Open Discussion by & for Berners re: Funding Bernie's long-term GE win.

[99th_Monkey]

A group of wealthy progressives announced today their intention to form a PAC
or a 501c4 to support Bernie "whether he likes it or not":
http://g.thehill.com/homenews/campaign/269706-big-money-liberals-vow-to-back-bernie-whether-he-likes-it-or-not

This is EXACTLY what I was hoping would happen i.e. Wealthy people with a progressive
conscience band together to do what's allowable by law, to stand with the 99% because
they really get that we are "all in this together", not to mention because it's good for the
'little people' and ultimately the economy.

Bernie's already made it very clear that he is NOT for sale, and that any money donated
is totally to advance exactly what Bernie is saying he's going to do: i.e. his platform in it's
entirety.

Not that I agree with all of Bernie's positions (guns), but on balance it's nearly an exact
replica of my own personal priorities and goals for the nation. If I had a ton of money,
but could only give $2700, why should people who have money and support Bernie's
platform should have to sit on their wallets, denied the same latitude to USE Citizens
United in an entirely clean way, i.e. in solidarity w/ We the People's Political Revolution,
i.e. Bernie's platform.

Until CU is revoked, null & void, all bets are off. Bernie can blaze the trail re
demonstrating how a principled candidate can conscientiously allow wealthy
progressives to support him within the framework of existing laws, not because
Hilary's already doing it, precisely because it IS "above board" and above being
lambasted with disingenuous innuendos i.e. 'Bernie's just as bad as Hillary"

I think there's a good case to be made here. Not sure if I'm doing it justice, but
damn .. this could easily make the difference for Bernie. PLUS, it totally destroys
the following Clinton meme, that "Bernie Can't Compete in the GE" due to not
having $uper-pac$.

From The Hill Article

A number of Hillary Clinton’s fundraisers and donors say that no matter how impressive Sanders’s small-dollar fundraising is — and many are stunned that he has managed to haul in close to $100 million in donations averaging around $30 — they remain skeptical that the small-dollar approach can work in a general election against a Republican nominee backed by numerous tycoons and likely by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch's powerful donor network.

Also, as I understand it, for what it's worth, the nurse's union that endorsed Bernie
is also pledging to do their own thing, and i don't think Bernie has gone out of his way
to quash their support.

Comments? discussion?

[daleanime]

1. Bad idea.....

the small positives from it would be far out-weighted by the negatives. We would lose some of the feeling of uniqueness that this campaign has, which helps energize it's supporters. It would allow other campaigns, who awash in outside money, to color Bernie as no different.

[99th_Monkey]

2. I think that depends on how the support is structured, and what is being "promised" <-nothing

My platform is my promise, no special "favors".

" It would allow other campaigns, who awash in outside money, to color Bernie as no different."

BTW - I appreciate your voice, as it helps insure a deeper discussion.

[99th_Monkey]

3. To be clear

I do love Bernie's uniquely corruption free people-based approach,

but I wonder if anyone's done the math, as to the rate of new donors,
and the trajectory of that, factoring in some guess as to where an
average donor would 'max out' and not continue giving.

[Punkingal]

4. I give monthly, plus other times, and I haven't reached 500 yet.

My husband hasn't even started yet, so we have a long way to go yet. Having said that, I think he would be okay for this super pac to happen, depending of course on who these donors are.

[Peace Patriot]

5. It needs to be done RIGHT! Here are some thoughts...

It needs to be done right because Bernie has so often spoken against Superpacs and billionaires buying elections.

1. The donors need to COME FORWARD, show their faces to the public and explain what they are doing and pledge absolutely no tit-for-tat.

2. I wish this could take place on a stage with Bernie Sanders, who also pledges no tit-for-tat, but I think that, for Pacs, that is not allowed. (No coordination with the campaign.) So Bernie needs to separately state that he has nothing to do with whatever Pacs are formed, and pledges absolutely no tit-for-tat, well beyond the legal requirements (no coordination).

I WISH that he won't need billionaire money to win the GE. I WISH that the American people will come forth with sufficient small donations--will respond to this honest man in this way--and overcome the money thrown against him. How great that would be!

However, I don't want to underestimate the corruption of our entire political world, including not only most office holders and candidates, all corporate media, alleged public media, the financial institutions under threat of regulation, the medical and insurance institutions under threat of "single payer," war profiteers threatened with peace, the boards of colleges and universities under threat of having debt-free students, many non-profit and union uppermucks and boards--virtually all of our institutions of any kind are opposing or will oppose a Sanders administration. Add the 10% to the 1% who own everything and run everything, all digging deep to prevent a new New Deal in Washington.

So I don't know. We are dealing with a very, very, very bad establishment. And we do need to be wary of even nice billionaires achieving access in a Sanders White House that we, the people, don't have.

IT HAS TO BE PRISTINE. There has to be a clear, unequivocal, VISIBLE answer to all the buckets of mud that will be thrown at him and OUR campaign if billionaires come forth to support him.

1. I want to know who they are. Each and every one of them. No secrets!
2. I want to know that there is no tit for tat, no access, no favors, no tickets to Inauguration balls, nothing, now or in the future, that only uber-rich Pac donors will receive.
3. There has to be some kind of visible guarantee that will shut the mud-throwers up, and that will satisfy Bernie's supporters.

-----------------

One other thing: It's not just the corrupt money that will be against Sanders. It is the corrupt vote counting process itself. We are facing an extremely corrupted and riggable vote counting PROCESS. I'm talking about the machines themselves--beyond massive purges of black voters, voter ID requirements, beyond gerrymandering and all of it.

The electronic voting process that was spread like a plague all over this country, during the 2002 to 2004 period, with no outcry (not even a peep!) for our Democratic Party leadership, is run on 'TRADE SECRET' programming code--code that the public is forbidden to review--with NO AUDIT AT ALL in many states and only a miserably inadequate 1% audit in most of the others Furthermore, this 'TRADE SECRET' code is owned and controlled by a handful of far rightwing-connected corporations (mainly ES&S which bought out Diebold).

Maybe these friendly billionaires should put their money into a thorough investigation of these machines to try prevent of a rigged election.

This needs to be done anyway, with regard to elections for Senate and House. This Congress has an EIGHT PERCENT approval rating! I'm convinced that the reason Congress is so unrepresentative and so despised, by so many, is that most of them were NOT elected. That is where the fascist coup d'etat occurred in 2012, in my opinion. The 'TRADE SECRET' code has been used in various ways--that was one of them.

Remedies:

Independent exit polls, all over the country! That would be truly great!

Legal challenges especially in states with no audit (comparison of electronic totals with ballots--no audit because they have no ballot at all, just a screen). We could use such exit polls in SC right now. Last I looked, they were all electronic with no ballot and no audit. It is true of much of the South. (But remember that the vote is riggable even with a paper ballot.)

The billionaires could entirely avoid any blowback on Sanders by funding independent election experts (such as Jonathan Simon) to do these and other needed things, to prevent both rigged primaries and a rigged GE. But I think it's the GE that is most in danger from the 'TRADE SECRET' code.

That's my two cents: PRISTINE, or not at all! And the other peril: extremely riggable vote counting.

[99th_Monkey]

6. Thank you for your comments. And I agree about the pristine part.

How to do that is "The Question" ... for sure.

I was trying to get at that by using Bernie's platform, as publicly stated on his website;
as a kind of "Heres' my platform .. what you see is what you get. no special side-deals"
In other words, if a rich person simply supports Bernie's platform in solidarity with We
the People i.e. the 99%, then what's so bad about that.

THIS ^ is very different from taking money from private prison lobbyists, or fossil fuel
industries, or Wall St. ... at least it seems that way to me. Not that Hillary people wouldn't
try to smear Bernie with this, just like they have on everything else, so I honestly don't
know the answer, but thanks again for weighing in.

[Mufaddal]

7. Not only is it a bad idea

Bernie's campaign will likely have something to say about it.

I understand why people see it as a potentially attractive option, but it is tantamount to platform suicide. It would be used to hang him by his own words. Beyond that, it was said he couldn't get this far in a primary without a super PAC, and yet here we are.

Bernie's campaign has always been about people power and getting money out of politics. I don't see the campaign responding well to this kind of news, and in fact I bet Hillary will bring it up in the next debate as a point against him.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Maybe that's why the donors said "...whether he wants it or not"

Bernie can't control what these donors do. He can denounce it and say he doesn't want it,
but they could still do supportive stuff anyway.. super-pacs aren't supposed to "coordinate"
with the candidate anyway.

I don't know how Hillary could make something of it under theses circumstances; esp. since
she's got super-pacs up the wazoo.

I hear your concern, and am also playing a bit of devil's advocacy as well.

[Mufaddal]

11. Understood

But Hillary could make hay out of it by simply saying, "hey, you're the anti-super PAC candidate; I may not love them but I never claimed to not benefit from them." Or: "This just shows that you have a naive understanding of politics, because people can form super PACs for you without your campaign's consent." She could even go one step further and claim that now they're both in the same boat because she never really wanted one either, but has no control over it. (Yeah, it would be an eye-roller for sure, but she could try it and her fans would eat it up.)

As for "coordinating," we know how how loose the law is about how that's defined, thanks in large part to Colbert.

[jwirr]

8. Okay, just a couple of ideas. First Hillary is being hurt a lot

by her acceptance of "big money". In this populist time it is not a winning idea. So that is the bad side.

However, it is stupid to think that there are not ANY good people who have money. So how do they contribute?

Bernie is building revolution. Instead of a PAC why not join the revolution - take some of his issues and give them support. Show that they support him and his issues through actions. Make news for his ideas.

Just an idea.

[99th_Monkey]

10. This is the kind of creative thinking I was hoping for with the OP, so thanks nt