r/politics • u/B-Z_B-S Massachusetts • 6h ago
No Paywall Sanders: ‘Ban super PACs from Democratic primaries now’
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6019504-sanders-calls-ban-super-pac/•
u/HeadTrick7443 6h ago
Ban super PACs entirely. Money is a corrupting force in politics.
•
u/ChopperChange 6h ago
Citizens United was the worst Supreme Court decision in the history of this country.
•
u/underwear11 6h ago
Obligatory Keith Olberman on Citizens United
•
•
u/Wise_Control_1640 5h ago
He was so good! Whatever happened? He should be at the forefront today!
•
•
u/tallanvor 1h ago
He was doing Countdown as a podcast for about 4 years but took a break in May due to needing some sort of heart surgery. Sounds like he may start back up again if tests in another month or two show he's OK now.
•
u/lonerfluff Foreign 2h ago
Apparently he later started a web series in 2016 that criticized then presidential candidate (and later president) Trump. After a year he left political commentary all together, saying Trump's presidency will end prematurely anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Resistance_with_Keith_Olbermann
•
•
u/imtheproof 5h ago edited 5h ago
Citizens United didn't create super PACs. Citizens United said that independent expenditure entities could spend unlimited sums. It did not say that they could raise unlimited funds. Speechnow.org v. FEC, a lower court ruling a few months after Citizens United, created super PACs by saying that independent expenditure entities could raise unlimited funds. There's currently an argument working its way through the federal court system stemming from a ballot initiative in Maine that is looking to have the supreme court actually review the unlimited contribution side that was created by Speechnow.org. The argument is very compelling that the Speechnow.org ruling was a massive misunderstanding of Citizens United. This blog has been tracking the effort (it's written by one of the main people behind it): https://lessig.substack.com/p/if-not-now-when This project has been 3-4 years in the making and is looking very likely to pass the appeals court and move into supreme court territory, hopefully well before the 2028 election.
There's the appeals court recording in that blog, it's long but it goes into great detail about the exact argument. I'd recommend listening to it as it lays out the sides for what might be one of the most significant supreme court cases of this decade: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1705_20260729.mp3
•
u/mikamitcha Ohio 4h ago
While I see this is similar to Roe v Wade compared to PP v Casey, I have to say I do view Citizens United as the larger issue. My stance on it is fairly simple, if you cannot vote you cannot directly financially support a candidate. At the end of the day, I believe every dollar donated to any political campaign should trace back to a voter or business being run by the campaign.
There are a few reasons I think this is fair:
Firstly, tax implications. Corporations do not have to pay income tax, they only pay taxes on profits, so that automatically makes a significant imbalance compared to an individual's contributions. All campaign donations should see an equal tax burden, and this is really the main constitutional basis I have for this whole claim. If corporations want to donate directly to a campaign, then they should be instead subject to the same taxation an individual faces.
Second, accountability. If every dollar is associated with an individual, then there is no way for any PAC or other lobbying group to hide who the donor's money went to. Either it became the PAC's personal funds, or it was donated to a candidate on your behalf, and you get to see how much of that money actually went to the cause you wanted to support.
Thirdly, security. Requiring every dollar to be on someone's behalf means that international actors have to put forth significantly more effort to discretely influence an election, and likely commit several instances of identity theft along the way (which is much more easily tracked than campaign finance fraud). Is security a major concern? Hopefully not, but its an added benefit.
•
u/Riaayo 4h ago
f you cannot vote you cannot directly financially support a candidate.
I'd rather just ban all private money from politics, period, and move to entirely publicly-funded campaigns.
•
u/Techwolf_Lupindo 2h ago
This is about the only way to make Citizion United not matter any more. Reversing the ruling can make things worse by giving the parties the power to restrict the other party spending.
•
u/PhatCatTax 4h ago
Is that a joke?
SCOTUS is owned. Why tf would GOP's captured SCOTUS decide to vote against the things that got them elected? If it goes in front of them, they'll likely clarify and double-down on unlimited contributions. And expand it to include individuals.
•
u/rikameme 2h ago
the lawyers are using argumentation from the court's own decisions. justices do try to preserve their own power, and it is possible that the court could turn this into a win foe the court
→ More replies (3)•
•
u/Thromnomnomok 5h ago
Unfortunately, no, there's a huuuuge amount of competition for that category. It's not the worst one, not when Dred Scott exists. Or Plessy v Ferguson. Or Bush v Gore. Or the one that said the president has unlimited immunity for official acts.
•
•
u/Dairy_Ashford 5h ago
Dred Scoott and a few others were worse
•
u/OddlyFactual1512 4h ago
Worse than ensuring corporate control of government and media?
•
u/-Saucegurlllll 3h ago
Yes. Dred Scott protected slavery and fomented the civil war. Plessy v Ferguson enshrined segregation. Kurematsu said it's 100% constitutional for the US government to forcibly march a racial minority into concentration camps. Bush v Gore stole a presidential election.
Citizens United is based on a string of bad cases beginning with Buckley v Valeo where the wizards decided that money is speech. It's a disasterous decision, but it's definitely not the worst decision.
•
•
u/Balaur10042 3h ago
Dredd Scott literally enshrined slavery, setting the capstone of a long and lengthy anti-abolitionist stance from the Taney court and the career of Justice Taney. You are seeing the product of a massively bad decision that affects your current life NOW. Dredd Scott is still chilling the lives of people born two hundred years after it.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 3h ago
Not sure why this is even a question. Chattel slavery is one of the most evil things humanity has ever done to itself. Enshrining it is beyond cartoonishly evil.
•
u/eric23456 2h ago
I think there are some worse decisions:
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - black people can't be citizens
- Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - separate but equal leading to Jim Crow
- Korematsu v. United States (1944) - forced internment of Japanese
- Buck v. Bell (1927) - forced sterilization is ok
3/4 straight up racism, the last one was probably used for it (happened to be about a white woman so less explicit)
To be clear, I'm not saying Citizens United was good, just that there were a handful that were worse.
•
u/Techwolf_Lupindo 2h ago
It was a damn if you do and damn if you don't. Current ruling is what we got today. If ruled the other way, the R party would write the rules that would pretty much granted them unlimited spending and the D party would be very limited to the point of making sure they don't win any more elections. See gerrymandering for a good example of one party, R, writes the rule to favor them only. So the result would be the R party will have a super majority on both houses and can pass any bill they want to.
•
•
•
→ More replies (1)•
•
u/AnAncientBog 6h ago
It's hard when the Republicans have unlimited money against people with none.
There is no reason at all to allow them into primaries.
•
u/Shlant- 4h ago
There is no reason at all to allow them into primaries.
you don't want labor unions, advocacy groups, and non-profits to be able to spend money on supporting the person that best represents their interests in a primary?
•
u/AnAncientBog 4h ago
No, I want them to look at their positions and vote for the best one, just like everyone else. They can save their money to best Republicans instead of other Democrats.
•
u/Shlant- 3h ago
ok so how do they then compete against rich individuals? Without Citizens United one rich individual could use their monetary power to get anti-union dems to win primaries where trade unions would not be able to pool their resources to push for pro-union candidates
•
u/n3ws4cc 2h ago
Monitor and cap campaign spending like a normal democracy
•
u/Infamously_Unknown 2h ago
This is about independent expenditure, not campaign spending.
The overwhelming majority of super PAC spending doesn't go to candidates, they can only give them a few thousand. Instead they just independently run media campaigns themselves.
•
u/n3ws4cc 2h ago
Which should be considered campaign spending and monitored and capped
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 1h ago
But it isn’t campaign spending, and it isn’t capped. Legally it can’t be according to Citizens United v FEC and SpeechNow v FEC
•
•
u/catmoon 2h ago
Assuming that these groups are collectives representing millions of people, then they can organize mass-donations at the individual level.
If we set the rule that all political donations within primaries must be made by individuals and are capped at a reasonable level, then then path to political success is mass mobilization of people. Isn't that how we want politics to work?
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
And when that one person is someone like Tom Steyer who threw in over $200 million of his own money into a primary, how quickly do you think individual donations can keep up with that?
•
u/catmoon 2h ago
Read my comment again. Individual caps.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
So if that same guy had made a superPAC and used it for someone else’s election, how are individual donations going to keep up? It’s not like we can stop the superPAC.
•
u/mi11er 4h ago
Traditional Political Action Committees have strict limits on how much an individual can give to them, corporations cannot give to a traditional political action committee.
Super PACs are just a black box where anyone can put money in - no limits, be that individuals, or corporations.
Both types of PACs are allowed unlimited spending on communications that expressly advocate for or against clearly identified candidates, as long as there’s no coordination with campaigns. Traditional PACs can donate directly campaigns while a Super PAC is only spending "independently."
So your unions, advocacy groups, and non-profits are all fine since they were mostly traditional PACs. The issue is Super PACs.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 4h ago
And how do you plan on enforcing this rule against independent organizations?
•
u/RebelWithoutAClue 3h ago edited 3h ago
In Canada, our elections financing raises about 1/300th of what your legislators raise on a per legislator (seat) basis.
We don't allow PACs, which contribute only about 1/3 of US elections financing. We also have spending limits that apply to registered Federal parties as well as individual candidates. PACs are certainly a corrupting influence, but they are still not the majority reason that US politicks are so heavily purchased. US political campaigns are NOT subject to spending caps.
In 1976 there was a US Supreme Court ruling that determined that spending caps would restrict political expression and struck down several federal expenditure ceilings under the First Amendment.
Our spending caps, in Canada, are our biggest mechanism on keeping egregious amounts of money out of our politicks.
The problems of massive election spending in the US date back beyond Citizens United.
Aside:
The total elections spend in the US for a Federal election is insane. It is so big that it is well beyond a partisan issue.
When I break it down to multiples of median incomes I see that the US raises about 640 yearly median incomes per seat while we raise about 2. That's total financing for all parties on the ballot which makes us really cheap considering that we have more than 2 significant Federal parties. I broke it down to median incomes because I wanted to contextualize the dollars in terms of how many people would have to work for a year to raise the bucks to finance a campaign instead of just posting totals that need scientific exponential notation.
•
u/JAMONLEE Florida 3h ago
Oh yeah let’s get right on that with our minority in all three branches of government
•
u/HeadTrick7443 3h ago
I’m not saying that it’s the first step. It’s more a commentary on money ruling our systems. Obviously Bernie’s suggestion for Dems to take our PAC money is a good first step.
We need to get a majority and add more Supreme Court justices which would eventually (hopefully) overturn Citizens United.
•
u/Bakedads 5h ago
If we want to do that we need to rewrite the constitution.
•
u/OkCard7566 3h ago
Amendment. Not rewrite 🤔
•
u/NoveltyAccountHater 3h ago
Sure, but what do you think amending a specific text means, if not rewriting it.
That said, it's going to be super difficult to get any amendments passed in our current political divide. You need to get supermajorities (more than 2/3rds) of both House and Senate to pass it, then need 3/4th of state legislators to pass.
Maybe there was a chance you could have gotten close around the time of 2009 if some Republicans like McCain got on board, but its really hard to convince over 2/3rds of current politicians (most of whom learned to play the current game and win at it) to change the rules to a version that takes away their current advantage.
•
•
u/Kind_Of_A_Dick 4h ago
Sometimes I think it might be better for everything just to restart. What's supposed to happen to destroy the world? Is it a leopard or something eating everyone's faces?
→ More replies (2)•
•
u/B-Z_B-S Massachusetts 6h ago
(From the article): "“What is particularly obscene is not only the outrageous amount of money coming into Democratic primaries from billionaire-funded super PACs, but the reality that these special interests have no particular desire to see Democrats win,” Sanders wrote. “It is absurd that they spend tens of millions of dollars to try to determine who the Democratic nominee is and, if they fail, then proceed to support the Republican candidate in the general election.” “That is not democracy,” he added. “That is not what Democratic voters want.”
The Vermont senator reiterated his calls to repeal the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which protects corporations and labor unions from political campaign spending. Sanders has been a longtime opponent of the decision and urged Democratic leaders to pass legislation to “move toward the public funding of elections.”
“While there are ideological differences of opinion within the big tent of the party, I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries,” Sanders’s letter concludes. “The time to act is now.”"
→ More replies (13)
•
u/m0zymaz 5h ago
If you’re in California: Vote Yes on Prop 4!! Repeals the ban on publicly funded elections statewide
•
u/ChildONewcastle 1h ago
America is crazy you BANNED publicly funded elections??
It's not even like you made privately funded elections a law. You literally prevented public ones. Just such a capitalist hellhole.
•
•
u/tomnomk 6h ago
This is such a fantastic idea.
•
u/kstargate-425 5h ago
Hawaii and Colorado have started their own methods of keeping money out so it can be done but the problem would be getting red states to fall in line
•
u/the6thReplicant Europe 4h ago
I wonder if they both have ranked voting for their state elections?
•
u/Zennith_Eclipse Hawaii 3h ago
Hawaii voter here. We technically do have ranked choice voting, but it only really applies to special elections for some reason (source: Hawaii state office of elections.
•
u/Kurtis_James 3h ago
Sadly Colorado failed to adopt RCV in it's 2024 election. Both parties actively campaigned against it.
•
u/UglyWanKanobi 6h ago
Is he going to shut down his own dark money SuperPAC (Our Revolution)?
•
u/Temporary-House304 5h ago
Yes? im pretty that its only purpose to counteract super pac money and level the playing field
→ More replies (4)•
u/Proper-Raise-1450 4h ago
Yes obviously, that is the idea LMAO, currently the system requires ant serious political force to have a Super Pac if they want to win anything, that needs to be changed.
•
u/dazedandloitering 4h ago
It’s not a SuperPAC, it explicitly rejects corporate and billionaire money and they publish the names of donors on their website.
Anyway this is just whataboutism to distract from the substance. Do you think superPACs are a good thing?
→ More replies (4)•
u/CatCatchingABird Oregon 4h ago
Hi. I'm the "dark" money that has donated to Our Revolution. In the past I did not make a hell of a lot of money but I donated I think $150 for my 31st birthday.
In case you were wondering I'm not a corporation or affiliated with any political group. I just like Bernie Sanders.
•
u/GooseBear12 5h ago
Bernie isn’t really saying anything unique in his letter, but Our Revolution is a pac and there is a difference.
•
u/UglyWanKanobi 5h ago
It's a 501(c)(4) - aka a dark money SuperPAC. Not sure why his supporters feel the need to constantly gaslight everyone about this. It is what it is.
•
u/GooseBear12 5h ago
My bad, I am not a Bernie supporter and had been gaslit apparently. Should have double checked myself.
•
u/blackweebow 4h ago
You haven't been gaslit. It's not a dark money org, it's a PAC. Doesn't even qualify as a SuperPAC, and Bernie isn't taking so much money from Our Revolution that he is losing touch with the American people or his constituents.
Dude up there is disingenuous and distracted.
•
u/ExcuseCommercial1338 4h ago
Read the rest of his stuff in this post, he's obviously either a bot or a paid troll. Reddit 2026 sucks
•
u/Infamously_Unknown 2h ago
I mean, it is a dark money org. It's a 501(c)(4), which means it doesn't have to disclose it's donors. Whenever you hear about "dark money", it's about this, not a super PAC. Super PACs do have disclose their donors.
But undisclosed donations can be funneled through a 501(c)(4) and that can be then spent on whatever - including donating it further to a super PAC if they want unlimited independent expenditure.
This is why the "dark money" discourse is silly. It's just a scary buzzword. Our revolution is unironically one of them.
→ More replies (1)•
u/mightcommentsometime California 6h ago
It’s a terrible idea because it literally can’t be done without overturning Citizens United. Sanders (hopefully) knows this.
•
u/ChopperChange 6h ago
Sanders calls for overturning Citizens United in just about every speech he makes. It's one of his top issues.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 6h ago
Overturning CU has been part of the party platform since the ruling was made. The case was literally about a hit piece on Hillary Clinton.
But he’s also saying the Dems should do something now to ban superpacs. That’s not legally possible while CU is the law.
•
u/ChopperChange 6h ago edited 6h ago
But he’s also saying the Dems should do something now to ban superpacs.
It's not just "now", he's literally been saying this since the ruling happened.
That’s not legally possible while CU is the law.
Which is why he's encouraging citizens to vote for candidates who support overturning CU, as he has since 2010 when the ruling happened.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
It's not just "now", he's literally been saying this since the ruling happened.
You misread my comment. Sanders is saying that the Dems should ban superpacs today. That is not possible. We cannot overturn CU today, and without doing that, it is not possible to ban superpacs.
Which is why he's encouraging citizens to vote for candidates who support overturning CU, as he has since 2010 when the ruling happened.
So have the mainstream Dems. It was literally priority #1 for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
•
u/ChopperChange 5h ago
He's saying Democrats should voluntarily not take superpac money but unfortunately many won't, so he's also saying that voters should support candidates in primaries going forward who refuse to take superpac money. Vote out politicians who take superpac money in favor of those who would support overturning Citizens United.
If you vote for politicians who take superpac money then they're pretty likely to be beholden to their corporate donors rather than voters interests.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago edited 5h ago
He's saying Democrats should voluntarily not take superpac money
A superPAC cannot donate to a candidate. They cannot coordinate with a candidate. It is expressly illegal. SuperPACs are independent organizations. Candidates have no control over them.
so he's also saying that voters should support candidates in primaries going forward who refuse to take superpac money.
No candidate takes SuperPAC money. They legally cannot.
If you vote for politicians who take superpac money
So no one?
Do you know what a superPAC is?
→ More replies (1)•
u/V2Blast 3h ago
Something not being allowed and that thing not happening are two entirely different things.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 3h ago
It’s illegal. If you want to enforce it, then just show your evidence to the FEC.
So how would you write a bylaw for the DNC to ban something that’s already illegal?
•
u/GooseBear12 5h ago
> Overturning CU has been part of the party platform since the ruling was made.
>Which is why he's encouraging citizens to vote for candidates who support overturning CU, as he has since 2010 when the ruling happened.
I think you missed something, they’re all trying to overturn it.
•
u/dazedandloitering 4h ago
How is it not legally possible? They can’t have internal rules for their nomination process such that candidates must publicly reject SuperPAC money?
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 4h ago
SuperPACs are independent organizations who independently spend money on elections. They do not and cannot legally donate to or coordinate with candidates.
You can’t “publicly reject SuperPACs money” because you aren’t involved in it.
SuperPACs have a constitutional right to spend their own money on elections. They don’t have any obligation to listen to any candidate telling them to or telling them not to.
•
u/dazedandloitering 4h ago
Of course you can publicly reject SuperPACs. You can say “I am not interested in SuperPAC money, I disavow SuperPACs”. That’s what Bernie and several other progressives did.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 4h ago
And when they keep spending money and sending out ads? What then?
How do you stop them from exercising their constitutionally protected first amendment right?
•
u/dazedandloitering 2h ago
Well I didn’t say that you’d be able to completely stop them. But I think disavowing SuperPAC and corporate money is a good first step. This seems like the nirvana fallacy
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
It’s not a nirvana fallacy. The issue is that CU is an extremely broad ruling, and superpacs have complete discretion over their own operations.
There is no practical means of stopping them from participating in primaries.
Let’s apply your idea to AIPAC (which is what Bernie references in the article), and their superPAC. AIPAC is neither a superPAC nor a corporate PAC. They’re a 501(c)(4). So they can still donate to candidates under your idea.
Their superPAC funds both Dems and Republicans. So unless the politician actually changes their stance, they have no reason to stop pushing for them anyways.
And if a superPAC being pro something causes people to change their stances, then it can easily just run ads until they change you to the stance they want.
•
u/OrranVoriel Florida 6h ago
Ban Super PACs period, overturn Citizens United and prosecute the groups behind it and the justices who ruled in favor of it still on the bench.
•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 6h ago
It’s going to take a new deal type groundswell and 20+ years of commitment to root out corruption while making dark money and special interest funding politically impotent.
•
u/Future-Starter 4h ago
Could we get Republicans to mobilize on this too? it seems like it would be easy to convince them to "defund the democrats"
→ More replies (8)
•
u/Jumpy_Background7395 6h ago
Why only from democratic primaries????
•
u/ChopperChange 6h ago
Why only from democratic primaries????
Because banning corporate money from Republican primaries is a nonstarter for that party. I dare you to find any Republican candidate calling for overturning Citizens United.
This is why we need to vote Republicans out of power by electing Democratic candidates who are against Citizens United, which starts with supporting those candidates during Democratic primaries.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 4h ago
I think we should just ban the Republican Party.
•
u/AC00LK0ALA 2h ago edited 2h ago
Fascism is defined by the rejection of democratic processes, the use of state power to crush opposition, and the claim that one party alone represents the true will of the people. Hope you see what I'm getting at here. Ban Republicans and fascists will find some other way to organize because that's how it works.
Or Dems could just outcompete them (which is what you actually have to do) and follow through on their promises instead of losing on a lack of solid policies that improve the material lives of the working class, letting the Republicans define them instead of defining themselves and their policies (which is why DSA is cleaning up rn), and generally being insufferable. Like gaslighting people that the economy is just fine. Or whatever this insufferable snarky disgusting genocide supporting bullshit is.. Or only running on Orange man bad "at least we're not them" bullshit.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2h ago
You’re missing the key reactionary points that make fascism, fascism. Being racism, sexism, anti lgbtq, anti abortion, etc. You’re just describing vague authoritarianism and calling it fascism.
That’s good for now but they will put themselves back together as long as reactionary politics are allowed to exist in American politics.
•
u/AC00LK0ALA 2h ago edited 2h ago
Fascism isn't just racism and sexism. Those are symptoms, not the cause. Fascism is the violent suppression of political opposition, the rejection of democratic processes, and the claim that one party alone represents the true will of the people. The culture war stuff is how they sell it. The structure is what makes it fascism. Banning the Republican Party doesn't address the structure. It just hands the opposition a martyr narrative and forces them to reorganize in ways that are harder to track. You want to defeat fascism? Offer people something better. Outcompete them on policy. Build a movement that can't be crushed. That's what DSA is doing. That's what wins (btw I personally don't even think the DSA or democratic party is the solution to our capitalism systematic problems and contradictions, I do think they can get material gains though). Banning the other side is what people do when they've given up on actually winning.
I think some people (maybe a lot of people) don't want to admit that Dem failures play a big part in the Republican party and the fascism and Trumpism that exists in the first place. Plenty of people who voted Obama twice also voted Trump because they were disillusioned by the "Change" narrative. And Obama also ran as anti establishment mind you. Plenty of 2024 trump voters voted for Zohran mamdani because he offered them something they appreciated and followed through on it I would guess since he does that.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2h ago
I never said fascism was just racism or sexism.
I agree with 100 percent about needing better policy I just think no matter what DSA policy is (I’m a communist) it will likely not go completely smooth and republicans will rally and do the exact same thing they did with Obama and Biden (I do dislike both of them).
Getting rid of republican power is necessary and the reactionary elements of our country needs to be removed for it to survive. And it needs to be permanent. It’s like a cancer that will keep coming back otherwise.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2h ago
I also got a Reddit ban warning for mentioning Israel in any kind of negative way so take that as you will.
•
u/AC00LK0ALA 2h ago edited 2h ago
I agree lol I don't think DSA are the saviors they are sold as, I don't particularly think that a savior will come in any form through the democratic party because "they're capitalist". And I don't see that actually changing. And I don't see the ruling class just allowing themselves to democratically lose power even through elections. Idt it was Mark Twain that actually said it but I do agree that "if voting made any real difference they wouldn't let you do it".
You should do it because it wins material gains and concessions. But concessions are open to be taken back like ACA or voting rights or the new deal as a whole. I think we probably agree more than not based on how you sound though. Need more real education in this country but that's a given. There's a reason literacy is something real revolutionary people fight to improve.
I kinda just wanted the real centrist libs to understand that banning fascism legally doesn't work. Germany banned the Nazis in Germany (after they took power mind you) and neo naziism is a global thing nowadays. And fascism is lurking back in Germany and globally right now because we failed to properly counter it as a whole.
While we're defining fascism in this thread an interesting description of it I can't remember where I heard it, maybe Michael Parenti, but they describe it as a false revolution in the sense that it sells a revolution to the working class but it doesn't actually change the class structure.It uses the language of uprising, national rebirth, and reclaiming power. But it doesn't touch the class structure. It leaves capital in place. It just redirects working-class anger toward scapegoats instead of the system.
•
u/Exotic_Bar_785 2h ago
Yeah I think we are on the same page. I probably did across as a wine lib at first. that’s generally my understanding of fascism as well. I think some sort of cultural revolution would work best to ending reactionary politics.
•
•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 6h ago
His statement sets a tone for the remaining primaries and general elections.
It’s a cudgel to use against those who welcome dark and special interest financing.
•
u/goldman_sax 6h ago
You understand democrats get to make some of their own rules that their party has to follow right? Like obviously a law for both parties is preferred, but Democrats can just stop doing it if the party decides to as a whole to.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
No, they can’t. Because SuperPACs by construction are not allowed to coordinate with the candidates. The Dems have no way to stop independent groups from independently spending money on elections.
•
u/goldman_sax 5h ago
They can absolutely create a blanket rule not to accept money from them. Seth Moulton just returned all the money he got from AIPAC. You do not have to take any money you are given.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
They already can’t accept money from superpacs by law. Superpacs are independent organizations that independently spend their money on elections.
AIPAC is a traditional pac, not a superPAC. Many of the same people run a superPAC, but it is not the same organization.
→ More replies (12)•
u/Character-Education3 6h ago
It is relevant now
Bernie doesnt like super pacs at all
•
•
u/TheHandsOfLiberation 5h ago
Republicans wouldn't do it, but then that would leave the democratic party is the VERY clearly less corrupt party. If one party literally bans PAC money and the other doesn't, you know 100% which party is the Epstein club.
•
•
u/automoebeale 6h ago
Easier to get agreement, that's obviously the larger goal that Bernie's fought for since citizens united.
•
u/Imasquash 5h ago
Because he has no control over Republican primaries and you can't take them out of the general elections without massive legislation
→ More replies (3)•
u/bluexy Arizona 4h ago
Because it's something Democrats can actually do immediately, if they simply chose to. And, beyond that, if they don't you're going to be hearing a lot about which billionaire is funding which candidate going into 2028 and Bernie wants that to be a major public conversation now.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/GooseBear12 6h ago
How is this different from those angry worded letters I keep hearing about.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/SowingSalt 4h ago
Can someone explain to me how the Democratic Party can block outside independent expenditure from being part of the primaries?
Let's say all candidates say they oppose IAs, but AIPAC comes in and runs ads in support of candidate B?
→ More replies (2)
•
u/twoDuckNight 6h ago
Ive heard multiple candidates justify using it because republicans do. Which is not a valid argument for a primary, especially when primary opponents do not use pac money
•
u/Amaranth_Calumet 3h ago
I kinda wish Bernie would focus more on organizing and motivating resistance against this administration/regime. I have a lot of respect for him continuing to try to use the normal process of government operation to pass sane and normal bills that would improve life for everyone... but it could not be more obvious that none of those things have a chance at happening. These kind of good will/good intentions plays are starting to depress us, because its so clearly not going to happen, no matter how much we want it, nor how many of us want it.
•
u/UglyWanKanobi 6h ago
So the Democrats should stop using some of the few tools they have whilst the Republicans are free to use their troll farms?
•
•
u/accidentsneverhappen 5h ago
it's a primary. he's talking about democrats not using big money against each other. Republicans wouldn't be a factor
•
u/huskersax 5h ago
Yes they would. Other interests will still spend money in the primaries and tilt them in wild directions to sow chaos into the general.
•
u/TwevOWNED 4h ago
Okay, so how would DNC rules stop an independent entity from releasing advertisements for their preferred candidate?
→ More replies (1)•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 5h ago
It’s a political club to use against anyone who takes that money. The rule applies regardless of party. It’ll be extremely effective against GOP candidates in generals.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
Nobody “takes” superPAC money. They spend independently of the candidates. They literally cannot donate to them.
•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 5h ago
They “take” by signaling alignment to their benefactors.
That money is fundraised and donated directly and indirectly via ads.
Every state keeps track of funding to campaigns. You’ll be able to spot patterned donations from groups over time. Money is often funneled through existing organizations.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 4h ago
Straw donor scams are explicitly illegal.
They “take” by signaling alignment to their benefactors.
And how exactly is this “signaled”? By saying they hold certain positions?
What specifically do you want to make a rule against?
You’ll be able to spot patterned donations from groups over time. Money is often funneled through existing organizations.
Again, what specific rules would you put in place? And no, referencing vague patterns is not a specific rule.
→ More replies (2)
•
u/BravinatorLX2 3h ago
good sentiment.
but on the broad and general, you do still require money in politics to win right now? so maybe... do that when you have power. dont ruin another election cycle guy.
•
u/couchperson137 1h ago
We need separation from church and state (again) and extend the idea into money and politics. Remove the incentives
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 6h ago
Okay Bernie, how exactly are you going to ban outside groups from independently spending money on elections?
It’s literally illegal for them to coordinate with the candidates.
•
→ More replies (2)•
u/Dizzy-Budget5985 6h ago
Donation caps. They can talk with the candidate all they want after they get elected.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 6h ago
That’s not how SuperPACs work. They do not and cannot legally donate to political campaigns.
They are independent organizations that spend independently on ads.
→ More replies (12)•
u/buffalotrace 6h ago
There is no way to enforce this.
•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 5h ago
We collectively have the power to make it so.
It’s not overnight. I hope voters are gaining agency and realize this is a war of attrition we can outlast and win.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
Not without changing the makeup of SCOTUS or amending the constitution.
•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 5h ago
We light the way homie.
We deserve better and have the power to elect those who will carry it out.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
So vote for Dems who have this as a core part of the party platform since 2010.
•
u/Dizzy-Budget5985 5h ago
Not currently, that's why you vote for people who want to actually do campaign finance reform. So, you know, it happens.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 4h ago
Without amending the constitution and overturning CU, there is no way to enforce this. Mainstream dems want to overturn CU. So voting them in is the way to make this happen.
•
u/minus_minus 5h ago
This is literally nonsense. No part of the Democratic Party apparatus has the authority to “ban super pacs”. They are independent organizations legally barred from any coordination with any party or candidate. Bernie should know this and is just blowing smoke up everyone’s ass.
•
•
u/Constantinople2020 Massachusetts 3h ago
84 year old man who is soon to be 85, who first served in Congress when the Soviet Union still existed, publicly admits he doesn't understand how PACs work, particularly AIPAC, how federal legislation is passed and how Supreme Court opinions are overturned.
•
•
•
•
u/Much-Anything7149 5h ago
So unban them for general elections? Because as shitty as SuperPACs are, not having those funds versus the GOP will result in bloodbaths.
•
•
u/Bananapancakes4life 5h ago
Bernie is right a lot, people just don’t wanna listen
•
u/BonnaconCharioteer 5h ago
Bernie is wrong a lot recently unfortunately. The party has no authority over superpacs, they can't ban them.
•
u/Throwawayrip1123 2h ago
The party has no authority over superpacs, they can't ban them
So make a new rule, and then ban them. It's not fucking hard. We haven't been given our laws from a god, we wrote them.
Write some more, for fucks sake.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
What new rule? How are you going to ban independent groups from exercising their first amendment rights?
•
u/GameMusic 4h ago
they could ban candidates from taking primary money which would save enormous resouces for every general
•
u/BonnaconCharioteer 4h ago
That doesn't work either, because superpacs aren't controlled by the candidates.
Even if a candidate objected someone could run a superpac for them.
•
u/Dairy_Ashford 5h ago
uh, republicans first
•
u/ExcuseCommercial1338 4h ago
ban republicans from accepting money in democratic primaries? you have a bad brain.
•
•
•
u/Murderface__ New York 6h ago
If the DNC can do this, it would definitely help focus everybody.
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 5h ago
They can’t, because Citizens United doesn’t give them any way to.
•
u/Hawtdawgz_4 6h ago
It doesn’t matter he called out the Democratic Party to task.
This messaging is going to be used as a sledgehammer in the generals.
•
u/thetensor 4h ago
Do you ever wonder what Bernie might have accomplished if he'd joined the Democratic Party instead of sniping from the sidelines?
•
u/Correctthecorrectors 1h ago
Do you ever wonder what would be accomplished if they nominated Bernie in 2016 and 2020 instead of the two losers?
•
u/_byetony_ 5h ago
Unbelievable this is at all controversial
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 1h ago
It’s not controversial to the Dems, it just isn’t possible without overturning CU.
The Dems advocate to overturn CU, which is the only way to ban superpacs
•
u/FormerUsenetUser 6h ago
Aaand, what about Republican primaries? If you are going to ban them, ban them for everyone.
•
•
u/ChopperChange 6h ago
If you are going to ban them, ban them for everyone.
Of course, but the vast majority of Republicans are in favor of Super PAC money and Citizens United so we can't count on them to ban it. The only way we overturn Citizens United is by voting in enough candidates who support that cause, and candidates who take Super PAC money probably don't.
•
•
u/RyanMeray 6h ago
This needs to become a litmus test for any politician. Either you disavow the help of these groups or you can lose the support of voters.
•
u/DeliriousPrecarious 6h ago
It's a hollow statement. Way too easy to say "I disavow so-and-so org advertising on my behalf" and then they just keep advertising.
•
u/diamondbiscuit 5h ago
Not saying he is wrong but how about showing everyday people how these super PAC influence everyday people.
•
u/Shellglock 6h ago
Why would capitalists forfeit one of their most valuable tools for maintaining total control? This is a pipe dream at best.
•
u/bandannick Arizona 4h ago
Also, get rid of Superdelegates. The Democratic Party is the only major party that uses them, and they haven’t had a unified party since Obama
•
u/mightcommentsometime California 2h ago
Superdelegates haven’t overturned the result of a primary since they were introduced back in the 70s.
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.