During Ro Khanna’s 4-year effort to unseat Democratic Congressman Mike Honda (CA17), Breitbart reporter, Adelle Nazarian covered the race. Nazarian previously published numerous positive Khanna articles and at least two “exclusive” interviews giving Khanna a chance to share his positions with the Breitbart audience. It wouldn’t be unexpected that Khanna would return the favor by providing her an exclusive interview as Congressman-elect.
Although Khanna did not share the previous Breitbart articles with his supporters, this one did not go unnoticed. Some supporters questioned Khanna’s judgment in associating with a website previously led by Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor. Until going to work for the Trump Campaign in August, Bannon had run Breitbart News since site founder, Andrew Breitbart’s death in 2012. A month before transitioning to the Trump Campaign, Bannon declared Breitbart the “platform for the Alt-Right,” a banner many of Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and white-nationalists supporters proudly wave.
Most troubling for Khanna’s supporters were Bannon’s comments implying there were too many South-Asian tech CEOs in Silicon Valley. “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the C.E.O.s in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, trailing off. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”
When confronted Khanna exclaimed, “I have denounced the appointment! It also was NOT an exclusive interview. These are the tricks they [Breitbart] play. It was part of a pool of reporters interviewing me at orientation, […] I have asked Breitbart to correct the exclusive. I am not hopeful given their penchant for sensationalism.” Although he claimed to have denounced Bannon’s appointment, there was no record of any denouncement until a day later. Adelle Nazarian told me she was in New York and conducted the interview by phone. She added, “Breitbart News was not contacted to correct the headline, because it was accurate.”
Sharing your message with the “other side” is not wrong; Bernie Sanders went to the conservative Liberty University looking for areas in which he could find shared interests. Sanders had the courage to share his progressive message with the conservative audience without compromising his own ideals. What is troubling is Khanna’s cowardly denial at a time the country needs courageous leaders to stand up against the hate emboldened by Trump’s election.
Almost as troubling are the supposed Democrat’s policies he shares with the Breitbart audience that he does not share with his other supporters. Khanna aligns with Trump on term limits, charter schools, and corporate tax reparations.
In his latest interview Khanna said he would “work across the aisle” to implement term limits similar to California’s. This may appeal to a frustrated electorate, but term limits have not achieved their desired effect in California. Inexperienced legislators are more dependent on lobbyists and staffers familiar with the procedures of the office. Legislation drafted by lobbyists has increased since California implemented term limits and an ineffective legislative branch skews the balance of power to the executive branch.
Khanna often touts running a Bernie Sanders’s type campaign and mentioned his desire to “eradicate” PACs. This may play well with a poorly informed electorate upset by money’s influence on our elections, but Sanders would disagree. Unlike Independent Expenditure-only PACs (super PACs), Political Action Committees (PACs) are fairly well regulated.*
Bernie Sanders on PACs
The general ignorance surrounding the issue of campaign financing is frustrating. My opponents call me a “hypocrite” for accepting PAC money. How can I accept PAC money, they say, and then claim that I am fighting against “special interests”? Aren’t PACs by definition, a “special interest”? […]
Let me be very clear about this. I do not believe that working people are a special interest. I do not believe that fighting for the right of women to control their own bodies is a special interest. I do not believe that protecting the environment is a special interest.
Candidates can get around PAC limits by going straight to the big money donors. PACs are limited to $10,000 per two-year campaign cycle, while a wealthy donor and spouse can give $10,800. And through bundling many 10’s of thousands can be raised within a small network of wealthy donors. Khanna even uses software designed by his Campaign Chair, Steve Spinner to help facilitate bundling.
California’s elections were flooded with pro-charter money, the top two outside spending groups were pro-charter. And some of the biggest spenders were also funders of Khanna. Three families alone spent over $600,000 in support of Khanna (John and Laura Arnold, William Bloomfield, Tench and Simone Coxe). These and many of Khanna’s hedge-funder and venture capitalists funders see California’s $70 billion education budget as a source of a recession-proof, publicly funded investment just waiting to be tapped. “Eradicating” PACs would greatly hamper any chance teacher unions and public school proponents could fight back against the wealthy investors.
And now Trump will have a partner in the Democratic Party willing to help him push through his agenda, Peter Thiel must be overjoyed. It’s looking as though Khanna plans on being faithful to his big money funders, not the working class constituents that make up District 17.
* Campaign finance basics.
Individual Donor to Candidate Limits For the 2016 election individual donations to candidates were limited to $2700 per election or $5400 for the primary and general elections.
PACs – Political Action Committees
Organizations create PACs as a way to pool money that can be used to support candidates or issues.
Non-connected PACs used by single-issue or advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club, Move On, or the NRA are allowed to take contributions from the general public, other PACs and candidates.
Who can contribute to connected PACs (corporations, unions and trade groups) is more restricted: only employees and shareholders for corporate PACs, only members for union PACs. Neither corporations nor unions can give to their PACs. Individual donations to PACs are limited to $5000 per year. PACs can give to candidates no more than $5000 per year.
Super PACs – Independent-Expenditure-Only political committees
The Citizen United decision allowed for a new type of PAC, the super PAC. Although unable to work directly with candidates or parties and not allowed to give to candidates or parties, they are unlimited on how much they can spend. Also unlimited is from who and how much each can contribute.
Like regular PACs, super PACs serve different purposes. Some are created to support or oppose specific candidates (Ready for Hillary PAC, Stop Hillary PAC); others are created to support or oppose specific issues or causes (Working For Us labor PAC, Club for Growth).