Why Won't Bernie Denounce Super PAC Spending That's Helping HIM?

Bernie on the stump / Phil Roeder, CC-BY 2.0

The New York Times, reporting on Friday, January 29, 2016:

“Bernie Sanders is Democrats' Top Beneficiary of Outside Spending, Like It Or Not”* 

*This was the original, accurate headline. The NYT later subbed in a misleading, click-bait headline, which I really wish they'd get rid of.* 

I'm waiting to hear Sanders supporters - ANY Sanders supporters - call on Bernie to immediately and publicly repudiate the $5.3 million+ that super PACs have spent so far – much of it in Iowa and New Hampshire – to help Sanders and hurt Hillary.  At the very least, denouncing the $4.3 million in right wing attack ads that have been targeting Hillary would seem to be a gimme.

For the sake of consistency, if Bernie thinks all PACs are bad, he should probably respectfully request that UNNA not spend their super PAC money trying to elect him, either.  Ditto for myriad other Bernie-endorsing organizations, including MoveOn.org, which recently endorsed Bernie, and which spent almost a million dollars on campaign ads in the 2014 election season (note: MoveOn Political Action is a federal PAC rather than a super PAC, so they at least disclose their donors.)

No, Elizabeth Warren Didn't "Sink" Hillary Endorsement Hopes

Senator and progressive girl-crush Elizabeth Warren / Image: Ninian Reid, CC BY 2.0

The essay hit Huffington Post earlier today and is already manically careening around Facebook and other social media:

Elizabeth Warren Sinks Clinton's Hopes for Endorsement


Oh, BALONEY. 

The Elizabeth-Warren-secretly-loves-Bernie-and-hates-Hillary stories have been circulating online for months, mostly among Sanders' supporters.  And they only seem to be multiplying as Iowa draws near: "Warren in talks to endorse Bernie," "Bernie will nominate Warren for VP," "This comment from Sen. Warren PROVES she hates Hillary's guts!"  None of the stories or headlines are supported by actual evidence. 

Listen for yourself to the speech where Sen. Warren supposedly "made it clear she won't endorse Hillary":  

Tell President Obama - Daylight Dark Money Now!

An entertaining take on the issue: "Baby Got PACs"

Now for something completely different - policy action that progressives and Tea Party enthusiasts alike** should (theoretically) be able to get behind. Yesterday's Washington Post: "President Obama is weighing whether to invoke his executive authority to force federal contractors to disclose political contributions they make to independent groups, according to individuals briefed on the matter."

Spending by independent groups that aren't currently required to disclose their donors is often referred to as "dark money." The Center for Responsive Politics describes the problem thus: