To Topple US 'Oligarchy,' Sanders Calls for Publicly Financed Elections
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton responds to question about big money in politics with 'a flavorless mush of platitudes'
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been vocal on the campaign trail about the scourge of big money in politics, said on Sunday he would push legislation in Congress to provide public funding of elections.
"We're going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful," Sanders told a crowd of about 300 people at a town meeting in Rollinsford, New Hampshire.
"We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sanders blasted the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that gutted limits on campaign funding and paved the way for the uber-wealthy to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. His criticisms echoed those voiced last week by former president Jimmy Carter, who said on the Thom Hartmann Program that the U.S. is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors."
Referring to Citizens United, Sanders said on Sunday: "We must overturn that decision before it's too late. We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians."
The senator from Vermont compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their sponsor's logos emblazoned on their uniforms, suggesting some politicians should wear signs saying, "I'm sponsored by the Koch brothers" or "I'm sponsored by Big Oil."
In his own presidential campaign, Sanders has eschewed support from super PACs, which the Citizens United ruling spawned. Instead, Sanders has relied overwhelmingly on small donations from individual contributors. Altogether, more than 76.5 percent of all contributions--totaling more than $10.5 million--came from individuals who donated less than $200.
Meanwhile, as The Intercept reported Monday, Sanders' chief rival, frontrunner Hillary Clinton, has been more vague and less inspiring when it comes to the matter of big money in politics.
Video released Monday by Democracy Matters, a national student organization with a focus on campaign finance reform, shows Clinton responding to a question about campaign finance with what The Intercept's Jon Schwarz described as "a flavorless mush of platitudes."
It's all well and good for Clinton to state her support for publicly funded elections, Schwarz argued--but she has yet to walk the walk.
It's always better to have big-time politicians say the right thing than not. And Clinton may in her heart "believe" in publicly financed elections. But Lance Armstrong may also truly "believe" in clean, no-doping professional cycling.
And just as Armstrong did what he felt he had to to win, Clinton has declined to participate in the presidential public financing system, because it places limits on how much candidates can spend. She did not take the available matching funds in her 2008 primary campaign. Nor is there any indication she will for the 2016 primaries or (assuming she's the Democratic nominee) the presidential campaign.
It's defensible for her not to want to unilaterally disarm for the 2016 general election, since the public financing system would limit her campaign's total spending to only $100 million. (Romney spent almost $500 million in 2012, even without counting outside spending, and the 2016 Republican candidate will surely spend far more.) It was perhaps legitimate for her to opt out for the 2008 primaries, since Obama did as well. But Clinton could participate in the public financing system in the 2016 primaries versus Bernie Sanders et al. She won't.
"If Clinton truly does support public financing," Schwarz wrote, "the most important thing she could do would be to strongly endorse the Government By the People Act--which would create a significant public financing system for Congress--and use her campaign to educate people about it."
To that end, Democracy Matters posted several "follow-up" questions for Clinton, including this one: "While it is great news that you 'believe in public financing of elections,' those of us interested in restoring a fair democracy for all Americans are anxious to hear your specific legislative plans. Do you support John Sarbanes' Government by the People Act? Would you make its passage a top priority of your administration from day 1?"
For his part, Sanders has signed the organization's "Democracy Pledge" which states: "I support restoring democracy by publicly financing elections and taking big money out politics."
Clinton has yet to do so.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been vocal on the campaign trail about the scourge of big money in politics, said on Sunday he would push legislation in Congress to provide public funding of elections.
"We're going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful," Sanders told a crowd of about 300 people at a town meeting in Rollinsford, New Hampshire.
"We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sanders blasted the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that gutted limits on campaign funding and paved the way for the uber-wealthy to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. His criticisms echoed those voiced last week by former president Jimmy Carter, who said on the Thom Hartmann Program that the U.S. is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors."
Referring to Citizens United, Sanders said on Sunday: "We must overturn that decision before it's too late. We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians."
The senator from Vermont compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their sponsor's logos emblazoned on their uniforms, suggesting some politicians should wear signs saying, "I'm sponsored by the Koch brothers" or "I'm sponsored by Big Oil."
In his own presidential campaign, Sanders has eschewed support from super PACs, which the Citizens United ruling spawned. Instead, Sanders has relied overwhelmingly on small donations from individual contributors. Altogether, more than 76.5 percent of all contributions--totaling more than $10.5 million--came from individuals who donated less than $200.
Meanwhile, as The Intercept reported Monday, Sanders' chief rival, frontrunner Hillary Clinton, has been more vague and less inspiring when it comes to the matter of big money in politics.
Video released Monday by Democracy Matters, a national student organization with a focus on campaign finance reform, shows Clinton responding to a question about campaign finance with what The Intercept's Jon Schwarz described as "a flavorless mush of platitudes."
It's all well and good for Clinton to state her support for publicly funded elections, Schwarz argued--but she has yet to walk the walk.
It's always better to have big-time politicians say the right thing than not. And Clinton may in her heart "believe" in publicly financed elections. But Lance Armstrong may also truly "believe" in clean, no-doping professional cycling.
And just as Armstrong did what he felt he had to to win, Clinton has declined to participate in the presidential public financing system, because it places limits on how much candidates can spend. She did not take the available matching funds in her 2008 primary campaign. Nor is there any indication she will for the 2016 primaries or (assuming she's the Democratic nominee) the presidential campaign.
It's defensible for her not to want to unilaterally disarm for the 2016 general election, since the public financing system would limit her campaign's total spending to only $100 million. (Romney spent almost $500 million in 2012, even without counting outside spending, and the 2016 Republican candidate will surely spend far more.) It was perhaps legitimate for her to opt out for the 2008 primaries, since Obama did as well. But Clinton could participate in the public financing system in the 2016 primaries versus Bernie Sanders et al. She won't.
"If Clinton truly does support public financing," Schwarz wrote, "the most important thing she could do would be to strongly endorse the Government By the People Act--which would create a significant public financing system for Congress--and use her campaign to educate people about it."
To that end, Democracy Matters posted several "follow-up" questions for Clinton, including this one: "While it is great news that you 'believe in public financing of elections,' those of us interested in restoring a fair democracy for all Americans are anxious to hear your specific legislative plans. Do you support John Sarbanes' Government by the People Act? Would you make its passage a top priority of your administration from day 1?"
For his part, Sanders has signed the organization's "Democracy Pledge" which states: "I support restoring democracy by publicly financing elections and taking big money out politics."
Clinton has yet to do so.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has been vocal on the campaign trail about the scourge of big money in politics, said on Sunday he would push legislation in Congress to provide public funding of elections.
"We're going to introduce legislation which will allow people to run for office without having to beg money from the wealthy and the powerful," Sanders told a crowd of about 300 people at a town meeting in Rollinsford, New Hampshire.
"We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sanders blasted the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision that gutted limits on campaign funding and paved the way for the uber-wealthy to spend unlimited sums to influence election outcomes. His criticisms echoed those voiced last week by former president Jimmy Carter, who said on the Thom Hartmann Program that the U.S. is now an "oligarchy" in which "unlimited political bribery" has created "a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors."
Referring to Citizens United, Sanders said on Sunday: "We must overturn that decision before it's too late. We are increasingly living in an oligarchy where big money is buying politicians."
The senator from Vermont compared politicians to NASCAR drivers with their sponsor's logos emblazoned on their uniforms, suggesting some politicians should wear signs saying, "I'm sponsored by the Koch brothers" or "I'm sponsored by Big Oil."
In his own presidential campaign, Sanders has eschewed support from super PACs, which the Citizens United ruling spawned. Instead, Sanders has relied overwhelmingly on small donations from individual contributors. Altogether, more than 76.5 percent of all contributions--totaling more than $10.5 million--came from individuals who donated less than $200.
Meanwhile, as The Intercept reported Monday, Sanders' chief rival, frontrunner Hillary Clinton, has been more vague and less inspiring when it comes to the matter of big money in politics.
Video released Monday by Democracy Matters, a national student organization with a focus on campaign finance reform, shows Clinton responding to a question about campaign finance with what The Intercept's Jon Schwarz described as "a flavorless mush of platitudes."
It's all well and good for Clinton to state her support for publicly funded elections, Schwarz argued--but she has yet to walk the walk.
It's always better to have big-time politicians say the right thing than not. And Clinton may in her heart "believe" in publicly financed elections. But Lance Armstrong may also truly "believe" in clean, no-doping professional cycling.
And just as Armstrong did what he felt he had to to win, Clinton has declined to participate in the presidential public financing system, because it places limits on how much candidates can spend. She did not take the available matching funds in her 2008 primary campaign. Nor is there any indication she will for the 2016 primaries or (assuming she's the Democratic nominee) the presidential campaign.
It's defensible for her not to want to unilaterally disarm for the 2016 general election, since the public financing system would limit her campaign's total spending to only $100 million. (Romney spent almost $500 million in 2012, even without counting outside spending, and the 2016 Republican candidate will surely spend far more.) It was perhaps legitimate for her to opt out for the 2008 primaries, since Obama did as well. But Clinton could participate in the public financing system in the 2016 primaries versus Bernie Sanders et al. She won't.
"If Clinton truly does support public financing," Schwarz wrote, "the most important thing she could do would be to strongly endorse the Government By the People Act--which would create a significant public financing system for Congress--and use her campaign to educate people about it."
To that end, Democracy Matters posted several "follow-up" questions for Clinton, including this one: "While it is great news that you 'believe in public financing of elections,' those of us interested in restoring a fair democracy for all Americans are anxious to hear your specific legislative plans. Do you support John Sarbanes' Government by the People Act? Would you make its passage a top priority of your administration from day 1?"
For his part, Sanders has signed the organization's "Democracy Pledge" which states: "I support restoring democracy by publicly financing elections and taking big money out politics."
Clinton has yet to do so.