Progressive Wall Street Money?
Soros Funded MoveOn

Sanders’ main support is MoveOn (7-million members). And progressive billionaire George Soros funded them to the tune of $1.46 million in 2004. MoveOn loved that money and no one ever hinted it corrupted them. But now Soros has switched his support to Clinton, and Sanders claims she is being corrupted by “Wall Street” money.  $8 million of that is from Soros.

Soros made his money on Wall Street and Sanders says Clinton is beholden to Wall Street money—even though Soros is so progressive that Republicans consider him the devil incarnate. They hate him, like we hate the Koch brothers. Was his MoveOn base beholden to Soros and corrupted by him when they happily took is money? I don’t think so.

Now Sanders claims he has no super PAC but that Hillary has a Wall Street super PAC. Well, no candidate can have one—that’s the law. But both candidates are supported by super PACs. (In fact, Bernie gets a lot of support—which he does not ask for but does not reject—from extremely conservative super PACs.) But there’s one main progressive super PAC supporting Sanders (the Nurses) and one main progressive PAC supporting Clinton (Soros and others).

Soros gave $8 million to it and another progressive gave $2.5 million. And that’s the bulk of Clinton’s Wall Street support. I’m betting that Bernie would just love to have Soros back with MoveOn and supporting him. But since Soros rejected him, he’s using Soros’s Wall Street connection to smear Hillary. Let’s take a closer look.

Imagine if Soros had contributed his $8 million to MoveOn to help Sanders. Also imagine that liberal donor S. Donald Sussman had given his $2.5 million to Sanders instead of Clinton. Then 11.1% of Sanders funding would be from top-tier hedge fund managers!

And in this case, only 3.9% of Clinton’s funding would be from Wall Street. And as we will see, much (likely most) of that is from progressives. {data}

Was MoveOn corrupted by Soros’s $1.46 million? If Sanders had accepted these two contributions, would that have corrupted him? I don’t think so. In fact the idea of such progressive money corrupting Bernie or MoveOn is ridiculous. So why does Bernie claim it has corrupted Hillary? I wonder.

So Bernie trusts McCain, but not Hillary?!

And why does Sanders’ website say he is a “co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill,” to restore part of the Glass-Steagall act? That’s his number-one proposal for curbing Wall Street. So he trusts John McCain, but not Hillary Clinton? Unforgettably, McCain’s the Republican  who ran for president with Sarah Palin — funded by all the wrong sources.

Now I’m not saying the McCain bill is corrupt, but if Sanders is giving John McCain a pass, why is he constantly implying that Hillary, whose funding is vastly more progressive, is a corrupt shill for Wall Street? I must say this just looks like dirty politics to me. I can see no logic to it at all.

Sanders’ Wall-Street Backers Are Also Progressive

Although Sanders talks as if all money coming from the “Securities & Investment” industry actually comes from the big banks themselves, corporations and unions are barred from donating money directly to candidates or national party committees. So all of Clinton’s $3 million in contributions from “Wall Street” to her candidate committee, comes from individuals (limited to $2,700) or PACs, which are limited to $5,000. There just aren’t that many PACs so almost all of that $3 million came from individuals.

One such Wall-Street individual is Meredith Burak, a third-generation Wall Street executive. At 32, she has worked in global wealth management for Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. She thinks Wall Street is one of the few places in the country where people can truly realize the American Dream. And she’s supporting Bernie Sanders.

Burak says that Wall Street needs tougher regulation and rules. “People on Wall Street want the game to be fair,” she said. “It is when people cheat that things get messed up for everyone. And to the extent that we can have rules and more enforcement to get people like {Ponzi schemer} Bernie Madoff out of the financial system, the better it is for the economy.”

The World’s Not Black and White

Of course Bernie’s right that big money has a huge effect on Congress. Everyone’s known that forever. But that doesn’t mean that everyone employed on Wall Street is corrupt. And even if 3 or 4% of Clinton’s money does come from corrupt sources that doesn’t mean that she will listen to that 3% when 97% is coming from progressive sources.

Yes, if you eliminate Soros, Sussman, and say two-thirds of the individuals (who are not likely to waste their $400 contribution trying to buy influence in a billion-dollar election), that leaves only $4.7 million in Wall Street money, which is only 3% of her total funding. And there is not even evidence that a significant amount of that is trying to buy influence.

And Bernie Plays Games Too

Sanders has regularly benefited from the Democratic Party apparatus, taking $200,000 for his Senatorial campaigns. The flip side of that is that he also helps the Democrats raise money from Wall Street and other lobbyists. In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s retreats for the “Majority Trust” — an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year — at Martha’s Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011. (And yes, he has attended some, if not all of these.) The retreats are typically attended by 100 or more donors who have either contributed the annual legal maximum of $33,400 to the DSCC, raised more than $100,000 for the party or both.

Bottom Line: Stop Attacks Based on Character Assassination within the Party

If you must engage in ad hominem attacks, save them for your enemies. Republicans attack Hillary’s character quite enough without help from Sanders. And they will attack his character viciously if he gets the nomination (as they are hoping).

Democrats need to get along if we are to make any progress. There’s plenty of room for disagreement on strategy. Bernie can criticize Hillary for being too fearful of Republicans and she can criticize him for being unrealistic. Such disagreements won’t turn friends into bitter enemies. But calling someone’s favorite candidate a liar and a shill for Wall Street is character assassination. That tears the party apart. And besides, there’s not a shred of evidence for it.   {Numbers and documentation}

According to the Atlantic, Sanders is about to go on the offensive, attacking Hillary’s character.  “Like” or share this to help get this story out. Thanks very much for reading.