The Bernie Sanders campaign and some Bernie boosters on this site have consistently pushed the notion that “small-dollar donations” are a litmus test of progressive credibility for candidates. The notion is that “rich donors,” and wealth generally, will override a candidate’s progressive tendencies.
***
It’s a B.S. argument. It’s always been a B.S. argument. And the Sanders campaign is finally admitting it is a B.S. argument.
***
***
Not surprisingly, the revelation that Sanders is now a millionaire has dealt a body blow to the notion that wealth is antithetical to progressive values. When confronted with the question of whether Sanders’ newly divulged wealth conflicted with the notion that the wealthy could not be progressive influences,
Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir pushed back by telling CNN the candidate's personal wealth had "zero impact" on his policies.
***
"If the ultimate question is, will he credibly push special interests and the billionaire class and the wealthy in this country to do the things that need to be done, like Medicare for All, like a climate jobs plan, the answer is yes," Shakir said. "He could earn another million dollars and it would still wouldn't matter."
In short, Shakir was making the basic point that an ethical candidate’s principles are not corrupted by money. It’s a common sense proposition we all know to be true: moral and ethical individuals are not for sale.
***
The implication is profound: There is ZERO reason for Democrats to tie one arm behind their backs and refuse to accept big money donations, bundled donations, Super PAC support, or donations from the rich. Instead, we should all recognise that Democrats who play by the current campaign finance rules are not immediately corrupted. No, to the contrary, the money principled candidates receive because of who they are serves only to allow them to spread their message, it does not change their message.
***
The goal of this campaign season is to win. And that takes money. Democratic candidates should not be told to turn away money out of an unfounded fear that it will corrupt their values.
***
Of course, what is true for Sanders is also true for donors. There are progressives working in all walks of America, including for Wall Street Banks, oil companies, insurance companies, etc., and
those rich folks contribute to Sanders and other candidates. There is nothing wrong with that. And a
recent study confirmed that the notion that big donors push candidates right is just plain wrong:
The study found the party’s voters are actually to the right of its elite financial backers on some key issues. If you could erase the donors’ influence, the Democrats might actually move right — not left — on causes like climate change and banking regulation.
[EDIT: Please see Tamar’s posts below for a further exposition on this study. Some folks seem to misunderstand its import because they have not read it.]
The above quote, however, assumed that big money donations equate to “influence.” And that is not the case for ethical candidates. Sanders’ campaign manager asserts that Sanders can avoid the pernicious influence of wealth. I’m confident that our other candidates can as well.
So let’s finally drive the stake through the heart of the notion that any Democrat who accepts “big money” donations is doing something wrong that undermines their progressive cred. The reality is that they are acting legally, within the present campaign finance rules, and if they are ethical, as they are, the donations will only amplify their message, not change it.
P.S. This diary is NOT about whether we need campaign finance reform. We do. But there is nothing hypocritical about operating under the current rules while calling for a change in those rules, which almost all Democratic candidates do call for.