Bernie Sanders Would Now Outraise Clinton Almost 2-to-1 With Small Donor Matching Funds

[kgnu_fan]

Interesting....

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/24/bernie-sanders-would-now-outraise-clinton-almost-2-to-1-with-small-donor-matching-funds/

Bernie Sanders would have raised almost twice as much money by the end of 2015 as Hillary Clinton for his presidential campaign if the U.S. had a system of public matching funds for small donors, according to a report by U.S. PIRG, a federation of the state-level activist groups founded by Ralph Nader in the 1970s.

In addition, Sanders would also have far outraised any of the remaining Republican candidates.

The U.S. PIRG report examines how 2016 presidential candidates would fare under a campaign financing system similar to that of New York City, which matches small donations to local candidates with additional public money at a six-to-one ratio. For example, if someone gives $10 to a candidate for the New York City Council, the city provides an additional $60, so the candidate receives $70 total.

The report assumes that to participate in the matching funds program, candidates must voluntarily agree to take no donations over $200. Therefore, to determine the amount candidates would receive in matching funds, the report caps donations by individuals at $200 in its accounting, even if they gave more than that amount, adds up all the candidates’ donations using those new numbers, and then multiplies the result by by six.

[merrily]

1. It depends on what your definition of "outraised" is. If one excludes PAC and other "dark"

money, sure, Bernie's raised lots. Does he have anywhere near as much to spend as Hillary, though? Nope.

[WhiteTara]

2. key words..."would have if"

and he would have beat her so far IF; but the all powerful Hillary thwarted him at every turn by fixing the rules in 1970.