it, and actually contributing to the problem.

    Wow! That is one massive sentence. How did you get that past the censures?

    1. a) that’s what she said b) it’s “censors”

  6. Funny enough, this one tweet *ALSO* illustrates why most of us are thoroughly disgusted with the GOP

  7. Your ability to exercise that skill which you so proudly claim as your title is non-existent. Your logic is insultingly vaporous. First, the question is certainly not to be determined by whether someone not funded by super-pacs can do well, the question, from an elections point of view is, what would the contest look like without the influence of super-pacs? Who else might actually step up and run as a candidate if they weren’t up against the entrenched interests of those running and financing the super-pacs. And for that matter,what dynamic would emerge wtih voters and candidates if they weren’t mired in promoting of fending off the messaging of those monied interests.
    But, but, and this is what’s truly important; what are those whose campaigns and elections depend on oligarch funded super-pac financing doing once they are elected? Ask yourself, whose interests are they working on behalf of? Who are they listening to? Who do the truly answer to? Voters become nothing more than a commodity. The only thing of importance is insuring the necessary backing for the next in installment payment election campaign.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.