FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bernie Sanders’ Unconscionable Compensation to Consultants for Ad Buys

I’ve long admired Bernie Sanders and strongly supported and (modestly) donated to his 2016 presidential campaign. And (unlike most but not all Counterpunchers who have been extremely hard on him) I have given him credit where it is due: here  and here. In recent weeks and months (as the handwriting of Bernie’s runner-up status began appearing on the wall) I was also among those strenuously urging him NOT to endorse Hillary Clinton. And perhaps because I couldn’t bring myself to watch or listen to him abase himself by endorsing Hillary on Tuesday, I still love Bernie.

Call this critique “tough love” then: BUT it’s Disgraceful (with a capital D) that Sanders unjustly enriched traditional Democratic Party campaign consultants. This well-researched Slate article by Eli Clifton and Joshua Holland  found that “an eight-figure payday [was] shared by two firms: Old Towne Media and Devine Mulvey Longabaugh.” WTF?!? (Pardon my French.)

Following anti-establishment Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean’s similar meteoric rise and flameout in 2004 (albeit Bernie’s was more successful) I wrote about this strange compensation arrangement whereby such consultant firms are paid by a percentage of the cost of the media ads they purchase instead of on a salaried or hourly basis. (The LA Times declined to publish it but I later read that Joe Trippi did refund some of his outsize compensation, the total sum of which was “chickenfeed” compared to the larcenous sums made by Sanders’ consultants).

This is troubling when you reflect on the fact that Bernie had to have become familiar with his fellow Vermont pol Dean’s 2004 candidacy, knew of the way in which Dean and his donors had been ripped-off by consultants and yet allowed the exact same thing to happen but on a MUCH larger (“8-figure”!!) scale. (You do the math. Even at the low-end it’s unconscionable considering the context — an insurgent progressive presidential campaign the core message of which is that “the 1% can’t have it all!” Not exactly I guess, eh Bernie?)

When you look “under the hood” and see such unjust enrichment to a few opportunistic political consultants (whether they were and are cronies of the candidate or just glommed onto him early on and laughed all the way to the bank at his naivete in failing to negotiate an appropriate compensation arrangement I don’t know) it is hard to resist the conclusion that Bernie, as chief executive of his own campaign, was (at least) indifferent to crucial contractual details that caused him to get a lot less “bang” for his campaign donors’ “bucks” than he should have. Whether this means he similarly lacked “what it takes” to be the nation’s chief executive is a question worth asking.

Although I can think of plausible explanations for his poor judgment in this regard, it may be also be a case of “Bernie, we hardly knew ye” (at least in some important respects). History will have to judge all that as his 2016 campaign is now in the category of “water under the bridge” following his unmerited and premature concession of the Democratic nomination to his rival. For me, together with the manner in which he “got rolled” by slick soulless Democratic Party campaign consultant operatives, it’s starting to look all “of a piece”. In (brilliant humanist, fatalist and skeptic) Kurt Vonnegut famous phrase: “And so it goes…”

More articles by:
April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Paul Bentley
A Velvet Revolution Turns Bloody? Ten Dead in Toronto
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
Ted Rall
Stop Letting Trump Distract You From Your Wants and Needs
Steve Klinger
The Cautionary Tale of Donald J. Trump
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Conflict Over the Future of the Planet
Cesar Chelala
Gideon Levy: A Voice of Sanity from Israel
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail