Yesterday, Bernie's campaign manager Faiz Shakir, sent out an e-mail about the troublesome billionaires afflicting the Democratic Party. "First," he wrote, "we had to face off against candidates flying around the country begging rich people for money at high-dollar fundraisers. Even so, we’ve out-raised them all… at just $19 a contribution. Then, Joe Biden’s super PAC says they have raised a ton of money in unlimited contributions from wealthy folks and will start running ads in Iowa imminently. Now, Mike Bloomberg and his billions are filing paperwork to run for president, mostly because he doesn’t want us or our issues to succeed. The truth is, big money will concede nothing to us. Nothing. They will fight us and our ideas to the end."Yesterday, Newsweek's Jason Lemon asked if a billionaire, namely Michael Bloomberg, can buy an election. After all, he his net worth is in the $50 billion range.
Bloomberg historically has shown a willingness to spend tens of millions of his own money to win an election. During his successful 2009 mayoral reelection campaign, the billionaire spent about $102 million of his own money-- or about $174 per vote. In his 2005 reelection campaign, he spent about $85 million of his money, roughly $102 per vote. Four years prior during his first campaign in 2001, he spent $74 million of his money, coming in at about $99 per vote cast in his favor.Notably, Bloomberg spent more of his own money on each of those successful campaigns than Trump, who is estimated to be worth only about $3 billion, did on his 2016 presidential run.
Richard Eskow had already asked the question the day before at Common Dreams. Eskow looks how the same math that Bloomberg used to buy the mayoralty in New York can be applied nationally. "If so," he wrote, "it would cost him $12 billion to buy the Oval Office. That is, of course, a disturbing and absurd notion to anyone with even a vestigial attachment to democratic principle. Here’s something even more disturbing: Bloomberg can easily afford it. Bloomberg has become a living illustration of runaway inequality and an irretrievably corrupted democracy."
Bloomberg was a Democrat, became a Republican, and is now a Democrat again. Party affiliation is, however, a trivial thing in his world. The ultra-wealthy change party affiliations and contributions on a whim, or for expedience, much as a gentleman might wear a tan linen suit in the summer and switch to darker wool blends as the autumn chill sets in.Let’s do the math. As the New York Times reported in 2009, Bloomberg spent $74 million to win the mayoralty in 2001. He spent $85 million to win re-election in 2005. He then managed to void the two-term limit for New York City mayors and went on to spend $102 million winning his third term.As The Times notes, that means Bloomberg spent $185 for every vote he received. Additional calculations by this writer show that he spent a total of $88 for every vote cast in his races for any candidate.How much would it cost Bloomberg to become president, if we assume that every vote in the country “costs” as much as a New Yorker’s? 136,700,000 people voted in the 2016 election. If turnout is unchanged, and if the election could be purchased for $88 per vote, the cost of buying the United States presidency would come to $12 billion.The total cost of the last presidential election was estimated at $2.6 billion. Bloomberg could spend five times as much as all the presidential campaigns spent together last time around, and he’d still be one of the richest people in the world.Not that it would be easy. Despite his wealth, Bloomberg retains his deeply dislikable public persona. I have never seen him in person, but I have observed him as most voters would, through the media lens. Even the highest-paid consultants-- the one who told the officious Bloomberg to call himself “Mike,” even though he is never addressed that way-- have not figured out how to alter his self-presentation as a scowling, self-righteous martinet.If beating Trump is your top priority, Bloomberg’s not your guy, even in our broken simulacrum of democracy. His nomination would almost certainly depress turnout among core Democratic voters. Some say he would win some votes among “persuadable” Republicans, but Republicans have proven far more attached to Trump than insiders and pundits expected. And if impeachment results in a different GOP candidate for 2020-- not likely, but not impossible-- the entire rationale for a Bloomberg candidacy disappears.Still, if anybody can buy this election with personal funds, “Mike” can. He is one of the richest people in the world. According to Forbes, a source that is hardly hostile to the wealthy, Bloomberg currently has a net worth of $52.3 billion. (The use of the word “worth” in this context is, of course, is meant in a fiscal context, not a human one.)Bloomberg may have certain restrictions on his investments and assets, but borrowing against them would be easy. He would be worth $40 billion after the election-- enough to buy several more races.What would a Bloomberg presidency look like? True, he’s good on guns, but his imperious presentation of policy is likely to win few converts in Congresss. His environmental rhetoric is good, but he’s unwilling to make the sweeping changes needed to address climate change. His views on the economy are the retrograde ravings of an isolated oligarch. Inequality soared in Bloomberg’s New York City, which quickly became unaffordable for working people and extremely lucrative for others.When Bloomberg spoke to an assembly of fellow executives in 2018, he reportedly said that we need to “go back to how things were done in Clinton days, when he'd get three Democrats, three Republicans and take them golfing, then go lock themselves in a room, close the door, smoke cigars and make all the decisions.”Clinton’s deal-making elitism led to the financial crisis of 2008. Obama’s similarly “centrist” policies cost the Democrats the House, the Senate, the presidency, and 1,000 state seats. If that’s the outcome you want, Bloomberg’s your guy....Bloomberg’s wealth would have been unimaginable to the wealthiest and most powerful emperors of old. He didn’t “earn” it. His $52 billion is the product of a long chain of policy decisions-- in areas that range from taxation to the use of publicly-funded technologies and networks by private enterprise. His extreme wealth, and its ability to undermine democracy, reflects a long chain of policy failures. It is we who pay the price: in loss of democracy, in loss of economic rights, and in a future that may well be for sale to the likes of Michael Bloomberg.
Last week Mehdi Hasan interviewed Bernie for The Intercept You should read the whole thing. Hasan began the interview by asking Bernie why he is doing so well in the polls. Bernie responded: "For two reasons. Number one, we are taking on the entire establishment and it is no secret that I am not much loved by the corporate establishment or the corporate media. That’s one factor. We are a threat to them. And they are nervous that we are going to put together the kind of grassroots working class movement that we need not only to defeat Trump to transform the country. And I’ll tell you what the second reason is, you know, a lot of the media folks who are you know, they are hardworking. They’re nice. They’re honest people. They are not, 'enemies of the people' as Trump defines them, but they live in a certain world, an upper middle class world where they talk to each other. They don’t know many working class people who are supporting Bernie Sanders. They don’t know many young people who are supporting Bernie Sanders. And they talk to each other and they say, I can’t believe it. How does Sanders-- We have not talked to anybody who supports Sanders. How come he’s doing so well in the polls? I think those are the two factors that we have."
Hasan: One of the issues that moderators have obsessed over in those debates is how are you and Senator Elizabeth Warren going to pay for Medicare for All. Unlike you, she’s unveiled a very detailed, lengthy, specific plan for how she wants to pay for it. She says she’ll target employers as part of it. You told ABC News last weekend that her proposal isn’t as progressive as you’d like it to be, and would even hurt jobs by hurting businesses. A lot of Warren supporters have said that your argument Senator is the kind of argument that Republicans have used for years to say any tax on employers will cost jobs. How do you respond to them?Bernie: Well, let me respond in several ways. First of all, right now, we are spending twice as much per capita on healthcare as do the people of any other country while 87 million are uninsured and some 500,000 people go bankrupt every year because of medical bills that they can’t pay. Number two, I appreciate very much that Senator Warren is a strong supporter of Medicare for All and is supporting the legislation that I introduced which is the only way that we’re going to provide quality healthcare to all people in a cost effective way.So, there are differences in terms of how you fund it. Now, for the last several years, we have put out options. You say, you could do this, you could do that. One of the aspects of our plan is a 4% income tax exempting the first $29,000 of income. So, if you are the typical American family and making 60,000, you would pay a 4% income tax on 31,000, which is about 1,200 dollars a year which by the way, is much, much, much lower than that what that family is paying right now. We also have put a payroll tax on employers, and I think the number is 7.5%, or maybe 10%.Hasan: But what about the specific criticism of you from the Warren team that you sound like a Republican saying that a tax on employers will hurt jobs?Bernie: No, no, what I’m saying is... you tell me. The two concerns here, when you have a payroll tax, it will impact more significantly upper income companies where lawyers are making $100,000 or a million dollars a year, when you’re putting what amounts to a $9,500 head tax on a company that is hiring workers, for 40 or $50,000. That’s quite a hit. That’s quite a hit. So my point is, look, I was asked this question by ABC, and that’s the answer I gave and I think it’s the right answer. Senator Warren is trying to figure out a way to fund this. I am trying to figure out a way to fund it. Most importantly, what we both understand that Medicare for All will save the average American substantial sums of money in their healthcare costs....Hasan: And for those of us who are on the left and are not fans of Joe Biden, is there a danger, a lot of us worry that there’s a danger that you and Elizabeth Warren, both being in the race and doing so well splits the progressive vote, splits the left and helps a Joe Biden or even a Pete Buttigieg come through the middle and win the nomination. Isn’t that a real danger?Bernie: I don’t think so. I mean, you have a process which as crazy as it may seem, actually make some sense and that is the primary process. And what it is, is the goal here, obviously, is to defeat, and defeat badly, Donald Trump the most dangerous president in modern American history. And ultimately, you know, you can argue about who the best candidate is, and I can argue about it, but you know, it’s going to be the people who make that decision. So Senator Warren and I are going out. She’s making our case. I am making my case for a variety of reasons. I do believe I am the strongest candidate to defeat Trump. The people will decide. She’ll get delegates. I will get delegates and we’ll see what happens as this process goes down the line.Hasan: But you’re competing for similar delegates is my point. You’re not competing necessarily for exactly the same people as Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg.Bernie: Right, that’s right but I think we’re also competing for some different constituencies as well.Hasan: Okay. And in the past, you’ve suggested that and I’m quoting you from Twitter that the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is “anybody but Bernie.” You’ve said that you’re the real threat to the billionaire class. I just want to check then, are you saying that Elizabeth Warren is not a threat to the billionaire class...Bernie: Don’t try-- don’t try to-- no. Elizabeth Warren is a friend of mine. And what we’re trying to do it... Hasan: But is she a threat to the billionaire class.Bernie: ...One second, one second, one second. What I said is that quote, paraphrasing, the corporate wing led by a group called Third Way said that Bernie Sanders is "an existential threat to the Democratic Party." And I agree with him. We are moving this party in a very significant way away from their dependency on corporate money on billionaire money to the needs and the support of working people in this country. I am very proud, by the way, Mehdi, that we have received more individual contributions from more people than any candidate in the history of American politics at this point in a presidential...Hasan: I understand that and that’s a major achievement. I’m just wondering if I were to ask you, which candidates in the race should billionaires be afraid of? Clearly you would say yourself, and I think everyone would agree with that.Bernie: Yes.Hasan: Clearly, we wouldn’t say Joe Biden.Bernie: Yes.Hasan: I’m just wondering is Elizabeth Warren someone you would say that billionaires should be afraid of.Bernie: Yeah, I think they should be as well. But I think, given my record and what we are trying to do in this campaign, is we are trying to uniquely in an unprecedented way in modern American history-- It’s not just win this election which obviously we’re trying to do. We are simultaneously trying to build an unprecedented grassroots movement of millions of working people, black and white and Latino, Native American and Asian American around an agenda that works for all of us and not just the 1%. So, we are building a movement because at the end of the day you know, we can’t bring about real change without that movement.Hasan: And you said, Elizabeth Warren is a friend of yours. You say you have a similar approach on Medicare for All, would a presidential candidate Bernie Sanders be open to Elizabeth Warren as his running mate?Bernie: Elizabeth Warren is somebody that I have worked with for many, many years. Worked with her before she was a United States senator. So obviously, if I am fortunate enough to become the Democratic nominee and president of the United States, I would look absolutely, to Elizabeth Warren as somebody who would play a very, very important role in everything that we’re doing.Hasan: And other candidates have talked about the need to balance a ticket. You know, we live in this age of “identity politics,” especially with Trump’s racism, Trump’s misogyny that the Democrats should take a stand. Are you okay with an all-male or an all-white ticket in 2020 for the Democrats?Bernie: It’s too early to talk about it, but I do believe let me just repeat what I’ve said many times is my administration and my cabinet will look like America. It will be the most diverse administration and the most diverse cabinet this country has ever seen. We are proud of our diversity. I am the son, proud son of an immigrant. And I think when people look at our cabinet and our administration, they will say, “Hey, that’s what America looks like.”Hasan: I’m sure they will. I have absolute faith that your administration and cabinet will but I asked about the ticket. And the reason I asked about the ticket is Cornel West, who came on the show in March and endorsed your presidential bid in that interview. He said to me, and I quote: "When Bernie Sanders wins the presidency, you can rest assured it’s not going to be with another vanilla brother." Is he right about that?Bernie: Well, Cornel is... I love Cornel. He’s doing a great job. He’s a longtime friend of mine, but we will make a decision about the vice presidency at the appropriate time. It’s a little bit early to do that now... [T]rust me that my vice presidential candidate will be a strong progressive.
Source