A union Super PAC is still a super PAC. So when Bernie says,..“I’m the only candidate up here…who has no super PAC,”...he's lying.
Yet the Vermont senator has benefited from at least $1.5 million in backing from super PACs and from political groups that don’t have to fully disclose their donors, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission..."
And when Bernie says he isn't beholden to Super PACs for their support...he's lying again...
First, unions are more representative of Bernie's supporters and constituents than corporations as organizations inherently of the working class; a union SuperPAC funded exclusively by member dues is very different from one funded by the fossil fuel and financial industries, so let's dispose of that false equivalency for starters.
Second, Bernie never asked for or solicited their support; never raised money for them, nor engaged in any kind of coordination at any time, direct or indirect. He has never started a SuperPAC; this one has existed since 2009. This one (1) entity is truly and completely independent of him, so no, he doesn't 'have' a SuperPAC in nearly the same way Clinton does.
Third his statements with regards to the nursing union are less a reflection of its influence and than of his existing policy and campaign priorities (i.e. singlepayer; healthcare for all); this is more a case of PAC goals dovetailing with his own than his own being wrenched towards PAC objectives; this is true of virtually all union support. Sanders is and has always been in favour of organized labour; there is no inconsistency here that reflects or even suggests undue influence.
Finally, even if I were to agree that this nursing union PAC happened to be a corrupting influence (which I certainly do not), that influence is several orders of magnitude less than the amount SuperPACs exert on Clinton on a monetary basis.
Bernie can readily refuse donations but he cannot make a SuperPAC that has existed since 2009 desist; not without incurring significant damage to his campaign by alienating the working class that form an indispensable pillar of his campaign (can you imagine the optics of telling a nursing union to **** off?).
Did you miss the part of my post where I clearly said that Bernie owed his Senate seat to the DSCC and their corporate donors, including Wall Street? Like I said...he didn't refuse their money...and to show his gratitude, he became one of the DSCC's most prolific corporate fundraisers and voted 95% along Democrat party lines...15% more than most Democrats....
That was not part of the post I just responded to.
Accepting funding from the DSCC != owing his Senate seat, which he won quite handily, to them; his debt is considerably less than you might imagine. Further it's not the % of overlap that matters (you have yet to actually source these numbers) so much as the actual votes that were deviated on (such as the Iraq War). The bottom line is that Bernie and the Dem party actually
do feature considerable overlap, but ultimately, Bernie differs completely on a number of issues of great importance. This doesn't represent an exercise of party influence so much as it does a legitimate concurrence. Again, if Bernie was the easily managed shill you are attempting to misrepresent him as, he wouldn't be having nearly the problems he does now with the DNC and DWS doing their utmost to advance Hillary at his campaign's expense.
Last year, he directly accepted about $55,000 in Wall Street contributions for his Democratic presidential campaign, FEC filings show
Please don't link articles behind paywalls.
Second, that $55,000 is from individuals, not groups, lobbyist bundlers or organizations; again, individual contributions are not a point of concern; institutional donations are.
So if he's not going to fundraise for the DNC or compromise on the party platform like you claim...
...And if they don't get elected then who is going to vote for Bernie's policies in congress....republicans?
I didn't say he wouldn't fundraise for the DNC, I said that fundraising for the DNC doesn't contaminate his campaign which is true. But as for the broader thrust of your question, the DNC in fact
hasn't supported his candidacy over Hillary, something that is by now painfully obvious. Why do you think DWS has been so deadset against him? The obvious answer is because there's a fundamental mismatch between his will and policy and the goals of the DNC so far as they relate to their sponsors. Assuming he wins the nomination though, the DNC would be suicidal not to support Bernie, regardless of the impossible difficulty of influencing him.
Further if Dems don't get elected into the House or Senate, the GOP sure as hell isn't going to vote for Hillary's policies either. As president Bernie would doubtlessly do everything within his power to ensure a turnover of both chambers.
