Reasons why Bernie Sanders is Full of Shit Part 1.

Topic of the day: Campaign Finance Reform

Campaign finance reform is an important issue to Sanders who is vehemently against the 2010 Citizens United ruling largely responsible for the rise of super PACs. If elected, Sanders plans to (examples taken directly from his website):

• Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
• Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
• Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
• Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.

While there is a legitimate argument in favor of these proposals, let us examine the hypocrisy of them coming from Sanders, as well as the legal and moral dilemma presented by them.

Firstly, Sanders has stated many times that he does not have any super PACs, a claim that is very misleading and effectively false. While it is true Sanders does not have an official super PAC, Sanders actually has several pro-Bernie super PACs including National Nurses United (NNU) and Friends of the Earth, whom have collectively spent millions on TV ads. To put this in perspective, the major PAC aligned with Clinton, Priorities USA Action, has spent less than $400,000 on pro-Clinton ads as of Dec. 31 2015.

tl;dr: While aggressively speaking out against super PACs, Sanders has simultaneously received millions of dollars from special interest groups.

Secondly, there are extensive legal obstacles preventing Sanders from enacting his plans. Many of which, such as eliminating super PACs, are unconstitutional viz. Citizens United. Sanders does not get to break laws on the basis of really -perhaps even justifiably- disliking them.  It is a fact Sanders is well aware of, although seldom brings up during debates, which is why in 2014 he sponsored N.M. democratic Sen. Tom Udall’s constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse Citizens United. However, there are several problems with this entire scenario. Chief among them is the fact that all of Sanders’ plans are contingent upon passing a constitutional amendment, which is more than unlikely to happen. Additionally, whenever asked about this in debates Sanders gives one of two responses, paraphrasing, he either states, “I will pass the Fair Elections Now Act” or “We will start a political revolution”. While the latter is nonsensical, let us explore the Fair Elections Now Act which would according to the bill, “…allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists…”. While the merits of the bill are debatable, with critics arguing it would unfairly marginalize the minority party candidate, it does not change the fact that this bill in no way accomplishes any of what Sanders claims he will do. It does not eliminate super PACs, it does not limit campaign spending, and it does not eliminate the influence of lobbyists and special interests. Sanders  makes a lot of promises that sound fantastic to his constituents, but in reality take advantage of their naivety having no basis in reality and no reasonable plans for implementation.

tl;dr: Legally speaking there is no way to accomplish Sanders’ plans barring an unlikely constitutional amendment. When questioned on how he will accomplish his plans, the responses are essentially bullshit that in no way actually answer the question… a recurring theme

Thirdly, it is hard for Sanders to feign the moral high ground on campaign finance reform when he fails to actually use the system he so highly advocates. There actually is a federal public campaign financing system in place conceived in 1976 and used by every eventual democratic and republican presidential nominee from 1976 -1992. It’s a system fmr presidential candidate and M.D. Gov. Martin O’Malley used to receive nearly $900 thousand. Sanders argues that the system is outdated, which is partially true as candidates who receive public financing are subsequently barred from receiving or spending private funds, and although the system increases the grants given to candidates each year adjusted for inflation, the resulting payout is still significantly less than some candidates can raise though private funding. In total, eventual nominees are currently entitled to over $91 million in public funding. However, as of January, the Sanders campaign had raised over $77 million in online contributions alone… which doesn’t take into account the potentially hundreds of millions he would raise in the increasingly unlikely event he became the democratic nominee. It is therefore morally self-defeating and extremely hypocritical, if not ultimately unsurprising that Sanders did not use it given the vast amounts of money he has raised though private donors.

tl;dr: Sanders argues there needs to be a public campaign financing system but doesn’t actually use existing one.

Finally, Sanders ignores reality by failing to recognize any legitimacy in the opposing argument. The truth is that there are many people who hold a reasonable argument in favor of businesses and super PACs contributing to campaigns. Businesses can succeed, or fail, depending on laws passed. The livelihood of people in unions can be affected by who wins an election (e.g. Scott Walker). Corporate income taxes paid by businesses represented over $340 billion in tax revenue last year and many of Sanders’ TV and radio ads are in part due to pro-Bernie super PACs. Sanders may be completely against big money in politics, and that is a perfectly OK position to take. The problem is that ignoring legitimate points from the opposite side, even if you completely disagree with them, is not only childish but does nothing to solve the political gridlock in Washington.

tl;dr: Sanders can’t accept that not everybody agrees with him and takes an uncompromising position that is sure to go everywhere but anywhere.

My Hot Take: Campaign finance reform is necessary, but not nearly as important as many other issues such as the economy, education, infrastructure and foreign policy. At the end of the day super PACs can’t vote, only YOU can. If you are worried about money influencing democracy than you are either saying you are an idiot that is easily persuaded by rich people advertisements or you are saying others are. In either circumstance it doesn’t matter because most idiots tend to vote straight ticket Republican or Democratic anyway and ridiculous ads about Benghazi and Obamacare aren’t going to change that.