Let me play a little Devil's Advocate, if I may.




 Courtesy of USA Today, a story about theBernie Sanders SuperPACs that he doesn't want

<all emphasis mine>

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bernie Sanders has long denounced super PACs and the unlimited sums they spend in support of candidates.

But that hasn't stopped independent political action committees from forming in support of his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

One such committee, "Bet on Bernie 2016," even arranged for Sanders' photo to flash — without his knowledge, according to the Vermont senator — on an electronic billboard last month in New York City's Times Square.

"I have not sanctioned any super PAC," Sanders, an independent, said in an interview. "A major problem of our campaign finance system is that anybody can start a super PAC on behalf of anybody and can say anything. And this is what makes our current campaign finance situation totally absurd."

A Bet on Bernie news release says it is seeking volunteers to participate in telethons, raise money and boost Sanders on social media. The committee is a hybrid PAC that has one account for making donations to Sanders and another super PAC-style account for making independent expenditures to boost his candidacy.

"We want to raise 50 million bucks but, you know, we're getting pledges, and Hollywood just jumped into this," said Bet on Bernie's chairman, Cary Peterson.

Peterson, a newly registered lobbyist given to self-promotion — "I'm a very interesting guy" — has not yet had to file a report with the Federal Election Commission that would support his fundraising claims.

Another pro-Sanders PAC, "Northern Michigan for Bernie Sanders," was formed by Colby Winter, 18, who will graduate June 7 from high school in Traverse City, Mich. Winter said he and his friends are seeking donations of up to $400 to help spread Sanders' ideas about education and campaign finance reform.

Their group meets the definition of a super PAC, but they don't like the term.

"We feel it's derogatory," Winter said. "We don't like super PACs. That's what we're working against."

Organizers of pro-Sanders PACs say they share Sanders' view that the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United vs. FEC is undermining democracy and should be overturned. The 2010 decision helped pave the way for super PACs that may spend unlimited funds in support of candidates as long as they operate independently of political campaigns.

Vermont state Rep. Christopher Pearson of Burlington, who formed the has "Draft Bernie" super PAC, has voted to call for a constitutional convention to overturn the Citizens United decision. He acknowledged a certain "irony" in his decision to start Draft Bernie.

"I think big money in politics is a deeply corrupting influence, but I also recognize that changing the debate in this country requires resources," said Pearson, who worked for Sanders in the late 1990s. "People with my point of view and Bernie's point of view are heavily outgunned by big-money interests, and I think we've got to use the tools that are out there in order to spread a message that I think resonates with a lot of voters."

Sanders said he prefers that his supporters donate directly to his presidential campaign. Such donations are limited by law. So far, the bulk of his fundraising is from 130,000 individuals who have contributed donations averaging $40 via his campaign website. Sanders does not accept contributions from corporate PACs.

So as someone who supports Bernie, do you have a problem with private citizens, on their own time, trying to raise gobs of money that could be used to advance the Sanders campaign and potentially get him elected into office?

Sanders supporters include people like Neil Young, the guys who run Ben and Jerry's ice cream, Susan Sarandon, Sarah Silverman, and Lewis Black. They could all be major contributors to the campaign. Is there any reason they shouldn't donate whatever they feel they could afford to Bernie?

Then only the extremely rich could ever run effectively for state or national office.

Goose wrote:

Then only the extremely rich could ever run effectively for state or national office.

 
You mean like we have now?

Tarnation wrote:

The Man wrote:

Goose wrote:

Then only the extremely rich could ever run effectively for state or national office.

 
You mean like we have now?

Consider Senator Scott Wagner, "the best government waste money can buy".
 

 
Yeah, and he took campaign contributions, he didn't spend his own money on his campaign.  Where were the average, middle class candidates? At least if campaign contributions were banned entirely, the candidates would have to truly put their money where their mouth is.