Bernie Sanders has made it a centerpiece of his campaign to get "big money" out of politics -- so it is a bit strange that his campaign is the biggest spender of all. Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of the 17 Republican candidates has spent as much money on media consulting, production, and ad buys as Sanders has spent. In fact, Clinton has spent only about 2/3 (67%) of what Sanders has spent.
Here is some of what The Washington Post wrote about Sanders' campaign spending:
The small-dollar fundraising juggernaut that has kept Bernie Sanders’s insurgent White House bid afloat far longer than anticipated has generated another unexpected impact: a financial windfall for his team of Washington consultants.
By the end of March, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont had spent nearly $166 million on his campaign — more than any other 2016 presidential contender, including rival Hillary Clinton. More than $91 million went to a small group of admakers and media buyers who produced a swarm of commercials and placed them on television, radio and online, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission reports.
While the vast majority of that money was passed along to television stations and websites to pay for the advertising, millions in fees were kept by the companies, The Post calculated. While it is impossible to determine precisely how much the top consultants have earned, FEC filings indicate the top three media firms have reaped payments of seven figures.
Sanders’s money blitz, fueled by a $27 average donation that he repeatedly touts, has improbably made the anti-billionaire populist the biggest spender so far in the election cycle. The campaign’s wealth has been a surprising boon for vendors across the country who signed on to his long-shot bid.
The large profits stem in part from the fact that no one in Sanders’s campaign imagined he would generate such enormous financial support. So unlike Clinton, he did not cap how much his consultants could earn in commissions from what was expected to be a bare-bones operation, according to campaign officials.
Sanders likes to claim that he was the little guy, and couldn't compete with other big spending campaigns. That is simply not true (as the chart above shows). Sanders didn't lose because he couldn't afford to compete. He lost because Democrats didn't want him to be their nominee. They preferred to be represented by Hillary Clinton (by several million popular votes and hundreds of delegates). Bernie and his supporters don't want to admit that, but it is the truth.
Y'know, I might feel a LOT different about the Sanders campaign if just 1% of that money -- and a small part of the 'revolutionary army' -- had been used to directly help some of the people. Imagine what could have been done and how much better the people of Flint would have been, if the cost of one ad had been transferred towards paying the living expenses of ten master pipe fitters and the cost of some safer pipe.
ReplyDelete'
Imagine hiiw much better Democrats of all stripe would be looking at Bernie, if he' used the cost of five ads to send teams of 'registration specialists' to states where there are serious Voter ID problems. (Btw, that IS how MLK did, he didn't demand that he be elected FIIRST and then the changes would come.) Imagine if there were a group of drivers and experts in the various problems that the GOP had created between people and the polls. Imagine if they simply served to get people registered -- ideally Democrats, but everybody should have the right to vote, so they would and should help Republicans as well. But think how much more highly you'd be thinking of Bernie.
'
And, with the schools crisis in so many Republican run States, wouldn't it have been great if he'd had some of his volunteers actually sey up as tutors and menors for areas where the school system is particularly bad, and making a commitment that would have gone far beyond the election, whichever Democrat won -- a Bernie-led 'Peace Corps' for domestic use.
'
Instead, the main beneficiaries of the fund raising Bernie has done are the television stations, not Bernie, his supporters, or people in general. (And I think a news story about a brigade of Bernie volunteers arriving in a town to help the people would have been worth FAR more to his campaign than would have any dozen ads he ran. The one good thing Trump has shown us -- if we use it that way -- is that making news beats buying ads for getting your message on TV.)
You're not taking into account the fact that we are conducting under a corrupt system. We are already under an election system that has been shown to be one of the worse of the western world. Not only with the rampant flaws in election, we also have the fact that "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever" and it would appear that in order to have any chance; you have to be well prepared, organized, and with enough resources to accomplish what would appear to be a small task of JUST getting your message out.
DeleteHaving first pointed that our, I agree with you that there are and could be many better and progressive ways that any candidate, specially Bernie could be going on about getting showing his message in a walk the talk kind of way.. As of this moment and under this current system, if a lot of the issues affecting the country are what would appear outside of the government's hand (even with all their resources), how do you expect a competing campaign to worry about getting the message out, out raising the competition, and also fixing America's problems?
This is why Bernie's focus I believe are within his campaign. As an example, with the fact that Bernie Sanders is the only 2016 presidential candidate to pay his campaign interns. He's making strides where possible but you gotta remember the precedents for winning elections that has been made possible by a flawed system that only speaks money.
When the majority of people have began to have higher standards for their candidates by fixing and improving the current flawed election system so that there are other ways that a candidate goes about becoming the best possible candidate to actually go on to become president. Only the best suited tested by an election system that proves they are the right person for the job of serving an entire nation and the entire peoples, not just a few.
Links...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/29/u-s-elections-ranked-worst-among-western-democracies-heres-why/
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and/
http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-unpaid-interns/