The Bernie effect: Gillibrand and Booker pledge no corporate PAC money

[ultramanhyata]

You're joking, but I'm serious. Does this move make you any more likely to vote for Booker?

No, it does not.

Because his pledge does not go far enough in and of itself. And because, even if it did go far enough, it places him at a competitive disadvantage absent it being compulsory on all his opponents.

 

[Trotsky]

Also, Booker has been desperately trying to regain credibility with the center-to-far left after a series of left-leaning publications outed him as a grandstanding, dressed-up neoliberal. He's definitely one of those politicians that really cannot bear people not liking him.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Kill Citizens United

 

[Jack V Savage]

No, it does not.

Because his pledge does not go far enough in and of itself. And because, even if it did go far enough, it places him at a competitive disadvantage absent it being compulsory on all his opponents.

Well, there you go. Sounds like we're on the same page (and the last point is a separate one that you're introducing that I also agree with).

 

[electricfuneral]

Can’t trust booker.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Good luck winning

Well fortunately for dems, there is this one candidate that has proven he can raise a war chest without taking corporate or Pac money of any kind.

 

[Fawlty]

Lose >10% of contributions, gain serious branding and advertising value and support from small donors. Nothing like a moral change of mind that just so happens to be profitable!

LOL


Nothing against them as candidates, but come on people. This is calculated as fuck. And apparently well-publicized.