Sanders drops line attacking Super PAC's from speech...uh oh

[MM876]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

Well that's just a flat out lie. Based on individual expenditures. perhaps, but based on actual spending and objective reporting, that's wrong.

Who would legitimately compare a few nurses' union dues to George Soros?

And he hasn't dropped the line. This is back from NOVEMBER, when they started supporting him, and he's still fighting against Super PACs.

The media has been trying to dig up dirt on Sanders and they haven't, so now they're trying to Swiftboat him by making stuff up, like the issue with Sanders and the Civil Rights-era photograph. It's not surprising, but if you buy into this stuff because you have a prejudice with no regard for the facts, then you're just wrong.

[MM876]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/29/nyt-outside-spending/
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/438tby/new_york_times_gets_it_wrong_bernie_sanders_not/
https://mobile.twitter.com/nickconfessore/status/692926274545795073

The author basically admitted to using deceptive information and then tried to justify it in a pathetic and half-hearted manner.

[MM876]

Sanders has been the biggest Dem beneficiary of Super PAC spending so far.

[citation needed]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/super_pac_money_how_political_groups_are_spending_to_influence_the_2016.html

Bernie has net benefited from Super PACs, Clinton has been net attacked.

That's not the same as using Super PACs through shady connections, and definitely not the same as soliciting Wall Street money.

[MM876]

Sanders' line, "I do not have a super PAC, and I do not want a super PAC" is correct with the right terminology. He hasn't tacitly sanctioned a SuperPAC and there is no affiliation or coordination between the Nurses' one and his campaign. That's the difference, even though it's still an outside group contributing to the nomination/election of Sanders.

Not to mention most people inclined to support Sanders would see a very relevant difference between a superPAC funded by wealthy donors and one funded by a labor union. I mean come on.

I don't see why just because a special interest (which unions are) agrees with you makes it any less suspect, especially when your entire campaign is being run against "the corrupt campaign finance system."

Couple of reasons:
1. Sanders hasn't solicited donations to the PAC
2. The PAC is run by a union, which you must realize is ideologically different than big donors
3. The PAC doesn't accept money from donors, it is run by union dues
4. The PAC has spent a fraction of what has been spent by the other PACs, which is extremely relevant in terms of the influence they've held this election cycle.
5. Bernie Sanders has had no correspondence with the PAC, which cannot credibly be said for the other candidates' PACs