Today, a very respected campaign finance journalist for the New York Times published a piece with a provocative headline: "Bernie Sanders Tops his Rivals in Use of Outside Money." Based on in-house analysis of FEC data of independent expenditures, the article makes a number of claims. First, the article claims that "more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records." Second, by its headline's use of the word "Use", the article implies coordination between the Sanders campaign and the SuperPACs who are spending money in his support; no candidate may "use" outside money or it's no longer outside money. I would like to dispel both of these claims, as well as address the issues with the general framing of the article.
Did Bernie Really Get More Outside Support Than Clinton?
After a small Twitter exchange with the author of the article, I downloaded today's independent expenditure data. I removed all records that were in opposition of a candidate, as well as all records in support or in opposition to any Republican presidential candidate. According to today's data, Clinton's campaign has seen $1,146,209.22 in independent expenditures, while Sanders' campaign has seen $1,100,410.89 in supportive independent expenditures. Sanders has not received the most outside money by this standard.
Did Bernie Sanders "Use" Outside Money?
The headline of the article actually makes a very damning claim against the get-money-out candidate. Rather than saying "More outside money spent to support Sanders," which is, as stated above, false, the article says that Bernie Sanders tops his rival in his use of outside money. Candidates aren't allowed to use outside money, or else that constitutes illegal coordination. The author of this article is well aware of the fact that coordination with an independent expenditure group is illegal both for the candidate and the independent expenditure organization. And yet, although there is no substance within the article to back up such a claim, the article's title makes the claim regardless.
What Else Does The Article Get Wrong?
"Mr. Sander’s unlikely rise to super PAC pre-eminence is, in part, the story of an unusual alignment of strategies by different outside groups, including Republican ones eager to bloody Mrs. Clinton and lift Mr. Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election. While the nurses’ super PAC is the biggest left-leaning outside spender in the Democratic primary, conservative organizations have also spent at least $4.3 million attacking Mrs. Clinton in recent months"
Conservative organizations have spent $3.8 million opposing Bernie Sanders. They have spent at least $43,505,344.50 against Clinton. Again these numbers are since January of 2015. These statistics must be made in the context of understanding that most political insiders didn't think Sanders had a shot in hell at being the nominee, so it makes a lot of sense that conservative organizations would push against Clinton.
But the super PAC spending by the nurses’ union also underscores an aspect of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that Mr. Sanders rarely dwells on in his campaign speeches attacking the ruling. The same decision that gave corporations the ability to “buy and purchase the United States government” — as Mr. Sanders put it on a visit to Grinnell College on Monday — bestowed the same rights on labor unions, freeing them to spend unlimited money from their treasuries on election advertising.While the vast majority of super PAC money still comes from wealthy individuals, union cash — pooled from the dues and contributions of members — has become a critical source of money for outside groups on the left. In 2012 and 2014, unions gave more than $200 million to super PACs. More than half of it went to union-controlled groups that spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising, mailers and other “independent expenditures.” So far in 2016, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics, seven of the top 20 organizational contributors to super PACs were unions or their affiliates, not corporations.
This is OK. However, it places unions and corporations in the same mental category. Union cash is NOT pooled from union dues. It is illegal to expend union dues on political work. That is why unions have COPE accounts which can only be funded via voluntary contributions from union members. No dues are allowed to go into these accounts. Furthermore, any corporate money can be shifted around and placed in an independent expenditure account. Also, the interests of unions are for the union workers, while the interests of corporations are for their shareholders. To argue that independent spending from groups made up of thousands of workers each contributing negligible amounts is in any way tantamount to organizations made up of a small, rich board of directors, is to completely misunderstand the philosophy behind getting money out of politics, which is to encourage more people with less money to get involved in the political process.
Another article written to counter the narrative portrayed in the New York Times deals with the other issues in the article in a way I cannot, and it is much worth the read.
While I respect the author of the Times' article, I think the content therein is devastatingly lacking.
