Have you read that Washington Post article? The one giving Sanders three Pinocchio's? The one being linked all over the Internet and used to question Sanders on CNN?
Well, it's crap.
In it, the author Glenn Kessler argues rather bizarrely that it’s no big deal Hillary has taken six times (~$300,000) the money from Fossil Fuel 'employees' that Sanders has (~$50,000). According to the Center for Responsive Politics, those totals don’t speak to influence because those donations are supposedly from cashiers and clerks at gas stations. Yet, according to the analysis quoted by the Sanders Campaign, Clinton’s aren't entirely from such employees. The article tries to make it seem as if money received on both side could make Bernie a hypocrite and his overall claim false. A line of reasoning one can find among top officials with the Clinton campaign.
"We have not accused Senator Sanders of being beholden to the oil and gas industry on that basis, nor should he say that of Hillary Clinton." — Brian Fallon, Clinton's Press Secretary.
What Brian Fallon ignores, and the WaPo author only begrudgingly mentions, is that Bernie has pledged to return those funds when found. Hillary was asked by The Nation at the same time Bernie and Martin O’Malley were but didn’t respond. When she was recently questioned about this by an activist for 350.org, she yelled about the Sanders campaign lying. Most people citing this Washington Post source gloss over that - even though it's at the heart of the story.
The Post continues it's mind bending journey of spin by reducing hundreds of thousands of dollars to small fractions and percentages compared to the rest of Clinton's funds. Concluding, "it’s pretty hard to describe that as 'significant'"
Yet, all the mathematical gymnastics in the world cannot erase those hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaign, nor does it address the millions given by Fossil Fuel interests to her Super PAC’s.
Only giving it back does.
When Mr. Kessler argues this is somehow insignificant we are shown again that our media, the 4th estate, is woefully ill. How can that amount of money be diminished when most people won't make that in ten years to a life time? I also find it convenient there's no comment section on this particular Washington Post article. I can only imagine that was in case one of us in the middle class takes issue with their number games — hence why this is posted here.
Kessler goes onto suggest that Hillary is not responsible for her Super PACs because by law she cannot coordinate with them. This is a ridiculous claim when you look at their history. She did have direct contact with many of the people in PAC leadership positions, right up until until she announced her run. Then there's the issue of these super PACs being controlled by her former/current campaign staff and paid CNN commentators. Don't believe me?
Here's a quick Run Down:
- Ready for Hillary PAC / Ready PAC
(Founded by Adam Parkhomenko, a Clinton campaign staffer who is now employed as Director of Grassroots Engagement under Hillary for America)
- Hillary for America PAC
(Candidates formal PAC. Staffed by top advisers to her, such as John Podesta, Robby Mook, and Joel Benenson [aka Mr. Tone-It-Down])
- Priorities USA Action
(Super PAC ran by Guy Cecil whose a national political and field director for Hillary Clinton. Also staffs Paul Begala, routine guest on MSNBC and other news networks)
- Correct the Record
(Burns Strider was a Senior Adviser for Correct the Record, Vice President of American Bridge 21st Century PAC, and is also the Director of Faith and Values Outreach for Hillary's Campaign.)
- American Independent Institute
(A 501(c)(4), relaunched by David Brock, ally of Hillary Clinton)
- Media Matters
(501(c)(3), Founded by David Brock, right wing attack dog funding liberal ‘news’)
- The Bonner Group
(Controlled by Mary Pat Bonner, power broker/fundraiser making tons from Citizens United and McCutcheon v FEC)
- The Hillary Victory Fund
(Extended corruption here, building on the McCutcheon ruling. Looks as if they are playing a shell game with money, and have been funding the super delegates who refuse to switch for Sanders. Down Ballot fund raising usually comes after a candidate receives the nomination, not years beforehand. Source: www.counterpunch.org/...)
It might be a step too far to claim collusion during the campaign — that’s beyond my authority or skill set to determine — but it’s impossible to ignore collusion before the campaign. It's impossible to deny Hillary has been fundraising/campaigning since 2013. So, does this mean we should give Kessler some Pinocchio's of his own now?
I'm sure the Koch brothers and Republicans are loving this propaganda from the left in defense of gobs of money in politics and super PACs. I imagine they're giddy over the left blaming Bernie for what Hillary and sitting Democrats are doing by abusing the same corrupt finance system that benefits Republicans. The same system many expect Hillary Clinton herself to reform.
Unrelated, our fact checker was formerly the WaPo's former chief State Department reporter for nine years who, according to his about the author page, has traveled, "around the world with three different Secretaries of State." This included Secretary Clinton. Of course familiarity is not bias nor does it suggest any nefarious intent. Yet who would deny access is powerful and coveted?
So we then ask: Do media corporations benefit directly from multi-billion dollar presidential election cycles (and super PACs) and therefore have some direct or indirect conflict of interest reporting on it? Maybe, but we'd need a high standard of evidence to prove conflicts of interest because claims of ‘corruption’ in corporate media are easily shrugged off as nonsense.
Yet, what isn't nonsense is Glenn Kessler's personal bias. The day before publishing this article he re-tweeted @daveweigel who said, "February 2017: After Senate Republicans filibustered his tuition bill, progressives have given up hope on President Sanders."
This casts his claims in a different light, if you ask me. If he backed Bernie up, trashed Hillary publicly and had traveled and worked with him for years - Hillary folk would be calling foul on the same kind of bias! It's especially troubling because the article suggests that since the lobbyist bundlers who raised the additional ~$4 million of Super PAC money in question also lobby for other industries (such as finance and pharma) that Sanders is lying about her being influenced by the fossil fuel industry. The first time I read that, my mouth hung agape.
Think about that.
Using that as a defense is another link into the larger criticisms of her campaign finance related to big pharma and wall street (too big to fail dream team, now with Fossil Fuel money)! That claim in no way assuages the fear that she is influenced, and only further digs at her credibility to address campaign finance reform. Perhaps the influence is minimal comparatively, but to many of us outside observers it only magnifies the elephants in the room.
We need to stop defending corruption. We need our journalists to stop defending corruption. Some of our Democratic representatives and Hillary supporters - even some Bernie supporters - say Bernie is the one doing damage to the party. To that I say: WAKE UP! The damage is being done by the leadership and our representatives, by the corporate media and their analysts - not the People or Bernie for criticizing elites! That's our right - no - our duty as Americans. That's the duty our press has abandoned. We stand at the brink of real change - we cannot afford to be silenced!
Consider: Congress won't want to tie their own hands. Republicans, Democrats; both are privileged by legalized corruption. The most disturbing things I've heard this election cycle come from Hillary, media pundits on the left and right, and most of our sitting representatives saying, 'the money doesn't influence us. Super PACs aren't donations, that's not influencing us either! We should elect who can raise the most money!'
Some go as far as to suggest that not raising money yet disqualifies Bernie from being the nominee or even a Democrat. Again, think about that. The longest serving Independent representative in U.S. history, who founded the progressive caucus, can’t be a ‘real Democrat’. What sort of message does that send to, I don’t know — Independent Voters and Progressive Democrats? Further, Obama didn’t start that type of fundraising until he secured the nomination in 2008 — guess he’s not a Democrat anymore either?
Now I have to throw Bernie a little shade. He needs to build upon his campaign finance criticism. It's not just quid pro quo bribery that’s the problem - it's a tainted political economy where influence is a currency and money has privatized the marketplace of ideas. Where our elected officials are perpetually chasing re-election funds. It's not enough to look at contributions in the vacuum of a single election cycle - we need to see how they buttress and sway influence over time.
Chief Justice Kennedy took a rather myopic view in the Majority decision of McCutcheon V FEC, stating that “Ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption. They embody a central feature of democracy—that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns.”
If we cast a wider gaze than the Supreme Court, we begin to see what Senators Warren and McCain talk about. The fear of stepping out of line. The fear of losing ones funds is a powerful motivator, more akin to extortion than bribery. Not only is there the loss of funds, but also added leverage that comes from donors funding your opponent or replacement next election.
If we evolve our critique, if we give our representatives an outlet to say, “I took money, but it was part of a corrupt political economy I despise and want to reform,” perhaps they would be more amenable to supporting the revolution. The only obvious alternative is how the law stands now in the status quo. That taking money isn’t corruption, it’s ingratiation. If that’s true, (and short of Clinton giving that money back) she can be, “expected to be responsive to those concerns.”
I believe money is not Speech. Money as speech strips expression of context and meaning. True speech is fluid and demands context - it stirs emotions and drives people to act from something deeper than just avarice. Speech requires the speaker be held accountable directly, not hidden behind corporate branding or Super PACs. Good policy is forged in the crucible of rigorous argumentation and money cannot be refined through debate — hence why it produces such terrible policy. Money does not speak to an issue, it obfuscates support which includes dissent. Like purchasing a ticket to a concert or venue, a speaker becomes a spectator — never mind that many can’t afford to attend such a ‘Democracy’. The only way to fix the problem, is to fix the problem.
So ask yourself: what might Hillary have to do to get re-elected? She has been collecting funds to run for president since a few weeks after she stepped down as Secretary of State — when will she stop? Perhaps she will fear being too critical of certain actors, or choose to stay silent on certain issues. Maybe she’ll just pay special attention to issues concerning top donors. Hard to say.
Which is why it’s so troubling that she won’t release her paid speech transcripts. It’s been over two months and Hillary is still ‘looking into it’. She’s also has been eerily quiet about the blatant racism and classism perpetrated by the Republican officials behind #arizonaElectionFraud. Something must be done, our voices must be heard!
Thanks for reading,
Samuel Ross,
Citizen and Bernie Sanders Supporter.
*Disclaimer* No one paid me to write this. It should be obvious I am not employed as a writer. So, if you find this helpful, persuasive or at all illuminating please share! If you'd like to re-post, by all means! Send me the link!
P.S. —
I’m 25 years old. During the writing of this article, Hillary said something I must address,
“I feel sorry sometimes for the young people who, you know, believe this. They don’t do their own research. And I’m glad that we can now point to reliable independent analysis to say no, it’s just not true.” — Hillary Clinton, 2016
That "reliable analysis" she refers to is this Washington Post article I spent my afternoon tearing apart. With research. I feel sorry for anyone who believes Mr. Kesslers analysis is independent or reliable. I will be waiting for speech transcripts and real answers to my concerns — as will many other young people. Without these simple things, and with each added insult to young folks (we’re dreaming, we’re naive, we don’t vote, we don’t do research, etc.), it becomes increasingly difficult to resist the #bernieOrBust movement.
We are waiting, Secretary Clinton.
About the Author:
Samuel Ross is an independent drafting contractor who volunteer coaches High School Policy Debate in Virginia Beach, Virginia. He and his partner were the 2009 Virginia State AAA Policy Debate Champs. At 25, he barely clings onto calling himself a ‘young person’.