BERNIE SANDERS – SUMMARY Contents Bernie Sanders – Summary..................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 4 Bad on Guns......................................................................................................................... 13 NRA.................................................................................................................................... 13 Brady Bill........................................................................................................................... 15 Charleston Loophole.......................................................................................................... 19 Gun Manufacturers (PLCAA).............................................................................................. 19 Funding for Gun Research.................................................................................................. 23 States Issue....................................................................................................................... 25 Urban Versus Rural Issue................................................................................................... 26 Regulation Won’t Solve the Problem.................................................................................. 27 Sanders’s Record at Odds with Key Democratic Constituenies.............................................30 LGBT.................................................................................................................................. 30 Marriage......................................................................................................................... 30 DOMA................................................................................................................................. 34 Latinos............................................................................................................................... 35 Immigration Reform & Rhetoric...................................................................................... 35 Sierra Blanca Nuclear Waste Site.................................................................................... 44 African Americans.............................................................................................................. 47 Silent.............................................................................................................................. 47 President Obama............................................................................................................ 49 Brady Bill........................................................................................................................ 50 Women.............................................................................................................................. 50 Women’s Rights.............................................................................................................. 50 Staf................................................................................................................................ 51 Previous Women Opponents........................................................................................... 52 Pay Equity....................................................................................................................... 53 Previous Writings............................................................................................................ 53 Ethics.................................................................................................................................... 55 Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA)...........................................................55 Burlington College............................................................................................................. 57 O’Meara Sanders Beleaguered Tenure as Burlington College.........................................59 Using His Position to Benefit Family...................................................................................62 Pay to Play......................................................................................................................... 63 1 Cronyism............................................................................................................................ 64 Hypocrisy.............................................................................................................................. 68 Wall Street......................................................................................................................... 68 1994 Crime Bill.................................................................................................................. 71 Holding Companies Accountable....................................................................................... 73 Anti-Labor Contribution..................................................................................................... 74 Lockout Ended In May 2013 When 400 Union Members Returned To Work After Accepting The Company’s Final Contract Ofer..............................................................76 Ofshore Tax Havens.......................................................................................................... 77 Nuclear Energy.................................................................................................................. 80 F-35................................................................................................................................... 82 Ethanol.............................................................................................................................. 83 Sanders Has Evolved on Numerous Issues...........................................................................85 Sanders Said He Hasn’t Changed His Views......................................................................85 Marriage Equality............................................................................................................... 85 Gun Manufacturer Liability................................................................................................. 85 Drugs................................................................................................................................. 85 Pacifism............................................................................................................................. 86 Sanders is Re-Writing History on His Record.........................................................................87 Defense of Marriage Act.................................................................................................... 87 Immigration Reform........................................................................................................... 88 Brady Bill........................................................................................................................... 89 Sanders Past Extreme Positions............................................................................................ 90 100 Percent Top Tax Rate................................................................................................... 90 Vouchers & Ending Compulsory Education........................................................................90 Legalizing All Drugs........................................................................................................... 91 Repealing Obamacare and Replacing it With a Single Payer System Run by the States.......93 Sanders’s Single Payer Plan Would Repeal Obamacare and Other Health Programs & Ban Private Insurance............................................................................................................... 93 Sanders Supports a Single Payer Plan Administered by the States....................................94 $15 Trillion Cost................................................................................................................. 95 Vermont Single Payer Failure............................................................................................. 96 Ideology Over Helping People and small businesses............................................................99 Middle Class Taxes............................................................................................................. 99 Export-Import Bank.......................................................................................................... 101 Can’t Work with People to Get Things Done........................................................................103 No Accomplishments....................................................................................................... 103 2 Sanders Does Not Work with Other Lawmakers...............................................................104 Not A Good Boss.............................................................................................................. 105 Abrasive Leadership In Vermont...................................................................................... 106 3 SUMMARY Bad Record on Guns  When Sen. Sanders successfully ran for the House in 1990, he got the tacit endorsement of the NRA after pledging not to support the Brady Bill, which included waiting periods to receive weapons.  Once in the House, he kept his word, voting against the legislation five times. Sanders said he opposed the legislation because it did not have instant background checks. He repeatedly noted that Vermont is a state without gun regulation.  o In 1991, an editorial in the Rutland Herald said his opposition to the Brady Bill was part of an “opportunistic streak.” o In 1991, an editorial in the Times Argus said Sanders was “dead wrong in writing off the measure as useless.” o In 1991, and editorial in the Burlington Free Press said Sanders was offering “limp excuses” to the Brady Bill. o In 1991, a headline in the Vermont Times read: “Who’s Afraid of the NRA? Vermont’s Congressmen, That’s Who.” Despite opposing the Brady Bill, Sanders voted for the “default proceed” amendment that allowed a gun to be purchased if a background check did not return a result in one business day. The final Brady Bill included a 3-day time limit for a background check. o The “default proceed” loophole was the loophole that allowed Dylan Roof to purchase his gun before he killed people in Charleston, South Carolina.  Sen. Sanders stated that the Brady gun law would not prevent crime. In 1991, Sanders criticized supporters of the Brady Bill who argued that it would deal with the problem of gun violence. “To my mind, that’s just not honest.”  Although he voted against the bill, he voted for an amendment that created the so-called “Charleston loophole,” which allows people to purchase a weapon after three days even if their background check is incomplete. Later, Sanders, despite wanting to hold essentially every corporation accountable for something (such as fast food companies accountable for obesity), voted to protect gun manufacturers from legal liability. He also voted to strip millions from gun research, something the NRA has wanted to prevent officials from learning about gun violence.  In 2003 and 2005, Sanders voted to shield gun manufacturers from legal liability (PLCAA). It became law in 2005 and was the NRA’s top legislative priority that year. When the PLCAA became law, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre called it “an historic victory.”  Sanders opposed efforts to restore funding for the CDC to conduct gun research. In 1996, he voted against restoring $2.6 million for that purpose, which was removed by an amendment by Jay Dickey, who called the research “federally funded political advocacy.” o In 2012, Dickey would say he “served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year.” 4    o The Dickey amendment led to a “near death experience” for scientific research for guns, and was the beginning of the NRA’s push to make sure “no current scientific consensus about guns and violence.” o Jay Dickey later said he regretted his amendment. Sanders has repeatedly said gun regulation should be done at the state and local level. o In 1988, Sanders said, “in Vermont it is not my view that the present law needs any changing.” o In 2006, Sanders said gun regulation “shouldn’t be done in Washington.” o In 2012, Sanders said the “decisions about gun control should be made as close to home as possible.” Sanders has also said that gun violence is an “urban vs. rural” problem. o In 1980, a Sanders newspaper ad said, “In New York City, in Boston or in Los Angeles the crime problem may well be out of hand because of the enormous social chaos in those areas. In Burlington, Vermont, however, the crime situation can and must be dealt with through rational and intelligent decision making.” o In 1991, a Sanders spokesman said, “The situation in Vermont is very different than in some urban areas – we have far more murders from knives than we do from guns.” o In 2015, Sanders said, “I understand that guns in my state are different than guns in Chicago or Los Angeles.” o In 2015, Sanders said, “In Vermont, in other very rural states, what guns are about is hunting, guns are about target shooting, a lot of antique gun collectors and in fact we have a pretty low, thank god, crime rate here in the state of Vermont. But obviously in the rest of the country, whether it’s Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York City, whatever, guns are associated with drug dealers and killers and everything else. So looking at it in national perspective is different than looking at it in Vermont perspective.” Sanders has repeatedly said that gun regulation is not effective. o In 2013, after the Sandy Hook tragedy, Sanders said, “If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.” In 1990, Sanders said, “people pull the trigger, not the guns themselves.” o In 1991, Sanders said, “Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken.” Sanders’s Record is at Odds with Key Democratic Constituencies LGBT  Sanders is not as strong and consistent a champion of LGBT rights as he would claim.  As mayor of Burlington, in 1982, Sanders signed a “Marriage Week” resolution that affirmed marriage was a “commitment” between one man and one woman. The resolution stated, “It is our hope that the institution of marriage may once again be revered as the cornerstone of the American society and its way of life.” Sanders had the authority to veto the resolution but did not. Another progressive alderman abstained from voting. 5  The 1991 book The Socialist Mayor: Bernard Sanders in Burlington suggested as mayor Sanders had a tough time even saying the word “gay.” From the book: “So the guy who asked the question said: ‘Say gay, Bernie’ …and he flustered and said: ‘G-G-gay.’ But before he did that, [Jim] Gilson, the Republican, Jumped up and said: ‘I’m for gay rights,’ and then Bernie came up and said: ‘I’m for gay rights.’”  As mayor of Burlington, Sanders said that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. When asked about protecting the LGBT from job discrimination, Sanders said, “Probably not. When you’re dealing with priorities – there are hundreds of young kids in the city whose lives are being destroyed – have no place to go. They can’t go to school – they’re going into the army—that’s my priority. .I think the first Amendment is very clear on protecting people’s rights to sexual freedom. I know in many communities gay rights is a big thing. To me it’s a civil liberties matter. I believe very strongly in civil liberties. If people tell me they’re in a bar and they’re being harassed because they’re gay – tell me about it and I’ll do something about it as I will if someone has a religious belief. They have the right to practice freely. I will support that. I will not make it a major priority.”  In 1996, Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which, according to his spokesperson, because of states’ rights issues.  In 2000, Sanders was virtually silent on civil unions. Vermont became the first state to allow gay couples to enter into civil unions. The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state had to allow the same protections and benefits to gay couples. Sanders said he “applauds” the decision but did not offering a full-throated endorsement of civil unions.  In 2006, Sanders said he was “comfortable” with the state civil union law and was not in favor of marriage equality, which he thought would be too divisive. In 2015, he said he wanted the things in the state to “calm down” before pushing for marriage.  In 2006, Sanders said “the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.”  In 2009, after it had become law in Vermont, Sanders endorsed marriage equality. Latinos  In 2007, Sanders voted six times to block the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform bill. Eight years later, Sanders said he did not regret those votes.  Sanders has repeatedly used rhetoric that says guest workers and H-1B visas reduced wages for American workers and took jobs away from Americans. o In 2007, Sanders said, “Instead of paying better wages and benefits, they want to import cheaper workers.” o In 2007, a Sanders press release stated, “At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers' into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers.” o In 2007, Sanders said, “there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.” o In 2013, a Sanders press release stated, “One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guest worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs.” 6   o In 2013, Sanders said, “At a time when nearly 14 percent of the American people do not have a full-time job, at a time when the middle class continues to disappear, and at a time when tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, it makes no sense to me that the immigration reform bill includes a massive increase in temporary guest worker programs that will allow large corporations to import and bring into this country hundreds of thousands of temporary blue-collar and white-collar guest workers from overseas. That makes no sense to me.” o In 2013, Sanders said of guest worker programs, “this is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers.” o In 2015, Sanders said, “There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform. And it is not that they are staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages in America, and I strongly disagree with that.” o In 2015, Sanders said, “So to my view is of course we need a path toward citizenship for undocumented workers, of course we should not be dividing up families, of course I support the DREAM Act, but I do worry that corporate America and the big money interests of course want to bring cheap labor into this country in guest worker programs and continue the race to the bottom, something which is devastating to this country and forcing millions of people in this country to work longer hours for low wages.” Sanders’s rhetoric on immigration reform has been criticized. o FWD.us president: “It’s troubling – because at a high level, he accepts the utterly false premise that our economy is zero-sum, and putting forward the totally-debunked notion that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting Americans – specifically young people, Latinos, and AfricanAmericans.” o Dylan Matthews: So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea [“open borders”] when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein.” Sanders voted for a waste removal compact that moved radioactive waste from Maine and Vermont to a dump site near a tiny community in Sierra Blanca, Texas. Sanders said the compact was “good environmental policy” and said he was “in strong support of the bill.” Critics of the deal said that the site was not only environmentally unsound, but also near a small community that was low income and largely Hispanic. The compact was opposed by LULAC and the NAACP, and a local opponent to the deal called it "environmental racism." African Americans  According to Seven Days, Sanders’s low support among African Americans “also stems from Sanders' general silence on race issues during his eight years as Burlington mayor, 16 years as a U.S. House member and nine years in the U.S. Senate. The 73-year-old socialist has focused on class inequities throughout his career, and that emphasis encompasses many of the fundamental concerns of African Americans and Latinos.”  According to the New York Times, “Mr. Sanders has had little direct experience with black voters as a politician in a state that is 95 percent white. And they have been largely absent from his campaign events so far.”  Sanders has argued that we need a “course correction” from the Obama administration, and even suggested it would have been beneficial for President Obama to have had a primary challenge in 2012. Women  A 1983 Vermont Vanguard Press editorial said Sanders “often forgets women’s issues.” 7  In The Socialist Mayor, it was suggested Sanders put women’s rights in the class struggle. ““The reason women are excluded … [and] working for miserable wages (are treated like shit, to my mind), or the reason that companies destroy the environment, has to do with class analysis of America – who owns the country and the political life… A woman is making minimum wage or an inadequate wage [and] that has got to be dealt with not just because she is a woman but because she is a worker. The goal of democratic socialism is that women should have as much representation as they are [a percentage of] the population.”  In 1985, Walter Shapiro of the New England Monthly said, “Sanders always had scant tolerance for the left’s grab bag of causes and concerns: the women’s movement, guy rights, environmentalism, and the constant need to bear moral witness about something. Without being rigidly doctrinaire, Sanders saw every issue through the prism of the working class and his role as its tribune.”  Women are not representative of Sanders’s staff. In 2015, Markos Moulitsas wrote, “Republicans are the homogeneous ones, not us. But you wouldn’t know that from looking at Sanders’s team. His campaign manager, communications director, press secretary, field director and top strategists, such as D.C. veteran Tad Devine, are all white males. You have to go deep into his digital team to find the first woman. This lineup might work in lily-white Vermont (or in the nonrepresentative early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire), but for any aspirant for national office, or in a state more diverse than a NASCAR rally, candidates’ staffs must reflect the people they are trying to win.”  In 1990, Sanders said, “I will not hire someone because she or he is a woman or a man. I'll hire somebody because they can do the job. I'm not going out of my way to hire a woman.”  In 2012, Sanders reportedly had the largest pay gap of Democratic senators, at nearly 48 percent. (NOTE: This is the same analysis that was done to show a pay gap for HRC).  Sanders’s previous essays have attracted attention. He wrote that a woman “fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.”  Sanders’s earlier writings suggested restrained sexual attitudes can lead to breast cancer. Ethics VEDA  While Sanders’ wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, served on the board of directors for the Vermont Economic Development Authority, Sanders announced that the program received $1 million from the USDA relending program. Sanders was involved with helping VEDA obtain federal funding before his wife served on the board, which could raise the question of whether her appointment to the board authority was influenced by Sanders’ work. One of Sanders’ largest corporate donors, Agri-Mark, received $2 million in financing from VEDA after contributed $7,500 to Sanders’ campaign. Burlington College  When O’Meara Sanders resigned from Burlington College, she accepted a $200,000 buyout of her contract and was criticized for it by a Sanders’ detractor, Skip Vallee. Vallee argued that Bernie Sanders, who targeted “golden parachutes” for wealthy executives, was a hypocrite from benefitting from his wife’s own “golden parachute.”  After several years as the president of Burlington College, Jane O’Meara Sanders resigned amid speculation that she conflicted with the board and bring in enough money for the school. Critics later tied her to the school’s financial trouble after she brokered a deal to buy borrow $10 million to buy land for the college. Members of the lending agency expressed concern over the college’s ability for pay back the loan and one suggested that if O’Meara Sanders was not involved, the loan would not have been approved. The Daily Caller suggested that she may have defrauded the state agency by lying about the college’s amount of pledged donations. 8 Benefiting Family  Sanders has benefitted from both free and paid work of his wife and other family members. His wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, worked for free as Sanders’ chief of staff in Congress. While she was paid $30,000 working as an ad buyer for Sanders’ 2002 & 2004 campaigns, his campaign still benefitted financially from the arrangement as she charged him less than she charged other candidates. Sanders also paid his stepdaughter $60,000 for campaign work from 2000-2004. Sanders’ wife has continued to work for his campaigns in a volunteer capacity. Sanders’ son Levi pitched in too as a consultant to his Senate campaign. Pay to Play  Sanders, often thought of as a champion of labor unions, accepted support from a company while it was involved in a bitter labor dispute—locking out union employees for nearly 22 months. In July 2012, he accepted $10,000 in contributions from American Crystal Sugar, while the workers had been locked out for nearly a year due to failed labor negotiations. The workers’ union widely opposed the company’s contract proposal because it could have doubled their out-of-pocket health care costs. At the same time American Crystal Sugar was proposing to cut back on workers’ health benefits, it spent more than $2 million in lobbying money and campaign contributions to politicians like Sanders in order to preserve its favorable sugar commodity program. Cronyism Despite pledging to change cronyism in Burlington, Sanders staffed City Hall with his friends. An editorial in the Burlington Free Press said, “What emerges is the picture of a mayor who is busily building an empire in City Hall and staffing it with several of his friends. The costs, of course, will be borne by the same city taxpayers for whom Sanders has shed copious crocodile tears in the past. The salary tab for the new positions will be about $130,000, excluding fringe benefits” Hypocrisy Although Sanders has repeatedly criticized Hillary Clinton for her ties to Wall Street, he voted for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which Sanders himself blamed for the Lehman bankruptcy. The Sanders campaign indicated they were going to attack Hillary Clinton over her comments in support of the 1994 crime bill, but Sanders voted for it. He even chastised those who opposed it, and highlighted it on his campaign website as recent as 2006. Sanders wants to hold corporations accountable – even holding fast food companies accountable for obesity – but repeatedly voted to shield gun manufacturers from legal liability. Sanders says he is a champion for labor, but he accepted thousands in campaign contributions while the company was going through a bitter labor dispute. Sanders has been an outspoken opponent of corporations that use tax havens to store profits offshore, sometimes avoiding billions in federal income taxes. In 2013, Sanders released a report hammering several companies for the practice. However, his wife owned stock in several of the same companies through her mutual fund investments. In 2014 alone, the top holdings of her mutual funds kept about $68 billion of profit overseas. Sanders has been an outspoken opponent of nuclear energy, but voted for the Maine-Vermont-Texas nuclear waste compact that would relocate nuclear waste in Sierra Blanca, Texas. 9 Sanders has railed against wasteful military spending, but he supports the F-35 program even though he has called it “wasteful.” Sanders voted to end ethanol subsidies, but now says he supports the Renewable Fuel Standard. Evolving on Issues Sanders said he doesn’t change his mind on closely held positions. “No I mean I think you learn more about an issue. Your position may evolve in a nuanced way. But no. My views pretty much from a philosophical perspective are not different than when I came to Congress.” On marriage equality, Sanders was silent on civil unions in 2000 when the Vermont legislature was debating it. In 2006, he supported civil unions over marriage, and he endorsed marriage equality after Vermont made it law. Sanders said he is open to rethinking his vote to shield gun manufacturers from liability. Sanders said was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War because he was a pacifist, but now says he is not a pacifist. Rewriting History Sanders criticizes Hillary Clinton, claiming she is rewriting history on the Defense of Marriage Act. However, while he voted against DOMA, it was not because “people have to love those folks they want to love,” as he now claims. In 1996, his spokesperson said he voted against it because of states rights and repeatedly said marriage was a state issue.  Sanders now claims he voted against the 2007 immigration reform bill because it mistreated immigrants. However, at the time, he raised concerns that the guest worker program would cut wages for American workers and take jobs away from Americans.  Sanders said he voted against the Brady Bill because he opposes instant background checks. But, the Washington Post Fact Checker said, “The provision in the Brady bill essentially would have rendered background checks moot, because the technology did not exist at the time. Sanders also supported this.” Past Extreme Positions  In the 1970s/1980s, Sanders supported a 100 percent marginal tax rate for incomes over $1 million. He said in 1974, “nobody should earn more than $1 million.”  Sanders previously supported ending compulsory education and advocated for vouchers. In 1970, he wrote, “The radical educator believes that, basically, the human instincts are good and that society by repressing and distorting these natural feelings of children, brings about the hate, sickness, and misery which fills the world. As much as possible, therefore, he allows children to act naturally and without constraint. He sees absolutely no sense in discipline for discipline’s sake. He sees no sense in imposing on children a particular body of knowledge—much of which he considers in any case, wrong or useless.” o In 1969, he wrote in the Vermont Freeman, “With regard to the schools that you send your children to, are you concerned that many of these institutions serve no other function than to squash the life, joy and curiosity out of kids. When a doctor write[s] that the cancer personality “represses hate, anger, dissatisfaction and grudges, or on the other hand, is a ‘good’ person, who is consumed with self pity, suffers in stoic silence,” do you know what he is talking about, and what this has to do with children, parents and schools. It means this quite simply. A child has an old bitch of a teacher (and there are many of them) or pe[r]haps he simply is not interested in school and would rather be doing other things[s]. He complains and rebels against the situation, which is the healthy reaction. When a person is hurt, no matter what age, he SHOULD rebel.” 10  In the 1970s, Sanders ran on a platform that called for legalizing all drugs, including heroin. Repealing Obamacare  Sen. Sanders has long advocated for a single payer, Medicare-for-all health plan that is administered by the states. In 2013, he introduced a bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act, as well as Medicare, TRICARE, Medicaid, and SCHIP. His proposal would cost roughly $15 trillion. Vermont tried to implement a single payer plan but scrapped it because it would cost too much.  Sanders legislation prohibited the sale of health insurance that duplicated insurance provided by states, in essence, banning private health coverage as primary coverage. In 2015, Sanders said, “I believe in Medicare for all people, and I think that is not an area where private insurance companies should be functioning, because once you have private insurance companies their goal is to make as much money as possible, not to provide quality care.”  In 2015, Sanders said, “I do believe in Medicare-for-all, single-payer program, administered at the statewide level.”  Sanders himself disputed the $15 trillion estimate for his plan, but his campaign confirmed it was in the ballpark.  When Vermont considered a single payer plan, it would have cost an 11.5 percent business tax and a near 10 percent personal income tax increase. Ideology over Helping People and Small Businesses  Sanders has opposed measures that have helped working people and small businesses. o Sanders has admitted the top one percent alone cannot pay for his proposals, meaning some middle class families will say a tax increase. o Sanders voted three times against a payroll tax cut that gave ordinary workers $1,000 to help during the economic recession. Sanders opposes the Export-Import Bank, calling it “corporate welfare.” Yet, 3,000 small businesses rely on financing from the bank. o Can’t Work with People to Get Things Done  Sanders was the primary sponsor of only one substantive bill that became law during his time in Congress.  Mother Jones wrote: “For all his fiery rhetoric, Sanders isn't known in the Senate as a legislative wonk who passes a large volume liberal legislation.”  Sanders has been proclaimed the “amendment king” for being able to pass amendments while in the House. An internal analysis shows that over his tenure in the House and Senate, Sanders sponsored 23 amendments in the House that became law, and 22 amendments in the Senate became law.  None of Sanders House amendments had co-sponsors.  All of the amendments Sanders sponsored in the House that became law were part of spending bills. Of the 23 amendments that became law when Bernie was in the House, all were attached to spending bills; 6 were about trade/commerce, 3 were about defense/intelligence, 3 were about health, 2 were about education, 2 were about energy/environment, 2 were about banking, 1 was about agriculture/rural, 1 was 11 about government operations, 1 was about nutrition, 1 was about pharmaceuticals, and 1 was about veterans. And in fact, those spending bills averaged 35 successful amendments as well.”  In 2015, Sanders was among 10 senators who were graded “least cooperative” with the other party. The New York Times wrote: “Democrats often left their weekly caucus lunch fuming over Mr. Sanders’s latest immovable stance.”  According to the New York Times, “Mr. Sanders is now the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, and as such would generally be expected to lead the tense and consequential budget negotiations this fall. But according to congressional aides familiar with the Senate Democratic leadership’s thinking, they have no intention of letting someone so averse to compromise lead the talks.”  According to Barney Frank, “Bernie alienates his natural allies…His holier-than-thou attitude--saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else --really undercuts his effectiveness."  His time as mayor also were known for Sanders’s abrasive relationship with the city aldermen. 12 BAD ON GUNS NRA SANDERS GOT THE TACIT ENDORSEMENT OF THE NRA IN HIS RACE FOR THE HOUSE IN 1990 1990: The NRA Helped Elect Sanders To Congress. “Some say that Sanders first won his seat in the House because Peter Smith, the Republican incumbent he defeated, supported a ban on assault weapons. ‘There was absolutely no doubt in that ‘90 vote that the NRA got [Sanders] elected, and he owed them,’ Chris Graff, a former Vermont bureau chief for the Associated Press, told Paul Heintz of the Vermont paper Seven Days in 2012.” [Washington Post, 5/13/15] 1990: Sanders Was Supported By The Sportsmen’s Alliance For Vermont’s Environment. “The Sportsmen’s Alliance for Vermont’s Environment [...] some Vermont hunting enthusiasts formed an important part of the coalition that elected Sanders, Smith observed. The ex-congressman also cited the role played by the NRA’s national office, which spent some $20,000 on Vermont TV and radio ads in the closing days of the 1990 campaign. Along with at least five statewide mailings organized by the NRA, these spots urged a vote for Sanders, Smith recounted.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] 1990: Bernie Sanders Was Told By The Vice President Of A Sportsmen’s Organization, He Would Receive Their Backing In The General Election. “What was happening with sportsmen, I asked. Bernie said that George McNeil, who lived in Poultney and was vice president of SAVE (Sporting Alliance for Vermont’s Environment), told him that SAVE would back Philbin in the primary, then us in the general election. ‘The issue is not guns, it’s integrity.’” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.6] National Rifle Association “Set Its Sights” On Defeating Sanders’ Republican Opponent In 1990. “So the National Rifle Association set its sights on the Republican congressman, spending a million dollars in the 1990 election to defeat Smith and others who backed the bill. It worked. Smith lost to a gun-rights supporter who subsequently voted against the Brady Handgun Bill, which mandated federal background checks for many gun purchasers. That guy's name? Bernie Sanders.” [Seven Days Vermont, 12/19/12] NRA “Threw Their Weight Behind Sanders.” “Further, in what brought about an odd pairing, supporters of the rights of gun owners - notably the National Rifle Association - threw their weight behind Sanders, a gun control proponent. They abandoned Smith because he voted in Congress for a gun control bill after promising at home to oppose such measures.” [Boston Globe, 11/7/90] National Rifle Association Spent Between $18,000 And $20,000 Against Smith. “The "they" was the National Rifle Association, Smith says. And, in the 1990 election, the NRA brought a precipitous end to Smith's congressional career, he says. The group used a direct-mail and advertising campaign and spent an estimated $ 18,000 to $ 20,000 against him. He was defeated, 113,562 to 79,893, by Bernard Sanders.” [Newsday, 4/16/91] NRA Paid For Anti-Smith Radio Ads. “Smith, just back from Capitol Hill after the lengthy budget battle, is encountering opposition from gun groups angry because he backed a measure to ban the sale of certain semiautomatic rifles. The National Rifle Association is airing anti-Smith radio spots and circulating bumper stickers.” [Associated Press, 11/1/90] NRA Distributed ‘Dump Peter Smith’ Bumper Stickers. “The National Rifle Association is launching a negative advertising campaign against Rep. Peter P. Smith, R-Vt.., in hopes of defeating him at the polls on Nov. 6 – an effort the Smith camp says is likely to ‘backfire.’ […] Last week the NRA began distributing ‘Dump Peter Smith’ bumper stickers in Vermont. […] Sportsmen in Vermont say that the NRA delivered about 10,000 of the bumper stickers at a cost of $700. They were paid for by the NRA Political Victory Fund.” [Times Argus, 10/26/90] NRA Spent $20,000 On TV And Radio Ads During 1990 Congressional Race. “The Sportsmen’s Alliance for Vermont’s Environment [...] some Vermont hunting enthusiasts formed an important part of the coalition that elected Sanders, Smith observed. The ex-congressman also cited the role played by the 13 NRA’s national office, which spent some $20,000 on Vermont TV and radio ads in the closing days of the 1990 campaign. Along with at least five statewide mailings organized by the NRA, these spots urged a vote for Sanders, Smith recounted.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] NRA Sent Out Letters And Made Phone Calls Urging Voters To Reject Smith, Thereby Supporting Sanders. “Among them is the unlikely support that Sanders - a socialist who disparages the two-party system, wants to slash military spending and redistribute wealth - apparently will get from conservative gun enthusiasts. The National Rifle Association and statewide hunters' groups are sending out letters, manufacturing stickers and placing phone calls urging voters to reject Smith because he voted for a ban on semiautomatic rifles such as the AK-47 after he promised the NRA that he would oppose gun controls.” [Boston Globe, 10/21/90] NRA: Bernie Sanders Was “At Least As Good, If Not Better, Than Mr. Smith” On Guns. “‘We don’t like everything that Mr. Sanders has to say about firearms,’ [NRA director of federal lobbying James] Baker said. ‘But he’s been up front about it. He’s at least as good, if not better, than Mr. Smith … We don’t know what we’ll do for him (Sanders) … But this is really more about Mr. Smith than it is about Mr. Sanders.’” [Times Argus, 10/26/90] New York Times: “Even Though Sanders Supports Gun Control, The National Rifle Association Endorsed Him.” “Even though Mr. Sanders supports gun control, the National Rifle Association endorsed him after Mr. Smith voted for controls on semiautomatic assault-type weapons after earlier promising to oppose such measures.” [New York Times, 11/20/90] 1990: Bernie Sanders Characterized His Opponent Reneging On His Promise To The NRA As Not An Issue Of “Guns” But One Of “Integrity.” “What was happening with sportsmen, I asked. Bernie said that George McNeil, who lived in Poultney and was vice president of SAVE (Sporting Alliance for Vermont’s Environment), told him that SAVE would back [Smith’s opponent] in the primary, then us in the general election. ‘The issue is not guns, it’s integrity.’ Bernie then enthusiastically recounted Smith’s ill-fated assault rifle press conference in March 1989 where he called for a ban on several semi-automatic weapons after promising the National Rifle Association that he’d oppose all forms of gun control.” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.6] University Of Vermont Professor Garrison Nelson Said That “Bernie Let The NRA Do His Dirty Work On That One To Sink Smith.” “Still, people recall that Sanders, then the four-term mayor of Burlington, was cautious not to step in. “Bernie let the NRA do his dirty work on that one to sink Smith. He played it very close to the vest,” said Garrison Nelson, a professor at University of Vermont who has known Sanders for around four decades.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Former Congressman Peter Smith Said “What The NRA Was Buying With Their Support For Bernie Sanders Was A Closed Mind.” “Former congressman Peter Smith said he lost to Sanders last November, in part, because of the efforts of the NRA. [...] ‘What the NRA was buying with their support for Bernie Sanders was a closed mind,’ Smith declared in a telephone interview from Washington, where he now heads a commission on post-secondary education. ‘What they want is people who won’t think carefully about a problem.’“ [Seven Days, 4/11/91] 1990: Bernie Sanders’ GOP Opponent Accused Him Of Using The NRA Playbook To Attack Him. “Smith knew he was going to get hammered by Philbin, and he was ready for it. He leaned forward, glanced at Philbin and Bernie, and composed himself to lash back with a mix of earnestness and anger. ‘I just look Tim Philbin and Bernie Sanders in the eye and say what you are saying is absolute political garbage,’ he said, his brow furrowed. ‘Now Tim, I know you come from a long tradition and you believe it. Bernie, I have to say, I respect you. But I am surprised to see you buying the national NRA strategy.’” [Steven Rosenfeld, “Making History in Vermont: the Election of a socialist to Congress,” 1992, P.40] Bernie Sanders’s Opponent Blamed The NRA’s Efforts For Sanders’s Victory In Their Race For The House Of Representatives. “In the end, he said it was the National Rifle Association’s last-minute mailings and advertising, coupled with having to spend the entire month of October in Washington, D.C., working on the budget that hurt him the most.” [Rutland Herald, 11/7/90] Bernie Sanders’s Strong Performance In Rutland County Was Attributed To Support From Sportsmen, Who Aimed To Oust Incumbent Rep. Peter Smith Over His Switch To Supporting A Ban On Semi-Automatic Weapons. “The most dramatic turnaround for Sanders was in the western part of Rutland County, and that was 14 attributed to gun owners’ anger over Smith’s change of stance over gun control for semi-automatic weapons. ‘I think the sportsmen’s anger at Smith for what they perceived as lying to them helped us out in western Rutland County towns,’ said Kevin Jones, Sanders campaign coordinator for the county. John McShane of the Poultney Fish and Game Club said the sportsmen’s group was one factor. ‘That was the beginning of the opposition to Peter Smith and I think it built from there,’ said McShane, who supported Sanders. ‘It raised the credibility issue in my mind, and that was the problem Smith had getting re-elected.’” [Rutland Herald, 11/8/90] 1990: NRA “Endorsed” Bernie Sanders After The GOP Incumbent Voted For A Semiautomatic Assault-Type Weapons Ban. “Mr. Sander's Congressional campaign, supported by an extensive grass-roots organization, was propelled by a backlash against Mr. Smith, a freshman Representative who seemed to change positions on two pivotal issues: gun control and the Federal budget. Even though Mr. Sanders supports gun control, the National Rifle Association endorsed him after Mr. Smith voted for controls on semiautomatic assault-type weapons after earlier promising to oppose such measures.” [New York Times, 11/12/90]  Sanders Won Election To Congress Largely On His Opposition To “Federal Gun-Control Measures.” “After eight years as Mayor, [Bernie Sanders] made another unsuccessful run for statewide office, this time the state’s lone Congressional seat. He defeated the incumbent, Peter Smith, with the help of one of the more curious coalitions in Vermont’s history. The coalition was formed largely in reaction to the stumbling of Mr. Smith, a Republican serving his first term. Mr. Smith had said he would oppose gun control, but he agreed to sponsor legislation that would have banned certain types of assault weapons. Conservative Republicans abandoned him, joining liberal voters to form a solid majority for Mr. Sanders, who said he would not support Federal gun-control measures. ‘If timing is everything in politics, this was perfect timing,’ Vermont’s former Governor, Madeleine M. Kunin, said when Mr. Sanders was elected to Congress.” [New York Times, 8/18/91] The Gun Coalition Was “Thought To Have Played A Role In Throwing The Election To Sanders” In 1990. “The sportsmen’s coalition, Hoffman said, will lobby hunters and gun owners, distribute leaflets and antiSanders bumper stickers, and make telephone calls to get out the vote. The coalition is an umbrella group its members include the National Rifle Association, the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen Clubs, and the Sporting Alliance for Vermont’s Environment. Leaders of those organizations said in May, when Sanders voted for the weapons ban, that it would cost him support. But the accusation of political dishonesty echoed back even further, to the U.S. House campaign of 1990. Then, pro-gun groups accused Republican Rep. Peter Smith of having broken his promise to oppose gun control. They worked to defeat him, and are thought to have played a role in throwing the election to Sanders. Sanders never has had the endorsement of gun groups, although some individual sportsmen have supported him.” [Burlington Free Press, 8/26/94] Sanders Touted His Consistency, Saying His Position On Gun Control “Should Not Come As A Surprise To Anybody.” “Sanders said in an interview Friday that it was most important to note what he called his consistency on the issue. ‘When I ran for Congress in 1990, that’s exactly what I said, so it should not come as a surprise to anybody. One of the reasons that people lose faith with politicians is that before an election they say one thing and after the election they say something different,’ Sanders said.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Brady Bill SANDERS PROMISED TO OPPOSE THE BRADY BILL IN 1990… 1990: Sanders Successfully Campaigned On Opposing The Brady Bill. “Instead, Sanders said that he didn’t support the proposed Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period, and vowed that he wouldn’t flip-flop on the issue. He won the election by nearly 20 points.” [Politico, 6/18/15] ONCE ELECTED, HE VOTED AGAINST THE BRADY BILL FIVE TIMES Between 1991 And 1993, Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill Five Times, Which Would Have Imposed A Five-Day Waiting Period For Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for wouldbe purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] 15 Sanders Voted For A Version Of The Brady Bill That Imposed Instant Background Checks On Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment That Repealed State Background Checks On Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] 1991: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Brady Gun Control Bill. “In approving the so-called Brady bill, lawmakers rejected an NRA alternative that would have delayed any screening of would-be gun-buyers for several years. On the final vote, 179 Democrats and 60 Republicans voted for the Brady bill; 83 Democrats, 102 Republicans and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont opposed it. The bill goes now to the Senate, where gun control opponents will renew their efforts to derail it.” [Miami Herald, 5/9/91; House Vote #83, 5/8/1991] 1993: Bernie Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill In The House, And Leahy Voted Against The Bill In The Senate. [HR 1025, House Vote 564, 11/10/93; Senate Vote #394, 11/20/93] Sanders Voted Against Brady Bill Because It Reflected The Will Of Vermonters. “…many progressives find Sanders’ position on the Brady bill to be in contradiction with leftist thinking. “Bernie’s response,” Pollina reported, “is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to represent all Vermonters.” Arguing that many of Sanders’ home-state constituents oppose the Brady bill, Pollina added, “It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority position, particularly on something that Vermonters have been very clear about. What you see is the entire congressional delegation responding to the feelings of Vermonters at a grassroots level.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/11/91] 2015: Sanders Said He Voted Against Brady Bill Because He Represents Vermont, A State With No Gun Control And One Of The Lower Crime Rates In America. “ALBERT HUNT: But you did vote against the Brady bill. And you voted against making gun makers liable giving them liability for actions. Why are you different than most liberals on the issue of guns? BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I come from a state with, you know, how much gun control there is in the state of Vermont? ALBERT HUNT: How much? BERNIE SANDERS: None. And thank God, we also have one of the lower crime rates in America. That’s the state that I represent. And I think the people of Vermont, and so I voted to ban certain types of assault weapons, I did. In fact, you know what my voting grade I received from the NRA? I think it was D-minus. That’s my lifetime voting record. So to make me out as a ALBERT HUNT: You’re not a pro-gun zealot? BERNIE SANDERS: No, I’m not. But what we understand is that in states like Vermont, guns are associated with hunting, with antique gun shows, with target shooting. I understand that in Los Angeles and Detroit and Chicago, guns are a very different thing.” [Charlie Rose, 6/11/15] Sanders Spokesman Said That Voting For The Brady Bill Without Developing Anti-Poverty Legislation Could Be Seen As “Dishonest.” “While recognizing that the U.S. does have a problem with criminal justice, Sanders believes many politicians use the Brady bill as a ‘smoke-screen,’ Pollina suggested. “Bernie would rather work with Congress to develop a package of legislation that deals with the root causes of crime, such as economic injustice and the lack of job opportunities in many urban communities,’ the aide explained. Simply voting for the Brady bill and not addressing poverty as a cause of violence could be seen as ‘dishonest,’ Pollina asserted.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] Sanders’s Spokesman Said He Had “Long Been An Opponent” Of A Seven Day Waiting Period. “Sanders, the former socialist mayor of Burlington, says he will vote against the Brady bill, which would establish a national waiting period for handgun purchases and allow police time to check purchasers for criminal records or histories of mental illness. The NRA is actively opposing the bill. "They wanted to make an example," says Smith. "It worked. Not only did they make an example of me, but Vermont's congressman, the most radical guy in the Congress, is going to vote against the Brady bill." A spokesman for Sanders said the congressman has long been an opponent of the seven-day waiting period.” [Newsday, 4/16/91] Sanders’ Campaign Manager Said He Opposed The Brady Bill Because He Believed Implementing A National Waiting Period Was “Federal Overreach” And Because His Constituents Opposed The Bill. 16 “According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his job. ‘He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down,’ Weaver said. ‘He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont.’” [Politifact, 7/10/15] 1991: Sanders’s Then-Chief Of Staff Said He Voted Against The Brady Bill Because He Represented All Vermonters, Not Just “Liberals And Progressives.” “In April 1991, Sanders’ then-chief of staff Anthony Pollina echoed the idea that Sanders was simply representing the will of his constituents. ‘Bernie’s response is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to present all of Vermont,’ Pollina said. ‘It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority position, particularly on something Vermonters have been very clear about.’” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Vermont Was “Left-Leaning,” But Had A High Gun Ownership Rate And “Lax” Gun Control Laws. “The Green Mountain State, though left-leaning, has a high gun ownership rate and lax gun control laws (as well as a low homicide rate).” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Washington Post: Sanders Appeared To Oppose The Brady Bill For “Strictly Political Reasons.” “It wasn't so much his position that upset Democrats but that he -- a self-proclaimed man of principle -- appeared to oppose the bill for strictly political reasons: The National Rifle Association played no small role in bringing him to office by campaigning vigorously against Sanders's opponent, Republican Peter Smith, who had switched his position on gun control. "He can give you all the lofty reasons he wants for opposing Brady -- but it was strictly a survival vote," maintains a source close to Vermont politics. "He wants to get reelected next year. Period."” [Washington Post, 7/9/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill In Order For Firearms Proponents Not To Target Him For Defeat. “In any case, Sanders narrowly construes the gun control issue in local terms and pleads ‘consistency.’ Read between the lines: No firearms proponents are going to do to him what they did last year to former Rep. Peter Smith, whom they targeted for defeat because he had abandoned his blanket opposition to weapons-control measures after he was elected in 1988 and advocated for a partial ban on assault rifles.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders “Has Failed The Test” Of Global Thinking On The Brady Bill. “Vermont’s independent congressman, U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders, is normally adept at global thinking. But he has failed the test on the Brady Bill, the gun-control measure now before Congress that would impose a seven-day waiting period upon handgun purchases.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Bernie Sanders “Thinks Nationally In Dairy Policy But Derides A Larger Perspective In Public Safety Issues.” “Since Sanders – who thinks nationally in dairy policy but derides a larger perspective in public safety issues – professes to be committed to local concerns that the bill would enable Vermont authorities to enforce federal laws for the benefit of local people, and that if Brady-style background checks continue to be adopted at snail’s pace on a state-by-state basis, the interstate transport of weapons will foil meaningful controls, as it does now.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] SANDERS SAID THE BRADY BILL WOULD NOT IMPACT CRIME… Sanders Viewed It As “Hypocritical” That Congress Would Spend An Enormous Amount Of Time On The Brady Bill That Even Supporters “Know Will Not Have A Major Impact On Crime.” “Sanders dismisses the notion that he "caved to the NRA." He offers a multitude of vague reasons for opposing the bill, not surprisingly ending with lofty principle. "I have a problem with a Congress and media that spend an enormous amount of time talking about the Brady bill, which even the strongest proponents know will not have a major impact on crime. I view it as hypocritical."” [Washington Post, 7/9/91] Bernie Sanders Derided Supporters Of The Brady Bill Who Thought Bill Would Solve Gun Violence Problem: “To My Mind, That’s Just Not Honest.” “Sanders made his comments against the so-called ‘Brady bill’ one day after former President Reagan came out in support of the measure, and the Bush White House announced it was softening its opposition. He derided supporters of the measure, saying that after its passage, they would say ‘“now we’ve dealt with the problem of gun violence.” To my mind, that’s just not honest.’ Sanders also said a handgun waiting period would not get at what he called ‘the root causes of crime and violence – poverty, poor 17 education and lack of police protection and programs designed to keep young people out of trouble.” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Bernie Sanders: The Brady Bill’s Seven-Day Delay To Check The Legal History Of An Applicant Would Cause A Person To “Get Caught Up In The Bureaucracy.” “Before the congressman takes too much comfort in consistency, he might measure his opposition to Brady (he says a seven-day delay to check the legal history of the applicant would mean a person ‘would get caught up in the bureaucracy’) against this own priorities – national health insurance and a two-tier price support system for dairy farmers. Both those causes are worthy of the strongest consideration and analysis; both are examples of a less parochial view of government programs as well as the development of purposeful, efficient (if possible) bureaucracies. Since Sanders – who thinks nationally in dairy policy but derides a larger perspective in public safety issues – professes to be committed to local concerns that the bill would enable Vermont authorities to enforce federal laws for the benefit of local people, and that if Brady-style background checks continue to be adopted at snail’s pace on a state-by-state basis, the interstate transport of weapons will foil meaningful controls, as it does now.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Rep. Bernie Sanders Said His Opposition To The Brady Bill Represented His Consistency On Gun Control. “But Sanders said in an interview Friday that it was most important to note what he called his consistency on the issue. ‘When I ran for Congress in 1990, that’s exactly what I said, so it should not come as a surprise to anybody. ‘One of the reasons that people lose faith with politicians is that before an election they say one thing and after the election they say something different,’ Sanders said. The comments came two years after former Rep. Peter Smith, R-Vt., was engulfed in controversy over switching his position and coming out in support of a ban on automatic weapons. Gun enthusiasts referred to the Smith switch as ‘the big lie,’ and hounded him through the campaign that ended last November with his defeat by Sanders.” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] …FOR WHICH HE WAS CRITICIZED Rutland Herald Editorial: Bernie Sanders’s Opposition To The Brady Bill Was “Opportunistic.” “U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders has been fond of saying that the labor leader Eugene Debs is one of his role models. The similarities may be closer than many realize, including the quirk of occasional opportunism. A public television documentary on the life of renowned lawyer Clarence Darrow showed how he defended Debs in one of his early cases. But years later, when Darrow defended two men accused of dynamiting a California newspaper plant during a labor dispute, Debs wouldn’t come near. He didn’t want to have the national labor movement tarnished with a perceived connection to violence, despite the fact that Darrow was in financial and legal trouble. A similar opportunistic streak puts Rep. Sanders, often a foe of fighting, against a proposal for a national seven-day waiting period in the purchase of handguns. Gun-makers are considered very influential in Vermont.” [Rutland Herald, 6/19/91] Times Argus: Bernie Sanders Is “Dead Wrong” In Writing Off The Brady Bill As Useless. “Finally, Sanders takes a swipe at those who support the measure, saying that if it passes they would simplistically conclude: ‘now we’ve dealt with the problem of violence,’ and adding that, ‘To my mind, that’s just not honest.’ If that’s his assumption, he hasn’t been reading the commentary in this space and elsewhere that admits point-blank that the Brady Bill won’t steam violence in the United States. Sanders is dead right when he says the cure for rampant violence lies in economic justice, education, and law enforcement. But he’s dead wrong in writing off the measure as useless. Until Americans can achieve that more just, less desperate society, a measure that can help keep guns out of the wrong hands is vital.” [Times Argus, Editorial, p. 6, 4/3/91] Burlington Free Press Opinion: Rep. Bernie Sanders Offered “Limp Excuses” In Opposition To The Brady Bill. “As a gun control measure, the Brady bill – which requires a national seven-day waiting period before a handgun purchase – is only a modest first step. The House approved the measure last week, with Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., dissenting. Sanders makes the same limp excuses as Sens. James Jeffords and Patrick Leahy, who say they will vote no when the bill reaches the Senate floor. They say the bill is largely symbolic, and that the federal government doesn’t have any right to tell Vermont what to do when it comes to gun control.” [Burlington Free Press opinion, 5/16/91] Rutland Herald Editorial: Rep. Bernie Sanders Was “Committed To The NRA And Sportsmen’s Point Of View” Against The Brady Bill. “At any rate the Brady Bill has the best chance it has ever had to pass the House this year, although it’s not a foregone conclusion. Vermont’s Independent Congressman Bernard Sanders at last report remains committed to the NRA and sportsmen’s point of view.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 4/25/91] 18 Vermont Times Headline On Sanders Opposing Brady Bill: “Who's Afraid Of The NRA? Vermont's Congressmen, That's Who.” “All three of Vermont’s congressmen are considered liberals on many controversial issues. So why do they all oppose the Brady Bill, a gun control measure backed by most liberals and even endorsed by former president Ronald Reagan?” [Vermont Times, 4/11/91] Charleston Loophole Sanders Voted For An Amendment To That Created A "Default Proceed" Loophole To Allow A Gun To Be Purchased If A Background Check Did Not Return A Result Within One Business Day. "(ii) 1 business day (as defined in subsection (s)(8)(B)) has elapsed since the end of the business day on which the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of the handgun by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section or any State or local law." [H.Amdt.390 to H.R.1025, House Vote #562, 11/10/1993] Gekas Amendment Required The Five Day Waiting Period To Conduct A Background Check Sunset In Five Years. "It adopted an NRA-backed amendment offered by Representative George Gekas (R-Pa.), requiring that the bill’s five-day period to conduct a background check sunset in five years whether or not an instant check system was operational." [Brady Campaign, 10/2006] Final Version Of The Brady Bill Included A Three Day Time Limit For Background Checks. "His amendment was initially rejected, but when he tweaked it slightly and requested a floor vote on November 10, 1993, it passed the House 238 to 192, with 122 Republicans and 84 Democrats voting “aye.” The full Brady bill passed the House later that day. When the Senate took up the legislation, lawmakers were faced with Gekas’s one-business-day time limit, which would go into effect five years after Brady’s enactment, along with the instant check system. But after further maneuvering in the Senate, the investigation period was raised to three days." [The Trace, 7/21/15] Default Proceed Loophole Allowed Dylann Roof To Obtain A Gun. "Mr. Roof exploited the three-day waiting time that has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used in crimes, according to court records and government documents." [New York Times, 7/11/15] Gun Manufacturers (PLCAA) SANDERS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED A BILL TO SHIELD GUN MANUFACTURERS FROM LIABILITY Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2003 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #124. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Passage of the bill that would block liability lawsuits against gunmakers and sellers based on the criminal misuse of firearms. It also would block such actions against gun trade organizations and against ammunition makers and sellers. The measure would apply immediately to any pending cases. Several specific exceptions to the ban exist and include allowing civil suits against a maker or seller who "knowingly and willfully violated" state or federal laws in selling or marketing a weapon. Design and manufacturing defect lawsuits also would be allowed when weapons are "used as intended." [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #124, 4/9/2003] Bill Would Bar Local Governments From Bringing Cases Against Gun Makers. “The legislation would prohibit lawsuits from being brought against gun and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers for damages resulting from "misuse" of their product. The bill would bar local governments from bringing cases against gun makers. Thirty-one states have passed legislation banning their cities and counties from filing similar lawsuits, supporters said. Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have sued gun makers, with many alleging manufacturers allowed weapons to fall into criminals' hands because of lax distribution policies and irresponsible marketing. Many of the suits sought restitution for the costs of handgun violence and improved gun safety.” [Associated Press, 4/9/03] Bill Would Block Suits By Private Individuals Or Groups Against Gun Makers. “Such suits by private individuals or groups also would be blocked by the bill, including one that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is now arguing in federal court in New York. The group contends that 19 irresponsible marketing of handguns has "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries, deaths and other damages" among minorities.” [Associated Press, 4/9/03] Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2005 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children […] In 2005, a Republicandominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] Bill Would Allow Civil Suits If Manufacturer Or Sellers “Knowingly And Willfully” Violated The Law When Selling Or Marketing A Weapon Or When Damages Resulted From The Product When Used As Intended. “The bill would not ban all civil lawsuits -- a point underscored by the White House in its statement endorsing the legislation. The administration said the measure would "carefully preserve the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions." Sponsored by by Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., the bill would allow lawsuits brought against any manufacturer or seller who "knowingly and willfully violated" a state or federal law in selling or marketing a weapon, consequently helping to cause the gun violence. The legislation also would not apply to cases alleging a breach of contract or civil lawsuits brought because of "physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended."” [CQ Daily Monitor, 4/9/03] Hillary Clinton Voted Against The Bill. “Hillary Clinton, who voted against the act as a senator, would almost certainly sign a repeal bill.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #219, 7/29/05] Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act Removed Tort Liability On Gun Makers And Sellers. “Before the PLCAA, most states imposed some form of tort liability on gun makers and sellers. If a gun manufacturer made an assault rifle that could slaughter dozens of people in a few seconds, for instance, one of its victims might sue the company for negligently making a gun that could foreseeably be used for mass murder […] Victims of gun violence and their families could recover financially from the people and companies who negligently enabled gun violence. The PLCAA changed all that. Remarkably, the act wiped out gun liability laws in all 50 states, rendering them invalid except for a handful of narrow exceptions. (So much for states’ rights.) Thanks to the law, victims of mass shootings are barred from suing the companies that produced a wartime weapon that no civilian could ever need.” [Slate, 5/6/15] Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act Protected Gun Sellers And Manufacturers From Lawsuits Brought By Crime Victims. “The US Congress on Thursday gave final approval to a bill protecting gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits brought by crime victims. "The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" was approved in the House of Representatives by a vote of 283 to 144, and now goes to US President George W. Bush for his signature. The president said he looked forwarding to signing the bill. "Our laws should punish criminals who use guns to commit crimes, not law-abiding manufacturers of lawful products," Bush said. "This legislation will further our efforts to stem frivolous lawsuits, which cause a logjam in America's courts, harm America's small businesses, and benefit a handful of lawyers at the expense of victims and consumers."” [Agence France Presse, 10/20/05] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To PLCAA That Would To Remove Language Requiring A Criminal Conviction Against An Individual Who Transferred A Firearm Knowing It Would Be Used To Commit A Crime Before A Civil Suit Could Be Brought. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #120. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Scott, D-Va., amendment that would strike a provision that would require a prior criminal conviction against a person who transferred a firearm knowing that it would be used to commit a crime before a plaintiff could bring a civil lawsuit against that individual. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #120, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted Against An Amendment To PLCAA To Allow Lawsuits Against Sellers Or Manufacturers Who Transfer Guns Or Ammo To People Addicted To Drugs. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #121. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Linda T. Sanchez, D-Calif., amendment that would allow liability lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to an individual who 20 uses, or is addicted to drugs, or who has been adjudicated a "mental defective." [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #121, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted Against Amendment To PLCAA To Allow Individuals To Recover Damages In Cases Or Negligence By Manufacturers Or Sellers. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #122. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Meehan, D-Mass., amendment that would permit plaintiffs to bring negligence actions against firearms manufacturers, sellers and trade associations. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #122, 4/9/2003] Sanders Voted Against Motion To Recommit That Would Strike Language Applying PLCAA To Pending Cases. On April 9, 2003, Bernie Sanders voted no on House Vote #123. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Watt, D-N.C., motion to recommit the bill to the House Judiciary Committee with instructions to strike language that would make the measure apply immediately to any pending cases. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #123, 4/9/2003] Sanders’s Chief Of Staff Said That Sanders Believed That If Gun Makers Followed All Federal Rules, They Should Not Be Held Responsible For Actions Of Someone Who Does Something Illegal With Their Product. “Sanders on Oct. 20 voted in favor of a bill, now law, which exempts the gun industry, including dealers and manufacturers, from being sued for the harm caused when their products are used in a crime, or otherwise unlawfully. "He agrees with the proposition that if the gunmakers follow all the federal rules ... and someone goes and buys the gun and does something illegal with it, that (the gun industry) should not be held responsible for it," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff. "This is different (than exempting the tobacco industry from lawsuits). Because cigarettes, if you use the product as designed, are still going to hurt the person using it, and the people around them." The measure was bitterly opposed by gun-control supporters, with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calling it a "tragic capitulation to the special interest gun lobby" at the expense of victims.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/1/05] THE PLCAA MAY BLOCK SANDY HOOK FAMILIES FROM WINNING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GUN MANUFACTURER Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act May Block Sandy Hook Families From Winning Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer. “He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children […] In 2005, a Republican-dominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] While The Sandy Hook Lawsuit Attempts To Dodge The Legislation, PLCAA Was “Designed To Block Exactly This Sort Of Litigation.” “That dubious claim is not the only problem with the lawsuit, which uses a negligent entrustment theory to dodge the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a 2005 law that was designed to block exactly this sort of litigation.” [Jacob Sullum, Reason, 12/15/14] PLCAA “Prevents People From Suing Gun Manufacturers For Allowing Crimes And Killings,” But Sandy Hook Families Argued The Rifle Was Unsuited For Civilian Use. “A 2005 federal shield law prevents people from suing gun manufacturers for allowing crimes and killings to happen with their products, he said. The legislation includes an exception for cases where businesses should realize a firearm could be used to harm another individual. […] In their legal motion, the families said the rifle shouldn’t have been entrusted to the general public because it is a military-style assault weapon that is unsuited for civilian use, “engineered to deliver maximum carnage with extreme efficiency.” Individuals deemed mentally unfit to operate the weapon can gain access to the firearm, they added. The families ask that the company admits accountability for the consequences of selling the rifle.” [MSNBC, 1/22/15] PLCAA Was “An NRA-Backed Bill To Disallow Gun Manufacturers From Being Sued For Negligence When People Commit Crimes With Their Guns.” “The most distressing vote for gun-control advocates is his 2005 vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, an NRA-backed bill to disallow gun manufacturers from being sued for negligence when people commit crimes with their guns. A recent 21 Slate article focusing on the vote called Sanders a “gun nut,” and activists say the bill provides a level of legal protection for the gun manufacturers unprecedented for any other industry.” [Politico, 6/18/15] SANDERS WAS CRITICIZED FOR HIS PLCAA VOTE, WHICH WAS A TOP PRIORITY OF THE NRA PLCAA Was The NRA’s “Top Legislative Priority.” “Opponents say the bill effectively exempts gun makers from liability and that dealers allow the weapons to get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them. The bill is the National Rifle Association's top legislative priority.” [Associated Press, 10/20/05] Wayne LaPierre Called Passage “An Historic Victory For The NRA.” “The bill, which was approved in the US Senate in July, received a big push from the powerful pro-gun lobby group the National Rifle Association, which said it would provide much-needed relief to an industry that has been besieged in recent years by litigation. "This is an historic victory for the NRA. Freedom, truth and justice prevailed," said the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "No other industry is forced to defend themselves when a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product. American firearms manufacturers will now receive the same fair treatment," LaPierre said.” [Agence France Presse, 10/20/05] Sanders Vote For The PLCAA Was “Squarely Allied With The National Rifle Association.” “U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent now running for the U.S. Senate, has made a career of railing at corporate interests. But he's also had a mixed voting record when it comes to gun control legislation, and earlier this fall was squarely allied with the National Rifle Association. Sanders on Oct. 20 voted in favor of a bill, now law, which exempts the gun industry, including dealers and manufacturers, from being sued for the harm caused when their products are used in a crime, or otherwise unlawfully.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/01/05] NRA Claimed The Bill Would Enhance US Security. “The NRA also said in a statement that the bill also will enhance US security by "preventing frivolous lawsuits against an industry that plays an important role in fulfilling our military's procurement needs."” [Agence France Presse, 10/20/05] Bill Lead To Dismissal Of Half A Dozen Pending Lawsuits Filed By Cities And Counties Against The Gun Industry. “When Bush signs the measure into law, a half-dozen pending lawsuits filed by cities and counties against the gun industry would be dismissed. Antigun groups said pending suits by families of people murdered in gun crimes also could be dismissed. "This is a get-out-of-liability-free card," said John Russo, city attorney for Oakland, one of 11 cities and counties in California whose suits against the industry would be dismissed.”” [Associated Press, 10/20/05] Brady Campaign President Dan Gross Attacked Sanders As “Erratic” For His Vote For The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act. “The most distressing vote for gun-control advocates is his 2005 vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, an NRA-backed bill to disallow gun manufacturers from being sued for negligence when people commit crimes with their guns. A recent Slate article focusing on the vote called Sanders a “gun nut,” and activists say the bill provides a level of legal protection for the gun manufacturers unprecedented for any other industry. “Any smart person had to realize how insidious that law was,” said Brady Campaign president Dan Gross, who said the vote was a big reason for why he described Sanders’ gun-control record as “erratic.”” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Campaign Said He Would Voted The Same Way Today. “Weaver defended the vote, saying that while Sanders wants to ban assault weapons, gun manufacturers shouldn’t be sued if their product works effectively. “I believe he would make the same vote” today, said Weaver.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Sanders Defended His Vote To Prevent Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers And Sellers, Comparing Guns To Baseball Bats. “Yeah, I voted on the gun thing, the gun manufacturers. Yeah. You know what? Yes, you’re right that’s how I voted. Why did I vote that way? […] Because if somebody has a gun, and somebody steals that gun, and they shoot somebody, do you really think it makes sense to blame the manufacturer of that weapon? […] Point is that I made, if someone sells you a baseball bat, and you hit someone over the head with a baseball bat you’re not going to sue the baseball bat manufacturer. (Applause.) But this becomes an issue.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Rebooting Our Policy Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream” Forum in Arlington, VA, 7/9/15] 22 Sanders Chief Of Staff Said Gun Industry Was Different Than Tobacco Industry Because Cigarettes Did Harm Even When Used As Designed. “"He agrees with the proposition that if the gunmakers follow all the federal rules ... and someone goes and buys the gun and does something illegal with it, that (the gun industry) should not be held responsible for it," said Jeff Weaver, Sanders' chief of staff. "This is different (than exempting the tobacco industry from lawsuits). Because cigarettes, if you use the product as designed, are still going to hurt the person using it, and the people around them."” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/01/05] Funding for Gun Research SANDERS VOTED AGAINST RESTORING FUNDING FOR GUN RESEARCH Bernie Sanders voted against the Lowey-Castle amendment. On July 11, 1996, Bernie Sanders opposed a Rep. Lowey, D-N.Y., amendment to provide an additional $2.6 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to fund research at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control on issues related to firearms use and to reduce by an equal amount the $3.1 billion in funding for health resources and services. A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal. Rejected 158-263: R 36-193; D 122-69; I 0-1. [H R 3755, Vote #302, 7/11/96; CQ Floor Votes, 7/11/96] Nita Lowey and Mike Castle offered an amendment to restore funding to the NCIPC stripped by the Dickey amendment. “Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. CASTLE] and I are introducing with the gentleman from New York [Mr. SCHUMER] restores funding to the CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Our amendment simply overturns the Dickey amendment passed by the full committee which reduced the bill’s appropriation for the CDC injury prevention and control program by $2.6 million and increased the appropriation for the area health education centers by a like amount.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Mike Castle on the Lowey-Castle amendment: “This is a modest amendment. It would simply… restore the funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.” “Mr. CASTLE. […] This is a modest amendment. I would simply, as we know, restore the funding for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. But this is very important, and what they do is important, and I do not think they should be involved in gun control, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. OBEY] pointed out very carefully it is very specific in this piece of legislation right now that they cannot be involved in any advocacy with respect to gun control.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] DICKEY AMENDMENT STRIPPED $2.6 MILLION FROM FEDERAL GUN RESEARCH Jay Dickey on his amendment: “this is an issue of federally funded political advocacy. We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC… to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States…” “Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 21⁄2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of federally funded political advocacy. We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC, a disease control agency of the Federal Government, to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States through seminars, through the staff members and through the funding of different efforts all over the country just on this one issue, to raise emotional sympathy for those people who are for gun control. It is a blatant attempt on the part of government to federally fund lobbying and political advocacy. Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, these people should be looking at the other root causes of crime: Poverty, drug trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the cruel trap of welfare dependency. Those things have more to do with crime control than trying to come at it from a disease definition.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Jay Dickey: “Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, [we should look at the] root causes of crime: Poverty, drug trade, gangs, and children growing up without parental support, and the cruel trap of welfare dependency.” “Mr. DICKEY. […] We have here an attempt by the CDC through the NCIPC, a disease control agency of the Federal Government, to bring about gun control advocacy all over the United States through seminars, through the staff members and through the funding of different efforts all over the country just on this one issue, to raise emotional sympathy for those people who are for gun control. It is a blatant attempt on the part of government to federally fund lobbying and political advocacy. Rather than calling violence a disease and guns as a germ, these people should be looking at the other root causes of crime: Poverty, drug trade, gangs, and children growing up without 23 parental support, and the cruel trap of welfare dependency. Those things have more to do with crime control than trying to come at it from a disease definition.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] Jay Dickey: “[I] served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget.” “From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries. One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,’ sent a chilling message” [Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg, 7/27/12] LIBERALS ATTACKED THE AMENDMENT AS AN NRA-BACKED PROPOSAL Nita Lowery attributed the cutting of funds to the NCIPC to the NRA who explained, “even though the injury control program spends only 5 percent, or 2.6 million, of its budget on gun violence related research, it is despised by the NRA.” “Mrs. LOWEY: […] Unless our amendment passes, all of these vital activities could be affected. So why were funds for the injury prevention program cut? Let me be very blunt to my colleagues. The NRA dislikes the fact that the injury control center collects statistics and does research on gun violence. Even though the injury control program spends only 5 percent, or 2.6 million, of its budget on gun violence related research, it is despised by the NRA. But frankly, my colleagues, I do not understand this. Is not the purpose of the NRA to promote the responsible use of guns? Is not the NRA interested in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and teenagers who are not using guns for sport but to kill? It seems to me that the CDC and the NRA really should be working together to ensure that guns are used safely and responsibly.” [Congressional Record, page H7281,7/11/96] Chuck Schumer on the Dickey Amendment: “Once again, the NRA is making its annual assault on scientific efforts to make guns more safe for families.” “Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. What is the NRA so afraid of? Perhaps it is the truth. Once again, the NRA is making its annual assault on scientific efforts to make guns more safe for families. Last year, 38,000 Americans died of gunshot wounds compared to 41,000 who died from automobile accidents. Yet we would never dream of opposing Government research efforts to make automobiles safer. If the automobile lobby was as irresponsible as the NRA, we would not have the seat belt. Today, we are seeing a proliferation of cheaply made guns that are blowing up in people’s hands, misfiring when jostled or dropped, and killing or wounding people accidentally. So while motor vehicle deaths are dropping year by year, we have seen no progress on the number of those dying accidentally from gunshot wounds. Shame on the NRA for spreading its paranoic world view to stop legitimate scientific research from making guns just a little bit more safe.” [Congressional Record, page H7281, 7/11/96] THE DICKEY AMENDMENT HAD A CHILLING EFFECT ON GUN RESEARCH The Dickey Amendment led to a “near death experience” for scientific research in the field of gun violence. “In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before. […] Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.’ The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way. In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril. ‘They had a near-death experience,’ said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A. In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that 24 include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearm.” [New York Times, 1/15/11] The National Rifle Association has successful stopped most of the research on gun violence. “In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference? The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work. ‘We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,’ said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.” [New York Times, 1/15/11] Former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention: “We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions.” “‘We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,’ said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.” [New York Times, 1/15/11] The NRA’s push to ensure there is “no current scientific consensus about guns and violence” began with the Dickey Amendment. “As we discussed last year, it’s common knowledge that the NRA and its allies have fought to kill any kind of restrictions on firearm ownership. What was less recognized was the fact that the gun lobby also helped block basic data collection, to the point that there’s ‘no current scientific consensus about guns and violence,’ in large part because the NRA ‘has been able to neutralize empirical cases for control.’ There is no mystery as to how this happened. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began expanding its research into gun-related deaths as a public health issue, so conservatives in Congress added language to the appropriations bill that finances the CDC: ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.’ Nearly 20 years later, the principal author of that language, Arkansas Republican Jay Dickey, conceded to the Huffington Post that he has ‘regrets’ over the policy that came to be known as the Dickey Amendment.” [MSNBC, 10/6/15] DICKEY LATER REGRETTED HIS AMENDMENT Jay Dickey later said he regretted the Dickey amendment. “In 1996, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-AR) spearheaded a piece of legislation that effectively put an end to government-funded research of gun violence. Now 75, the retired congressman admitted in a Huffington Post interview, ‘I have regrets.’ […] His namesake amendment eliminated the $2.6 million that the Center for Disease Control spent on researching the effects of firearms ownership on public health. Passed by a Republican-dominated Congress, the NRA-backed amendment explicitly stated that, ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.’” [“Congressman Whose Amendment Ended Federal Gun Research: 'I Have Regrets',” TPM, 10/6/15] Jay Dickey: “This amendment… sent a chilling message.” From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries. One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that ‘None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,’ sent a chilling message. [Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg, 7/27/12] States Issue 25 SANDERS HAS OPPOSED FEDERAL GUN LEGISLATION, SAYING REGULATION SHOULD BE DONE AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL 2006: Sanders Said Gun Regulation “Shouldn’t Be Done In Washington.” “But [Sanders] breaks with most congressional progressives on federal gun control. Gun regulation should be left to the states, he said, ‘and shouldn’t be done in Washington.’ In 1990, Sanders’ position on guns helped him defeat incumbent Congressman Peter Smith, who had voted for a bill banning sales of semi-automatic weapons. The National Rifle Association sided with the socialist against the Republican.” [Austin American-Statesman, 10/29/06] Sanders: “Decisions About Gun Control Should Be Made As Close To Home As Possible.” “Our legislators have failed in their responsibility to safeguard us. In Vermont, the congressional delegation leans toward having state governments take the lead on gun laws. Or, as Sen. Bernie Sanders recently put it, "In my view, decisions about gun control should be made as close to home as possible -- at the state level." By avoiding advocating for gun laws at the federal level, they escape the opposition of the NRA.” [Thomas and Maganiello, White River Junction Valley News, 8/10/12] Sanders’ Friend Said He Did Not Own Or Care About Guns, But Thought There Was “Elitism” In The AntiGun Movement. “He doesn't have a gun," says his close friend Richard Sugarman, a religion professor at the University of Vermont, when I asked how Sanders—a University of Chicago graduate from Brooklyn—became a Second Amendment guy. "He doesn't really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there's an elitism in the antigun movement."” [National Journal, 6/21/14] Bernie Sanders Opposed A Seven-Day Waiting Period For Gun Purchases, Saying, “It’s A Local Control Issue. In Vermont It Is Not My View That The Present Law Needs Any Changing.” “All four said they would have voted against recent legislation that would have required a seven-day waiting period before purchasing a firearm and added they were generally satisfied with the nation’s gun-control laws. […] Sanders: ‘It’s a local control issue. In Vermont it is not my view that the present law needs any changing. … If I were mayor of Washington, D.C., I might have a concern of Saturday night specials.’” [Burlington Free Press, 10/26/88] Bernie Sanders Opposed Federal Gun Control Legislation, Saying The Issue Was Better Left Up To State Legislatures. “U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders said Friday he would oppose a federal bill calling for a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. The independent socialist said he believed the subject is best left to state legislatures, noting that a similar proposal in Vermont two years ago never made it out of committee.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] Urban Versus Rural Issue SANDERS SAID GUN VIOLENCE IS DIFFERENT IN URBAN VS RURAL AREAS Rep. Bernie Sanders’ Spokesman: “The Situation In Vermont Is Very Different Than In Some Urban Areas – We Have Far More Murders From Knives Than We Do From Guns.” “Sanders aide Doug Boucher was quoted in Friday’s Washington Post as saying, ‘The situation in Vermont is very different than in some urban areas – we have far more murders from knives than we do from guns.’ Actually, an official with the Department of Public Safety’s Vermont Crime Information Center said Friday that there were 14 homicides in Vermont last year, 62.5 percent involving funs and 18.8 percent knives. Sanders said later Friday that Boucher had told him ‘he talked with that guy (Post reporter Michael Isikoff) for 15 minutes. He’s not quite sure where that statement came from.’” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Sanders Said That People Viewed Guns Differently In Rural Areas Like Vermont Compared To Urban Areas Like In Chicago Or Los Angeles. “I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. And it turns out one of the safest states in the country. I come from a state where tens and tens of thousands of people hunt and do target practice. I understand that guns in my state are different than guns in Chicago or Los Angeles. I understand and the people from my state understand that there are people all over this country have guns who should not have guns who are killing other people.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, “Rebooting Our Policy Agenda to Reclaim the American Dream” Forum in Arlington, VA, 7/9/15] Sanders: Issue Of Gun Control Was Different In A Rural State Like Vermont Than In Cities Like Baltimore, N.Y. and L.A. “Where Guns Are Associated With Drug Dealers And Killers…” “I come from a very rural state, in the state of Vermont we have almost no gun control at all, and that’s kind of what the majority of the people of our 26 state feel comfortable with. In Vermont, in other very rural states, what guns are about is hunting, guns are about target shooting, a lot of antique gun collectors and in fact we have have a pretty low, thank god, crime rate here in the state of Vermont. But obviously in the rest of the country, whether it’s Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York City, whatever, guns are associated with drug dealers and killers and everything else. So looking at it in national perspective is different than looking at it in Vermont perspective.” [Brunch With Bernie, 5/8/15] Sanders Defended His Gun Control Record, Said That Guns Should Be Regulated Differently In Large Cities Than In Small States Like Vermont. “There are thorns on Mr. Sanders’ liberal rose, too. On gun control, he is well to the right of Ms. Clinton and most Democrats. Vermont’s guns laws, as he himself pointed out, are virtually nonexistent. As a congressman, he voted against the Brady Act and another law which shielded gun manufacturers from lawsuits when their firearms are used illegally. “Guns in cities like Los Angeles or New York or Detroit are not the same thing as they are in Vermont or New Hampshire,” Mr. Sanders told reporters in June. “What we need is a balanced gun policy, which makes sure … guns do not get into the hands of people who should not have them.”” [New York Observer, 6/17/15] Sanders’s Chief Of Staff Said Sanders Tried To Balance “The Fact That Different States Have Different Cultures Regarding Guns” Against Legislation Important For Public Safety. “Weaver said Sanders tries to balance the fact that different states have different cultures regarding guns against what law enforcement officials feel is important legislation for public safety.” [White River Junction Valley News, 12/1/05] Sanders Opposed The Importation Of Assault Weapons, Acknowledged That Guns In Vermont “Are Different” Than Guns Elsewhere In America. CHRIS HAYES: “Are you in fact, Senator, a gun nut?” SEN. SANDERS: “Well, actually, if you check it out, the last rating I got from the NRA, to the best of my knowledge, was an F. That doesn’t quite make me a gun nut. In my state of Vermont—we are a very rural state—what guns are about are hunting, are target practice, are antique guns, and we have a pretty low crime rate. But I do believe, obviously, that nationally, guns in Baltimore and guns in Los Angeles are very different. I have voted against the importation of assault weapons, and I understand that not every part of America is the state of Vermont.” [All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, 5/13/15, 0:15] 1980s: Sanders Said Crime In New York City Or Los Angeles “May Well Be Out Of Hand Because Of The Enormous Social Chaos” But In Burlington, Crime “Can And Must Be Dealt With Through Rational And Intelligent Decision Making.” “The city administration, under Gordon Pauquelle, has been extremely' negligent in its relationship to the police department and to the rapidly rising crime rate in our city. In New York City, in Boston or in Los Angeles the crime problem may well be out of hand because of the enormous social chaos in those areas. In Burlington, Vermont, however, the crime situation can and must be dealt with through rational and intelligent decision making.” [Sanders newspaper advertisement, date unknown, ~1980] Rep. Bernie Sanders Opposed The Brady Bill On Grounds That “Vermont And Wyoming Are Very Different Types Of States Than California Or New York State.” “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., saidFriday he would oppose a federal bill calling for a seven-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns. The independent socialist said he believed the subject is best left to state legislatures, noting that a similar proposal in Vermont two years ago never made it out of committee. ‘It it’s wanted in the Legislature, let it be dealt with in the Legislature,’ Sanders said. He added: ‘Vermont and Wyoming are very different types of states than California or New York state.’” [Rutland Herald, 3/30/91] Regulation Won’t Solve the Problem Sanders Said Gun Control Legislation Would Not Have A “Profound Effect” On Mass Violence. “His position seemed to shift in January, when he intimated in a written statement that he’d support federal bans on assault weapons and high-capacity clips proposed by Obama. But in last week’s interview, he seemed to back away again from such measures, saying, “If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] On Multiple Occasions, Sanders Was Critical Of The Idea That Gun Control Would Have A Meaningful Impact On Stopping Gun Violence Tragedies. ““If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen,” he told Seven Days Vermont a month before the vote, adding that he was still on the fence about the assault weapons ban. In his official statement following his vote for the legislation in April 2013, Sanders opened with a caveat: “Nobody believes that gun control 27 by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities.”” [Politico, 6/18/15] 2014: Bill Maher Criticized Sanders For Downplaying The Importance Of Gun Control Laws In Preventing Gun Violence Tragedies. “And on liberal comedian Bill Maher’s television show last year, Sanders said mental health was “maybe the more important issue” than gun control. “We’ve got millions of folks walking the streets who are need of mental health and they can’t walk into a place and get it,” he said. “This is the NRA talking point. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I’m just saying, that’s what they say,” Maher responded.” [Politico, 6/18/15] Rutland Herald Editorial: Rep. Bernie Sanders Contended “That Crime In The United States Is Caused By Underfunding Of Federal And State Programs For The Poor And Underprivileged, Not By The Free And Easy Access To All Kinds Of Firearms.” “Sanders said it would be ‘dishonest with people who voted for me’ to alter his opposition to federal gun control, possibly having in mind the campaign of vilification launched against former Congressman Peter Smith last year when he modified his commitment against gun regulation. Legislation dealing with guns doesn’t address the major problem in this country anyway according to Sanders who contends that crime in the United States is caused by underfunding of federal and state programs for the poor and underprivileged, not by the free and easy access to all kinds of firearms.” [Rutland Herald editorial, 4/2/91] 1990: Bernie Sanders On Gun Control: “People Pull The Trigger, Not The Guns Themselves.” “Independent U.S. House candidate Bernard Sanders received a warm welcome from a group of Ludlow sportsmen. […] Sanders said he did not believe ‘gun control is a panacea for the forces of crime.’ ‘People pull the trigger, not the guns themselves,” he said.” [Rutland Herald, 10/22/90] 1991: Bernie Sanders: “Anyone Who Has Any Illusions That Gun Control Will Cause A Significant Dent In The Very Serious Problem Of Crime Is Mistaken.” “People who believe gun control will slow down the increasing violence in America are wrong, Vermont’s Congressman said Sunday. ‘Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken,’ said representative Bernard Sanders, I-Vt.” [Rutland Herald, 10/28/91] Bernie Sanders Argued That A Background Check Waiting Period Would Not Reduce Violent Crime. “Less Consistently – at least on the surface of it – he benefited from the limited support from the National Rifle Association in 1990 after criticizing his opponent, Republican Peter Smith, who voted in favor of controls on some assault weapons, in spite of his campaign promise not to do so. Sanders also voted ‘no’ on the Brady Bill to delay handgun sales while law-enforcement officials check the background of the purchaser, arguing that the solution to crime is to fix its causes: poverty, neglect and disenfranchisement.” [Vermont Sunday Magazine, 1/8/95] Bernie Sanders Called A 1994 Vote For A Ban On Assault Weapons “A Tough Vote” And Opined That It Was Not A Solution To Violent Crimes. “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., will support a ban on select semi-automatic assault weapons today in what is expected to be a squeaker of a vote. ‘This was a tough vote (to decide),’ Sanders said late Wednesday, adding that the bill is not perfect and is not a panacea for crime.” [Burlington Free Press, 5/4/94] Sanders, After A Mass Shooting In Vermont, Said, “Anyone Who Has Any Illusions That Gun Control Will Cause A Significant Dent In The Very Serious Problem Of Crime Is Mistaken.” “People who believe gun control will slow down the increasing violence in America are wrong, Vermont’s Congressman said Sunday. ‘Anyone who has any illusions that gun control will cause a significant dent in the very serious problem of crime is mistaken,’ said representative Bernard Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders’ comments came in an interview following his talk at a labor forum in Bennington, a town reeling from a fatal shooting on Friday. According to police, Elizabeth A. Teague, 30, shot four people, killing one of them, at the Everready Battery Co. A 9mm semiautomatic handgun allegedly was used in the crime police said. Last May, the U.S. House passed the Brady Bill, which established a seven-day waiting period for handgun purchases. Sanders voted against the bill, saying at the time that the bill did not address the causes of crime, such as poverty, drugs, lack of jobs and inadequate education. He repeated that view on Sunday. ‘The federal government has failed to back in the last 12 years drug rehabilitation, education and good jobs,’ Sanders said. ‘Unless we deal with those issues, I predict a continued increase in crime and violence.’ Sanders said he was saddened by the shooting at the Eveready plant. He called the incident ‘tragic’ for Bennington. He said the recession that has gripped the country had demoralized people and that often led to violence. ‘When people become desperate, they suffer severe mental disturbances that lead to violence,’ Sanders said.” [Rutland Herald, 10/28/91] 28 Bernie Sanders Argued That A Waiting Period Would Not Solve The Problem Of Crime And Violence. “Sanders also said a handgun waiting period would not get at what he called ‘the root causes of crime and violence’ – poverty, poor education and lack of police protection and programs designed to keep young people out of trouble.” [Sunday Rutland Herald and Times Argus, 3/31/91] 29 SANDERS’S RECORD AT ODDS WITH KEY DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENIES LGBT Marriage AS MAYOR, SANDERS WAS NOT A CHAMPTION FOR LGBT RIGHTS SANDERS SIGNED A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING MARRIAGE AS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN 1982: Mayor Bernie Sanders signed a “Marriage Week” resolution that affirmed marriage as a “commitment” between “husband and wife.” “WHEREAS the basic building block of the American society has always been the family; and WHEREAS, the family has been the keeper of society’s values; and WHEREAS, marriage should be viewed as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife filled with mutual respect and open, honest communications; and WHEREAS, it is our hope that the institution of marriage may once again be revered as the cornerstone of the American society and its way of life; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen that the week of February 14th through the 22nd, be and hereby is proclaimed as WE BELIVE IN MARRIAGE WEEK and urge the citizens of Burlington to support efforts to promote the permanent and stability of marriage.” [City of Burlington Resolution Relating to Declaration of “We Believe in Marriage Week,” approved by City Council, 2/8/82, approved by Mayor Bernard Sanders, 2/9/82]  Sanders’ “Marriage Resolution: “It is our hope that the institution of marriage may once again be revered as the cornerstone of the American society and its way of life.” ” “WHEREAS the basic building block of the American society has always been the family; and WHEREAS, the family has been the keeper of society’s values; and WHEREAS, marriage should be viewed as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife filled with mutual respect and open, honest communications; and WHEREAS, it is our hope that the institution of marriage may once again be revered as the cornerstone of the American society and its way of life; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen that the week of February 14th through the 22nd, be and hereby is proclaimed as WE BELIVE IN MARRIAGE WEEK and urge the citizens of Burlington to support efforts to promote the permanent and stability of marriage.” [City of Burlington Resolution Relating to Declaration of “We Believe in Marriage Week,” approved by City Council, 2/8/82, approved by Mayor Bernard Sanders, 2/9/82]  Sanders’ Marriage Resolution urged “the citizens of Burlington to support efforts to promote the permanence and stability of marriage.” “WHEREAS the basic building block of the American society has always been the family; and WHEREAS, the family has been the keeper of society’s values; and WHEREAS, marriage should be viewed as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife filled with mutual respect and open, honest communications; and WHEREAS, it is our hope that the institution of marriage may once again be revered as the cornerstone of the American society and its way of life; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Aldermen that the week of February 14 th through the 22nd, be and hereby is proclaimed as WE BELIVE IN MARRIAGE WEEK and urge the citizens of Burlington to support efforts to promote the permanent and stability of marriage.” [City of Burlington Resolution Relating to Declaration of “We Believe in Marriage Week,” approved by City Council, 2/8/82, approved by Mayor Bernard Sanders, 2/9/82] SANDERS COULD HAVE VETOED THE RESOLUTION, BUT DID NOT Burlington, Vermont’s city charter endows its mayor with veto power over the city council. “If the mayor shall approve any ordinance, or by-law, or any resolution or vote of the city council in respect to the business above referred to, the mayor shall sign the same. If the mayor does not approve the same, the mayor shall return it, with his or her objections in writing, to the city council at the next meeting thereof after it shall have been presented to the mayor, provided that the mayor shall have not less than two weeks to consider such ordinance, by-law, resolution or vote, as aforesaid. The city council shall thereupon proceed to reconsider such ordinance, by-law, resolution or vote, and if, upon such reconsideration, two-thirds of the whole number of city councilors shall vote in 30 favor of the same, it shall be valid and take effect, notwithstanding the objection of the mayor. In the event that any ordinance, by-law, resolution or vote of the city council shall contain more than one appropriation, or establish more than one salary, the mayor shall have the power to veto with respect to each such appropriation or salary, and no item of appropriation or salary so vetoed shall be effective unless adopted by the city council upon reconsideration, by two-thirds vote of the whole number as hereinabove provided.” [Burlington City Charter, Article 18] PROGRESSIVE ALDERMAN ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE Alderman Terrill Bouricius abstained from voting on the “marriage week” resolution. “DECLARATION OF ‘WE BELIVE IN MARRIAGE WEEK?’ Chairman Blanchard read the resolution On motion by Alderman Niquette and Hammond it was voted to adopt this resolution Alderman Bouricius abstained.” [Adjourned Meeting of Burlington Board of Aldermen, 2/8/82]  Alderman Terrill Bouriscius was a member of Bernard Sanders’ Progressive Coalition. “According to ‘Challenging the Boundaries of Reform,’ ‘An ad hoc, partisan group of activists who elected and campaigned for left candidates in Burlington continuously controlled the mayor’s office under the auspices of Bernard Sanders. Nevertheless, this Progressive Coalition, as they called themselves never won control of the aldermanic council or a majority on any but a few of the city’s commissions.’ According to ‘Challenging the Boundaries of Reform,’ ‘Terrill Bouriscius, [was] a Progressive Coalition alderman.’” [W.J. Conroy, “Challenging the Boundaries of Reform: Socialism in Burlington, p. 8 & 11-12, 1990] SANDERS REPORTEDLY EXPRESSED DIFFICULTY SAYING THE WORD “GAY” At a mayoral campaign forum in 1983, Bernie Sanders, reportedly, unlike his Democratic or Republican opponents, had difficulty saying the word, “gay.” ““The first time Sanders issued a public statement on the issue of gay men and lesbian women’s rights came during a mayoral candidates’ forum in February 1983. At that time, in response to a question from the audience, Sanders and the other mayoral candidates came out in support [of] equal rights for homosexuals.’ However, one of Sanders’ harshest progressive critics had this to say about the forum: ‘Take his [Sanders’s] position on gays—it was unbelievable. [At] a huge meeting… at the Flynn Theater [a] question was asked: ‘how does everyone… stand on… [the] issue [of] gay discrimination?’ [Judith] Stephany came out immediately and said she opposed any discrimination against gays. Sanders came next and got up there and said he was for human rights. So the guy who asked the question said: ‘Say gay, Bernie’ …and he flustered and said: ‘G-G-gay.’ But before he did that, [Jim] Gilson, the Republican, Jumped up and said: ‘I’m for gay rights,’ and then Bernie came up and said: ‘I’m for gay rights.’” [Steven Soifer, “The Socialist Mayor: Bernard Sanders in Burlington, Vermont,” p.201, 1991]  Bernie Sanders reportedly had to be pushed to say the word “gay” at a mayoral debate. ““The first time Sanders issued a public statement on the issue of gay men and lesbian women’s rights came during a mayoral candidates’ forum in February 1983. At that time, in response to a question from the audience, Sanders and the other mayoral candidates came out in support [of] equal rights for homosexuals.’ However, one of Sanders’ harshest progressive critics had this to say about the forum: ‘Take his [Sanders’s] position on gays—it was unbelievable. [At] a huge meeting… at the Flynn Theater [a] question was asked: ‘how does everyone… stand on… [the] issue [of] gay discrimination?’ [Judith] Stephany came out immediately and said she opposed any discrimination against gays. Sanders came next and got up there and said he was for human rights. So the guy who asked the question said: ‘Say gay, Bernie’ …and he flustered and said: ‘G-G-gay.’ But before he did that, [Jim] Gilson, the Republican, Jumped up and said: ‘I’m for gay rights,’ and then Bernie came up and said: ‘I’m for gay rights.’” [Steven Soifer, “The Socialist Mayor: Bernard Sanders in Burlington, Vermont,” p.201, 1991] AS MAYOR, SANDERS SAID LGBT RIGHTS WERE NOT A “MAJOR PRIORITY” OF HIS ADMINISTRATION Mayor Bernie Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights was not a “major priority” for him. “Interviewer: If there was a gay rights proposal for job discrimination, general harassment, would you support it? Sanders: Probably not. When you’re dealing with priorities – there are hundreds of young kids in the city whose lives are being destroyed – have no place to go. They can’t go to school – they’re going into the army—that’s my priority. .I think the first Amendment is very clear on protecting people’s rights to sexual freedom. I know in many communities gay rights is a big thing. To me it’s a civil liberties matter. I believe very strongly in civil liberties. If people tell me they’re in a bar and they’re being harassed because they’re gay – tell me about it and I’ll do something about it as I will if someone has a religious belief. They have the right to practice freely. I will support 31 that. I will not make it a major priority.” [W.J. Conroy, “Challenging the Boundaries of Reform: Socialism in Burlington, p. 196, 1990] Mayor Bernie Sanders told an interviewer he would “probably not” support a proposal protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination. “Interviewer: If there was a gay rights proposal for job discrimination, general harassment, would you support it? Sanders: Probably not.” [W.J. Conroy, “Challenging the Boundaries of Reform: Socialism in Burlington, p. 196, 1990] IN 2000, SANDERS WAS VIRTUALLY SILENT ON CIVIL UNIONS December 1999: Sanders Would Not Take A Clear Position On Vermont Supreme Court Decision On Civil Unions, Applauding The Cause Of Equal Rights Without Supporting Civil Marriage. “Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros. Last month, shortly after the decision of the Amestoy Court was issued, Mr. Sanders publicly tried walking the tightrope — applauding the court’s decision and the cause of equal rights without supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/26/00]  Vermont Supreme Court Ruled That Vermont Must Guarantee Same Protections And Benefits To Gay Couples That It Did To Straight Couples. “The Vermont Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that the state must guarantee the very same protections and benefits to gay and lesbian couples that it does to heterosexual spouses. The court left it to the Legislature to either legalize gay marriage, which no state has yet done, or adopt a domestic partnership law, which would be the most sweeping in the country.” [New York Times, 12/21/09] January 2000: Sanders Said He “Applauds” The Vermont Supreme Court Decision On Civil Unions, And That He Supported The Current Legislative Process. “This week we were no more successful getting a straight answer. All we did get was a carefully crafted non-statement statement via e-mail from Washington D.C. And Bernie’s statement wins him the Vermont congressional delegation’s Wishy-Washy Award hands down. Once more he “applauds” the court decision but won’t go anywhere near choosing between same-sex “marriage” and domestic partnership. “By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process.” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/26/00]  Local Reporter Said That Bernie Refused To Speak Out For Marriage Equality Out Of Fear Of Alienating Rural Constituency. “Supports the current process, does he? What a courageous radical! That’s as far as Ol’ Bernardo would go. It’s an election year, yet despite the lack of a serious challenger, The Bern’s gut-level paranoia is acting up. He’s afraid to say something that might alienate his conservative, rebel-loving rural following out in the hills. Something that could be interpreted as “Bernie Loves Queers!”” [Seven Days Vermont, 1/26/00] Local Reporter Criticized Sanders For Focusing Only On “Economic-Based” Issues While Avoiding A Clear Stand On Civil Unions. “Both are pretty sharp upstairs, if you know what I mean. Ruth couldn't help but marvel at Ol' Cowardo's, er, sorry, Bernardo's response to the gay-marriage question — Bernie was adamantly vague! "Ah!," sighed Ruth, "he doesn't want to lose his loyal elderly voters." Bernie has a strong following among elderly voters, noted Dwyer. And they're not big on homosexual marriage. So Bernie didn't say anything that might offend them. Right on, Ruthie. Since last week's report of Ol' Cowardo's magnificent dodging of the issue, Progs have been rationalizing their fearless leader's surprising cop-out. They point out in Machiavellian tones that Bernie's issues are "economic-based." So why risk losing supporters by taking a "progressive/ liberal" public stand on a controversial social issue?” [Seven Days Vermont, 2/2/00] April 2000: Sanders Said That He Agreed With The Outcome Of The Civil Union Debate In The Legislature. “You may recall that in the days following the Vermont Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, we were unsuccessful in getting Independent Congressman Bernie Sanders to share his opinion on the gay-marriage issue. […] Over the weekend, we ran into Ol’ Bernardo down at the Earth Day festivities on the Burlington Waterfront and popped the question one more time. "I think the legislature handled this issue with a lot of dignity," said Sanders. "I know there are a lot of very different points of view on this issue. People feel very strongly. But I think the legislators handled themselves with a great deal of dignity, and I agree with what came out of the legislature."” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/26/00] 32 Vermont Legislature Passed Civil Union Bill. “April 25, 2000. A date to remember. A proud moment for Vermont and a big step forward in the never-ending struggle for freedom. The word comes from the state capitol this sun-splashed Tuesday afternoon that the Vermont House has voted 79-68 to concur with the state Senate and send the civil-unions bill to Gov. Howard Dean for his signature.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/26/00] SANDERS CALLED FOR CIVILITY IN THE DEBATE Sanders Attended Press Conference Calling For Civility During Vermont Civil Union Debate. ““He, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Rep. Bernie Sanders and retired Sen. Robert Stafford held a joint news conference Tuesday to call for a return to civility. Vermont has been blanketed this year by mailings from groups opposed not only to civil unions but to homosexuality. Schools have reported increased incidents of gay harassment. There has been antigay graffitti throughout the state. And along many of the rural backroads, on barns and in yards there are signs expressing the anger of civil unions opponents: "Take Back Vermont." [Associated Press, 11/1/00] Sanders Said That Opposition To Civil Unions Was Diverting Attention Away From “A Dozen Other Issues Out There That Are As Important Or More Important As That Issue.” “Sanders said groups that have stirred up opposition to civil unions were diverting attention from issues such as prescription drug costs, health care, the rural economy and education. "I think there are a dozen other issues out there that are as important or more important as that issue," he said. "I reject very much any individual or any group that attempts to demonize one segment of our society, in this case the gay community, and in so doing create a divisive situation in this state and this country so in fact we are not coming together to focus on what are in fact more important issues."” [Associated Press, 11/1/00] SANDERS OPPOSED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN 2006 2006: Sanders Opposed Marriage Equality, Supported Civil Unions. “Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”)” [Slate, 10/5/15] 2006: Sanders Expressed Support For Civil Unions, Said Marriage Is A State Issue. “I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think Stewart, the whole issue of marriage is a state issue, that’s what it is.” [Vermont Senate Debate, C-SPAN, 10/23/06, 27:32] During Sanders’ First Run For The Senate In 2006, He Said “The Whole Issue Of Marriage Is A State Issue.” “That same year, Sanders was asked in a debate during his first run for the Senate about a Massachusetts state court decision that legalized gay marriage. The debate moderator wanted to know if Sanders thought the federal government should overturn that decision. He responded by talking about states’ rights, which is an argument often used by politicians who have argued against federal recognition of gay marriage as well. ‘I believe the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue,’ Sanders said in the 2006 debate.” [Time, 10/28/15] 2015: Sanders Said He Supported Civil Unions In 2006 Because He Wanted Things To “Calm Down” First. “BERNIE SANDERS: Yes. There were anti-civil union demonstrations. The state was very much – and I felt that at that time given the fact that Vermont had gone first in breaking new ground, let's take it easy for a while. That was my reasoning. […] Vermont was first in the country. That was a huge deal, to say that if you are gay you're going to get the same benefits as a straight couple. That was pretty revolutionary at the time. It split our state, and I thought that things would calm down before we go further.” [Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC, 10/26/15] 2006: Sanders Said He Was “Comfortable” With Civil Unions, Because Marriage Equality Was To “Divisive.” “Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”)” [Slate, 10/5/15] SANDERS SUPPORTED MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN 2009 AFTER IT HAD BECOME LAW IN VERMONT 33 Sanders Didn’t Publicly Voice Support For Gay Marriage Until 2009, After It Had Become Law In Vermont. “It wasn’t until 2009 that Sanders publicly voiced support for gay marriage, years after many of his contemporaries in Vermont. The state legislature voted to legalize gay marriage that March and overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass it into law in April. It’s unclear when exactly Sanders took his position. When asked, his campaign provided a news article from July of that year which noted that he had ‘previously supported’ it.” [Time, 10/28/15] NBC News: Sanders’ Statement In Favor Of Gay Rights Came At Politically-Convenient Time. “Sanders did come out in favor of gay marriage in 2009, about four years before Clinton expressed support, but both statements came at politically-convenient times — Clinton's, after most of the Democratic establishment had expressed their support; Sanders', after the Vermont legislature voted to legalize gay marriage.” [NBC News, 10/29/15] DOMA SANDERS SAID HE OPPOSED DOMA BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED MARRIAGE EQUALITY Sanders Voted Against The Defense Of Marriage Act. [HR 3396, Vote #316, 7/12/96] Sanders Said He Voted Against DOMA Because “I Thought Then And I Think Now That People Have The Right To Love Those Folks That They Want To Love.” “And it was not an easy vote. I voted against DOMA because I think -- I thought then and I think now that people have the right to love those folks that they want to love and get married regardless of their sexual orientation. It was not an easy vote. But that was the issue.” [State of the Union, CNN, 10/25/15] Sanders Said Vote Against DOMA Was “Difficult” But Found It Was “Absurd” To Deny Gay Married People Equal Benefits. ““It is one thing now for every politician in the world, at least on the Democratic side, to be wildly enthusiastic about gay rights,” Sanders said. “That wasn’t the case back in 1996.” Sanders characterized his vote as “difficult” but said he concluded it was “absurd to tell gay married people that they couldn’t enjoy the benefit of their marriage in 50 states.” Sanders supported Vermont’s approval of civil unions in 2000 and its legalization of same-sex marriages in 2009.” [Washington Post, 6/29/15] …BUT IN 1996, HIS SPOKESPERSON SAID HE OPPOSED THE LAW BECAUSE OF STATES RIGHTS In 1996, Jane Sanders, Sanders’ Wife And Then-Chief Of Staff, Told The Associated Press That He Opposed DOMA Because “It Weakened The Section Of The Constitution That Says States Must Respect Laws That Are Made In Other States.” “In addition, his reasoning for opposing efforts to restrict gay marriage was much narrower and legalistic than he now makes it seem. When Sanders was asked on Sunday about his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act on CNN, he said that he believed back in 1996 that gay couples had the right to gay marriage. ‘I thought then and I think now that people have the right to love those folks that they want to love and get married regardless of their sexual orientation,’ he said. That wasn’t the answer his staff gave in 1996, however. His wife and chief of staff Jane Sanders told an Associated Press reporter in July of 1996 that he opposed the law because it weakened the section of the Constitution that says states must respect laws that are made in other states. ‘We’re not legislating values. We have to follow the Constitution,’ Jane Sanders said. ‘And anything that weakens the Constitution should be (addressed) by a constitutional amendment, not by a law passed by Congress.’” [Time, 10/28/15] Sanders Voted Against DOMA Explicitly On States’ Rights Grounds, Rather Than Because He Supported Marriage Equality. “Like his current Senate colleague Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Sanders deserves credit for opposing DOMA—then a popular measure with bipartisan support—while a member of the House of Representatives in 1996. But Sanders’ efforts to parlay this vote into indisputable proof of his marriage equality bona fides ring hollow in light of his statements at the time. Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff declared that it was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality. Explaining that he wasn’t “legislating values,” she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another. “You’re opening up Pandora’s box here,” she said at the time. “You’re saying that any state can refuse to … recognize the laws of another state if they don’t like them.”” [Slate, 10/5/15] 34 Sanders’ Rationale For Voting Against DOMA At The Time “Was Hardly A Full-Throated Cry For Equality.” “Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it. Sanders’ rhetoric leads listeners to believe that the congressman championed gay rights and rebuked Congress’ homophobia during the DOMA debate. But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.” [Slate, 10/5/15] 2009: Sanders Spokesman Said Sanders Had “Long Believed Marriage Is A Matter Of State, Not Federal, Law,” But Personally Supported Marriage Equality. ““Everybody knows where Vermont’s governor stands on same-sex marriage. But what about the state’s other elected officials? They’ve been strangely quiet on the subject of matrimonial rights. So we asked them to weigh in. […] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I): “Senator Sanders has long believed marriage is a matter of state, not federal, law. Personally, he believes in marriage equality,” said Michael Briggs, Sanders’ spokesman.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/1/09] Latinos Immigration Reform & Rhetoric SANDERS OPPOSED THE 2007 MCCAIN-KENNEDY COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL Sanders Voted Six Times To Block Immigration Reform From Consideration In The Senate Due To Concerns About Fraud In Guest Worker Program. “Seven of the dissenting votes came when the Senate considered an immigration reform bill in 2007, and most of them were cloture votes to advance debate of the proposal. Mr. Sanders voted no on six such votes in an attempt to block the bill from being voted on by the Senate, mainly because of concerns about fraud in guest-worker programs. Mrs. Clinton supported advancing the bill, which would have offered legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants and improved border security.” [New York Times, 5/28/15] 2015: Sanders Said He Did Not Regret Voting Against The 2007 Immigration Reform Bill. “JONATHAN KARL: Well, you've taken some heat on the issue of immigration. So I want to ask you, you voted against the 2007 immigration reform bill. That included a path to citizenship, that was the best chance in a generation to get a path to citizenship for those who were in this country, undocumented citizens -- undocumented immigrants in this country. Do you regret voting against that now in hindsight? SEN. SANDERS: No.” [This Week, CNN, 8/2/15] IN 2007, SANDERS SAID GUEST WORKERS WAS A WAY FOR EMPLOYERS TO “IMPORT CHEAPER WORKERS” Sanders Said Guest Worker Programs Allowed Employers To “Import Cheaper Workers.” “Opposing this view are most labor leaders, computer engineers and Congress members running the gamut from Grassley, a conservative, to Sen. Bernie Sanders, a left-leaning Vermont independent. They contend the jobs could be filled if employers increased wages and benefits to attract Americans, rather than looking overseas for what AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka describes as "vulnerable, indentured workers." […] Skeptics say increasing immigration is a way for employers to avoid increasing wages. "They want to defy the economic law of supply and demand," Sanders said at a Capitol Hill news conference last week. "Instead of paying better wages and benefits, they want to import cheaper workers."” [USA Today, 6/24/07] Sanders Said It Made “No Sense” To “Bring Millions Of ‘Guest Workers' Into This Country Who Are Prepared To Work For Lower Wages Than American Workers.” “The Senate rejected an immigration reform package that Senator Bernie Sanders opposed because it would have driven down wages and benefits for U.S. workers by letting employers recruit lower-paid foreign guest workers. "At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers' into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers. We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them," Sanders said after senators voted 53-to-46 to set aside the legislation. We need an immigration policy which addresses the very serious problems of illegal immigration, continues our historic support of legal immigration, but protects the shrinking middle class." [Sanders Press Release, 6/28/07] 35 Sanders Was Concerned H-1B Visas Were Being Used To Replace American Workers With Foreign Workers Willing To Work For Lower Wages. “That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Said The H-1B Visa System Was “Working Against The Best Interests Of The American Middle Class.” “In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers, it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Said Congress Should Make It Easier To Create Decent Paying Jobs For American Workers Instead Of Allowing Corporations To Drive Wages Down By Importing People To Do Work Americans Should Be Doing. “I happen to think the Congress should be spending a lot more time discussing this issue and making it easier for us to create decent-paying jobs for American workers instead of allowing corporate interests to drive wages down by importing more and more people to do the work Americans should be doing and, conversely, exporting and outsourcing a lot of decent jobs.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said 2007 Immigration Bill Was Designed To Lower Wages And Increase Corporate Profits. “This is not legislation designed to create jobs, raise wages, and strengthen our economy. Quite the contrary. This immigration bill is legislation which will lower wages and is designed to increase corporate profits. That is wrong, and that is not an approach we should accept.” [Congressional Record, 5/22/07] Sanders Was Concerned Provisions In Immigration Reform Bill Would Lower Wages For American Workers. “But, Mr. President, I wish to tell you there are areas in this bill where I have strong disagreement, and one is the issue of legal immigration, what we are doing in terms of bringing people into this country who, in my view, will end up lowering wages for American workers right now.” [Congressional Record, 6/6/07] IN 2013, SANDERS SAID GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS MADE IT HARDER FOR U.S. CITIZENS TO FIND JOBS AND DROVE DOWN WAGES Sanders Said He Had Serious Concerns About Increasing Guest Worker Programs, Which “Made It Harder For U.S. Citizens To Find Jobs.” ““Like any piece of complicated legislation there are aspects of this bill which I strongly support and others I disagree with,” Sanders said. “One of the areas I have serious concerns about and want to see improved as the bill progresses is the huge increase in guest worker programs. At a time when unemployment remains extremely high, these programs bring hundreds of thousands of skilled and unskilled workers into our economy making it harder for U.S. citizens to find jobs. Addressing that concern, I’m proud I was able to include in this bill a significant employment program for young people.”” [Sanders Press Release, 6/27/13] Sanders Said Through J-1 and H2-B Visas, “Hundreds Of Thousands Of Low-Skilled, Entry-Level Workers Who Are Taking The Jobs Young Americans Need.” “This immigration reform legislation increases youth unemployment by bringing into this country, through the J-1 program and the H-2B program, hundreds of thousands of low-skilled, entry-level workers who are taking the jobs young Americans need. At a time when youth unemployment in this country is over 16 percent and the teen unemployment rate is over 25 percent, many of the jobs that used to be done by young Americans are now being performed by foreign college students through the J-1 summer work travel program.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Said Guest Worker Programs Made It Harder For Young People To Find Summer Jobs To Help Pay For College. “I do not support the huge expansion in the guest worker program that will allow hundreds of thousands of entry-level guest workers to come into this country. This is important for at least two reasons. We have kids all over America who are wondering how they are going to afford to be able to go to college. Many of these young people are going out looking for summer jobs, looking for part-time jobs in order to help them pay for college. That is terribly important. We should not pass legislation which makes it harder for young people to get jobs in order to put away a few bucks to help pay for college.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Said That Young People Who Did Not Graduate High School Or Go To College Needed Jobs, And If They Were Unable To Find Jobs, There Was A Strong Possibility The Would End Up In 36 Anti-Social Or Self-Destructive Activities. “Then there is another group of people, and those are young people whom we don't talk about enough. Not everybody in America is going to college. There are millions of young people who graduate high school and want to go out and start their careers and make some money and move up the ladder. There are others who have dropped out of high school. We cannot turn our backs on those young people. They need jobs as well. If young people--young high school graduates, for example--are unable to find entry-level jobs, how will they ever be able to develop the skills, the experience, and the confidence they need to break into the job market? And if they don't get those skills--if they don't get those jobs and that income--there is a very strong possibility they may end up in antisocial or self-destructive activities.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Said Guest Worker Programs Allowed “Large Corporations To Import Hundreds Of Thousands Of Blue-Collar And White-Collar Workers From Overseas.” “At a time when nearly 14 percent of the American people do not have a full-time job, at a time when the middle class continues to disappear, and at a time when tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, it makes no sense to me that the immigration reform bill includes a massive increase in temporary guest worker programs that will allow large corporations to import and bring into this country hundreds of thousands of temporary blue-collar and white-collar guest workers from overseas. That makes no sense to me.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Said That His Basic Concern Was That Hundreds Of Thousands Of Workers Were Being Brought In To Fill Jobs American Workers Desperately Needed. “The immigration reform bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee could increase the number of low-skilled guest workers by as much as 800 percent over the next 5 years and could more than triple the number of temporary white-collar guest workers coming into this country. That is the basic issue. That is my basic concern. At a time when unemployment is so high, does it make a whole lot of sense to be bringing hundreds of thousands of workers from all over the world into this country to fill jobs American workers desperately need?” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Questioned Need For More Temporary Visas When Domestic Unemployment Was So High. “We are talking about an immigration reform bill from the Judiciary Committee that could increase the number of low-skilled guest workers by as much as 800 percent over the next 5 years and could more than triple the number of temporary white-collar guest workers coming into this country. During the next 5 years, H-1B high-skilled visas could go from 85,000 to as many as 230,000. The number of H-2B low-skilled visas could go from 65,000 to as many as 325,000. The new W visa program for low-skilled workers could go as high as 200,000. The first question the American people and Members have to ask is, is unemployment throughout America in States such as Arizona, Oklahoma, Vermont, Michigan so low right now that we desperately need more and more foreign workers to fill jobs Americans cannot fill?” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Sanders Said J-1 Visas Brought Students From All Over The World “To Take Jobs That Young Americans Want To Do.” “It pains me very deeply that with minority unemployment extraordinarily high--I was just in Detroit last week talking to kids who are working so hard, and they are working for $7.25 an hour at McDonald's or other fast food places--if they are lucky enough to get that work. Many of them would like to go to college but are unable to earn the money they need in order to go to college. It seems to me terribly wrong that we have programs such as this J-1 Summer Work Travel Program which brings students from all over the world into the United States to take jobs that young Americans want to do.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Said The J-1 Program Was Displacing Young American Workers And Putting Downward Pressure On Wages. “I believe in cultural exchanges. I would put a lot more money into cultural exchanges so our young people can go abroad, so young people from all over the world could attend our high schools. That would be a great thing. But that is not what this J-1 program is. It is a program which is displacing young American workers at a time of double-digit unemployment among youth, and it is putting downward pressure on wages at a time when the American people are in many cases working longer hours for lower wages.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Called Claim That H-2B Visas Filled Jobs No American Wanted Was A “Slap In The Face” To Young Americans. “Supporters of the temporary H-2B Guest Worker Program claim there are not enough Americans willing to do these types of jobs; that in essence what they are saying is the young American people are too lazy to work at these jobs. I do not accept that. I truly do not accept it. I think it is a slap in the face not only to our young people but to the many working people who do not have much in the way of an education and want to work so they can earn some money. It is a slap in the face to say to those people: No, we are going to have to bring people in from abroad to do those jobs, such as being a waiter, waitress, chambermaid, or lifeguard. These are not high-tech skilled jobs; these are jobs our young people can do and need to do.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] 37 Sanders Argued That The J-1 Summer Visa Program Had “Morphed Into A Low-Wage Jobs Program.” “The J-1 program for foreign college students is supposed to be used as a cultural exchange program--a program to bring young people into this country to learn about our customs and to support international cooperation and understanding. That is why it is administered by the State Department. But instead of doing that, this J-1 program has morphed into a low-wage jobs program to allow corporations such as McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, Disney World, Hershey's, and many other major resorts around the country to replace American workers with cheap labor from overseas.” [Congressional Record, 6/18/13] Sanders Worried The J-1 Visa Program Exploited Young People From Abroad. “I have a great concern about the transformation of the J-1 Program from being a program dealing with American culture to being one where corporations are exploiting young people from abroad to work in low-paying jobs in the United States.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] Bernie Sanders On Guest Worker Programs: “This Is A Massive Effort To Attract Cheap Labor, A Great Disservice To American Workers.” “The bottom line is that I feel, very much, that a lot of the initiative behind these guest workers programs, a very large expansion of guest worker programs — H2B visas would go up to as many as 195,000, H1B to as many as 205,000 a year — is coming from large corporations who want cheap labor from abroad. Absolutely, there is a need for foreign labor. I recognize that in agriculture and certain areas in the high tech industry, you need foreign labor. But this is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers.” [The Washington Post (Blog), 5/25/13] Sanders: “In Too Many Cases” H Visa Program Were Being Used To Drive Down Wages And Benefits. “Let me be very clear. The same corporations and businesses that support a massive expansion in guest worker programs are opposed to raising the minimum wage. They have long supported the outsourcing of American jobs. They have reduced wages and benefits of American workers at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high. In too many cases, the H-2B program for lower skilled guest workers and the H-1B for high-skilled guest workers are being used by employers to drive down the wages and benefits of American workers and to replace American workers with cheap labor from abroad.” [Congressional Record, 6/13/13] Sanders Was Concerned Corporate America Was Using 2013 Immigration Reform Bill To Continue Their Efforts To Lower Wages. “One of my major concerns is that corporate America is sort of using immigration reform as a means to continue their effort to lower wages in the United States of America, and we must not allow that to happen.” [Congressional Record, 6/4/13] IN 2015, SANDERS SAID GUEST WORKER AND H1-B VISAS DEPRESSED AMERICAN WAGES AND YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT Sanders Said That “Wall Street And All Of Corporate America” Supported Immigration Reform In Order To Depress American Wages, “And I Strongly Disagree With That.” “JAVIER PALOMAREZ: I’d like to ask a quick follow-up. Recently, I think, you criticized a portion of the Gang of Eight bill for wanting to raise the cap of H-1B visas from 65,000 to over 200,000. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes. JAVIER PALOMAREZ: On that portion of the bill, you do not agree? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Here’s the story. [...] But here’s where I do have concerns. There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform. And it is not that they are staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages in America, and I strongly disagree with that.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said He Was Concerned With Business Community Members Who Argued For Guest Workers Programs. “Many in the business community have argued for guest worker programs as the answer to the immigration issue. This concerns me very much. As the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented, guest workers have been routinely cheated out of wages; held virtually captive by employers who have seized their documents; forced to live in unspeakably inhumane conditions; and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries. That is unacceptable.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Association of Latino Elected Officials, 6/19/15] Sanders Said He Voted Against The 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill Because “There Was Too Much Emphasis On Bringing Low Wage Workers Into This Country.” “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well there’s the very significant difference in scope of what the recent bill does compared to what that bill does. My concern 38 about the bill that I voted against has to do exactly with what Javier and I discussed a few moments ago. And that is that there was too much emphasis on bringing low wage workers into this country. Okay? What I want to see, and what is better about the recent bill is, number one: that there is a path towards citizenship, which is absolutely essential, and second of all that I was able to get a fairly significant amount of money into providing jobs for young people in this country. And that is the difference between, among other things, those two pieces of legislation.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said “Corporations Are Doing Is Going Outside Of The Country, So They Can Pay People From Russia, Eastern Europe, Lower Wages Than They Can American High-Tech People.” “So that is my view. I see it as two separate wars. Each one being––here’s the story. You have many corporations that say, “Well, you know, I can’t get the high-tech guys that I need.” Right? That’s what they say. I think in some cases, that’s probably true. There may be a specialty, they can’t find that worker. But on the other hand, I’ve talked to too many people in the high-tech industry, and you know what? There are hundreds of people in this country who would like to do that work. What these corporations are doing is going outside of the country, so they can pay people from Russia, Eastern Europe, lower wages than they can American high-tech people. I think that that’s wrong.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, 7/30/15] Sanders Said That Due To Guest Worker Programs, High Tech Workers Were Being Fired And Corporations Were Bringing In People From Other Countries “To Replace American Workers And To Drive Wages Down.” “SEN. SANDERS: Let's be clear. Number one, I voted for the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform legislation... JONATHAN KARL: Which was blocked -- but I'm asking you about the one that actually had a chance... SEN. SANDERS: Let me finish -- and I will give you the answer. And the answer is absolutely we need a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. We need to take people out of the shadows. What my concern then was, and remains, is with these guest worker programs, which you're reading about, where you have folks in high tech industries getting fired while corporations are bringing people from Russia and other countries into the United States to replace American workers and to drive wages down.” [This Week, CNN, 8/2/15] Sanders Said Reform Bill Would Have Allowed For Low Wage Workers To Enter The Country Who Would “Be Competing Against Kids In This Country Who Desperately Need Jobs.” “BERNIE SANDERS: Because this bill has two major components. Number one, the good thing it has, it says that we're gonna take 11 million people out of the shadows and give them dignity and give them a path to citizenship. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: Yes, yes, yes. BERNIE SANDERS: That's the good part. JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: That's the good part, yes. BERNIE SANDERS: And that's what I strongly support. You know what the not so good part is? That at a time when we have millions of kids in this country who can't find a job what the Chamber of Commerce, the big money interests, want is to be able to bring into this country are guest worker program's, low wage workers, who will be competing against kids in this country who desperately need jobs. They're gonna bring H-1B professional workers into this country to lower wages for our high tech workers. Frankly, I don't think that's a good idea.” [Netroots Nation 2015, Netroots Nation YouTube, uploaded 7/18/15] Sanders: “I Do Worry That Corporate America And The Big Money Interests Of Course Want To Bring Cheap Labor Into This Country In Guest Worker Programs And Continue The Race To The Bottom.” “BERNIE SANDERS: The reason, the reason I voted, the reason I voted for the last bill is I got language in for a billion and a half dollars to create many, many jobs for kids in this country and that was important to me. So to my view is of course we need a path toward citizenship for undocumented workers, of course we should not be dividing up families, of course I support the DREAM Act, but I do worry that corporate America and the big money interests of course want to bring cheap labor into this country in guest worker programs and continue the race to the bottom, something which is devastating to this country and forcing millions of people in this country to work longer hours for low wages.” [Netroots Nation 2015, Netroots Nation YouTube, uploaded 7/18/15] Sanders Said He Had “Serious Concerns” About Guest Worker Programs “Bringing In A Lot Of Low-Wage, Unskilled Workers Into This County Who Will Work For Almost Nothing And Depress Wages In America.” “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, what I have been opposed to as part of immigration reform are those elements that I still have very serious concerns with guest workers programs. Now, right now, when real unemployment in this country is 11%, when youth unemployment is over 30%, do I think it is a great idea to be bringing in a lot of lowwage, unskilled workers into this county who will work for almost nothing and depress wages in America? No, I don’t. So I have been opposed to that and in fact, what I was successful in doing in this last bill, which you may or may not know, is getting what I think was a billion and a half dollar amendment passed which would make sure we would have jobs for kids in this country. So, but, the idea of a path toward citizenship is something I strongly support now and have always supported.” [Ralston Live, PBS, 6/22/15] 39 Sanders: “Much Of These Guest Worker Programs, Frankly, In My View, Are Designed By Corporations To Push Down Wages In America.” “SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I’m not against all guest worker programs. If a company, and guest worker is a big word, do you think we need, at a time when youth unemployment is over 30% in this country and we have 5 and a half million kids who are unemployed, dropped out of high school, or graduated high school with nothing to do, do you think it really makes a lot of sense to be bringing in large numbers of people to be doing jobs that these kids should be having in America? I don’t think so. On the other hand, if you are a business, and maybe there is a particular specialty that you cannot find here in America, although I have a feeling that many businesses don’t quite tell the truth about this, but if there is a particular worker in India or Russia or the United Kingdom who can help, or in Mexico, fine, that’s a different story. But much of these guest worker programs, frankly, in my view, are designed by corporations to push down wages in America. So instead of paying you $25 an hour, I’ll bring in someone and pay him or her $15 an hour.” [Ralston Live, PBS, 6/22/15] SANDERS SAID CORPORATIONS WANT IMMIGRATION REFORM TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF CHEAP LABOR Sanders Said That Largest Corporations Supported Immigration Reform Because They “Want To See Is A Continued Influx Into This Country Of Cheap Labor.” “Here is the point, and this is not a complicated point. Many of the largest corporations in this country are supporting this legislation. And you know why? It is not because they are staying up late at night worrying about some Mexican kid in Detroit or Chicago and what will be the future of that kid. They are not worrying about that. What they want to see is a continued influx into this country of cheap labor. They are not content with outsourcing millions of good-paying jobs. They are not content with fighting against working people who want to form unions. They are not content with their opposition, successful until recently, of keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for 10 years. That is not good enough. Now they are saying: Gee, we can't move Wal-Mart from America to China, we can't move hotels to China, we can't move restaurants to China, so what is the best way to continue keeping wages low for those workers?” [Congressional Record, 6/6/07] Sanders Said Corporations Like Wal-Mart Supported Immigration Reform Because It Increased Supply Of Low Wage Workers, Enabling Them To Keep Wages Low. “So the idea Wal-Mart and other similar-type companies would say: Gee, we can't find workers to do that work, is just plain wrong. What they want to do is have a surplus of workers coming into this country so wages do not go up. So instead of having to raise wages and benefits, in order to attract workers and retain workers, what you do is simply open the door and you bring in more and more cheap labor. That enables them to keep wages low.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said Tech Companies Who Claimed They Could Not Find American Workers Were Only Looking To Recruit Foreign Workers At Lower Wages. “So we have a situation where, on one hand, these companies say they cannot find highly skilled American workers while, on the other hand, they are eliminating thousands of American jobs. […] What they are seeing is companies saying: We do not want you. We want somebody from abroad who will work at lower wages than you. I think that must be very discouraging for so many of our young people.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Said Patriotism Was Becoming A “Dated Concept” For Companies Pushing For Globalization. “We would hope that companies in the United States would have just enough patriotism, maybe just a little bit of patriotism so they would work to hire qualified American workers. But if you look at the statements and conduct of some of these companies, you realize that patriotism, love of country is becoming a dated concept for those who are pushing extreme globalization.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Sanders Encouraged Others To Question Why Corporate Interests Who Opposed “Anything That Makes Sense For The American Middle Class” Would Support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “Now, in the midst of all of that, we have this immigration bill, a bill that would allow employers to hire hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers from other countries in both low-skilled jobs and high-skilled jobs. It is important to note-and this point has not been made often enough, but it is important to note many of the same corporate groups that supported […] disastrous trade agreements, that these same businesses that fought against an increase in the minimum wage […] same companies that have outsourced hundreds of thousands of jobs to […] low-wage countries, these same companies are supporting this legislation. Let's understand that, and let us ask why that is the case. Why are companies that opposed the minimum wage, that oppose the right of workers to form unions, that oppose anything that makes sense for the American middle class supporting this legislation?” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] 40 Sanders Questioned What Jobs Were Available For American Workers If Corporations Claim Guest Worker Program Necessary To Find Both Low Skilled And High Skilled Workers. “In other words, corporate America tells us they need a new guest worker program because they cannot find any Americans for construction jobs, for manufacturing jobs, hotel jobs, restaurant jobs. Then they tell us they need more foreign agricultural workers because no American is willing to break their back working in the fields, picking strawberries or lettuce for povertylevel wages and no health care. Then--this is what gets me--they tell us they need more H-1B visas because Americans are not smart enough to be computer professionals; engineers; university professors […] Now, if Americans will not take low-skilled jobs that pay poverty-level wages and, presumably, if they are not smart enough to do high-skilled jobs, I think the question we have to ask is: What kind of jobs are going to be available for the American people? Can't do low-skilled jobs; can't do high-skilled jobs. Hey, what is there for us?” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] IMMIGRATION ADVOCATES HAVE CRITICIZED SANDERS’S RHETORIC New York Sun Editorial Called Sanders’ Immigration Comments To Vox “A Whirlpool Of Ignorance.” “It is such a whirlpool of ignorance that we don’t know where to start. But let’s start with the fact that the hunger for more immigration into America is not a confection of the Koch Brothers, however heroic they may be. It is one of the enumerated reasons for our declaring independence from the British tyrant, George III. The Declaration complained that George ‘has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.’” [Editorial, New York Sun, 7/29/15] New York Sun Editorial: “Immigration Is Not A Koch Brothers scheme.” “Does Senator Sanders not know this? Immigration is not a Koch Brothers scheme. It is a scheme of the patriots who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create our revolution. Mr. Sanders, of all people, should know that it also happens to have been a cause of the American socialists, particularly Meyer London, the second socialist ever elected to the Congress. London, whose portrait still hangs in the offices of the Jewish Daily Forward in Lower Manhattan, was an early opponent of immigration restrictions being brought in early in the 20th century.” [Editorial, New York Sun, 7/29/15] New York Sun Editorial: “…Bernie Sanders Has Blundered On A Scale With Donald Trump.” “Good for Vox for nailing him on the point. We were alerted to it, incidentally, by the Future of Capitalism Web site. The Vox scribe who wrote up the Sanders interview, Dylan Matthews, recalled that one proponent of at least the principle of open borders was Robert Bartley, now gone alas but then the editor of the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most eloquent tribune of a free market, welcoming immigration policy. Let us see now what Secretary Clinton and the Democrats will do with the question on which Bernie Sanders has blundered on a scale with Donald Trump.” [Editorial, New York Sun, 7/29/15] Alida Garcia, FWD.us: Sanders Doubling Down On His Immigration Positions Was “Sad.” “After a day's worth of criticism on his #immigration stance #BernieSanders just doubled down at the Hispanic Chamber interview in DC. Sad.” [Twitter, Alida Garcia (FWD.us), 7/30/15] U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce (USHCC) President And CEO Javier Palomarez Disagreed With Sanders’ Comments The Effects Of Open Borders, Said That The USHCC Believed That Immigrants Would Work In Some Jobs That Americans Would Not Take. “Still, Sanders's economic arguments fell flat with Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, who moderated the event. "I think he's a bit off the mark," said Palomarez. "I think he's likening allowing more immigrants coming into the country to taking American jobs. Our position is that some of these jobs [are some] that some of our young people wouldn't take. We don't see young people lining up to pluck chickens."” [Washington Post, 7/30/15] Palomarez Said That He Appreciated That Sanders Was Honest About Supporting Protectionism, Said “He Didn’t Try To Bullshit His Way Through His Response.” “Palomarez, who was hosting vetting sessions with some of Sanders's rivals, said he appreciated that the senator was at least honest about his protectionism. "He didn't try to bullshit his way through the response, frankly. I appreciated that very much."” [Washington Post, 7/30/15] Immigration Rights Activist Denise Lupita Romero: Sanders Was Wrong To Be Against Open Borders. “Looking forward to speaking to you all on the issues that the Immigrant Rights Movement tonight. Immigrants are facing targeted discrimination, detention and deportation as a result of the policies that the Democrats themselves 41 have championed while ignoring the root cause of migration and the need to tear down borders. Why is Bernie against open borders when advocates and activists have largely called on politicians to stop border enforcement on the basic argument that no human being is illegal, that borders are danger to our communities ability to move around and stay safe from violence in their home countries. He is defending the use of borders on a nationalistic argument that many progressives and socialists condemn because we have seen nationalism used to ramp up war and violence.” [Facebook, Denise Lupita Romero, 7/28/15] Immigration Rights Activist Denise Lupita Romero: Sanders Defended National Borders While “Many Progressives And Socialists Condemn” Them. “Why is Bernie against open borders when advocates and activists have largely called on politicians to stop border enforcement on the basic argument that no human being is illegal, that borders are danger to our communities ability to move around and stay safe from violence in their home countries. He is defending the use of borders on a nationalistic argument that many progressives and socialists condemn because we have seen nationalism used to ramp up war and violence.” [Facebook, Denise Lupita Romero, 7/28/15] FWD.Us President Todd Schulte Said That Sanders’ Views On Immigration Were “Troubling” Because “He Accepts The Utterly False Premise That Our Economy Is Zero-Sum.” “I hope you’ll take the time view this interview with Vox that Senator Bernie Sanders recorded about immigration. It’s troubling – because at a high level, he accepts the utterly false premise that our economy is zero-sum, and putting forward the totally-debunked notion that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting Americans – specifically young people, Latinos, and African-Americans.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said That Sanders’ Views On Immigration Were “Troubling” Because He Was “Putting Forward The Totally-Debunked Notion” That Immigrants Stole American Jobs. “I hope you’ll take the time view this interview with Vox that Senator Bernie Sanders recorded about immigration. It’s troubling – because at a high level, he accepts the utterly false premise that our economy is zero-sum, and putting forward the totally-debunked notion that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting Americans – specifically young people, Latinos, and African-Americans.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said Sanders’ Views Were “Just Plain Wrong;” Claimed That Immigrants Created Jobs. “Here’s the issue: when Senator Sanders falsely pits immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment, he’s just plain wrong. The economic data is clear that immigrants create American jobs – and it’s exactly the sort of backwardlooking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said That Sanders Views Were “Exactly The Sort Of Backward-Looking Thinking That Progressives Have Rightly Moved Away From In The Past Years.” “Here’s the issue: when Senator Sanders falsely pits immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment, he’s just plain wrong. The economic data is clear that immigrants create American jobs – and it’s exactly the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Schulte Said That He Hoped That Sanders Would Clarify His Comments And Answer Whether Immigrants Created Jobs And Grew The Economy. “I hope Senator Sanders will clarify his comments and answer the following question: does he believe that increasing the ease with which hardworking immigrants come to this country – whether they’re working in agriculture, opening small businesses, or medical research – drives economic growth and creates jobs for all Americans?” [Statement, Todd Schulte (President of FWD.us), 7/29/15] Reason: Sanders Wrongly Claimed That Immigrants Would Take The Jobs Of Working Americans. “To his credit, Klein pushed back by pointing out that the poor people of the United States are actually quite wealthy when compared with the poor people of other countries. But Sanders maintained that his first obligation as a senator from Vermont was to defend American workers from the scourge of foreigners taking their jobs.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] Reason: Sanders’ “Demagoguery” On Immigration Was “Intended To Make Supporters Of A More Welcoming Immigration System Sound Crazy.” “Sanders is arguing in bad faith, however, to suggest that his opponents—the Koch brothers, among them—want a completely open border. Very few people involved in immigration policy are actively trying to erode all territorial distinctions between the United States and Mexico. Framing the issues this way, as Sanders does, is demagoguery intended to make supporters of a more welcoming immigration system sound crazy.” [Reason, “Hit & Run” Blog, 7/28/15] 42 Foundation For Economic Education: Sanders’ “Revealing” Immigration Comments “Jumped Out As A Particularly Baffling Eruption Of Economic Illiteracy, Political Tribalism, Xenophobic Nationalism, And General Silliness.” “Ezra Klein has a revealing interview with Senator Bernie Sanders today at Vox. Sanders’ views on immigration jumped out as a particularly baffling eruption of economic illiteracy, political tribalism, xenophobic nationalism, and general silliness.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: Sanders’ Claim That Open Borders Would Make Americans Poorer Was “Patently Untrue.” “[Sanders:] “It would make everybody in America poorer.” This is patently untrue, but it also ignores Klein’s question: “It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn’t it?” The answer to that is absolutely yes. Because the United States has better capital, infrastructure, and institutions than most other countries, labor is enormously more productive here. As a result, identical workers can earn 280% more here than in Mexico; workers from Yemen and Nigeria, 1300% more; Haitians, 2200% more.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: “Sanders Wants Blame Immigrants For The Problem Of Youth Unemployment That Is Being Caused By The Policies He Is Pursuing.” “[Sanders:] “You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent.” First, this is just false. Unemployment for teens is about 16% for whites, 21% for Hispanics, and 32% for African Americans. For ages 16-24, it's 12% for whites, 15% for Hispanics, and 23% for African Americans. That's still not good, so let's ignore the fact he's making stuff up and take his point at face value. You know what would help reduce youth unemployment? Abolishing the minimum wage that prices unskilled young workers out of labor market. Or reforming a corrupt, failing public school system that leaves disadvantaged young people in dropout factories: out of school, out of work, and out of luck. But no, Sanders wants to blame immigrants for the problem of youth unemployment that is being caused by the policies he is pursuing.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Foundation For Economic Education: Sanders’ View On Immigration Reflect A “Zero Sum Fallacy,” When In Fact, Immigration Creates Jobs That Wouldn’t Otherwise Exist. ““You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?” Finally, the senator falls for the zero-sum fallacy. There’s not a fixed number of jobs out there. The economy is a dynamic, organic system that creates jobs in response to supply and demand. The dramatic increase in women’s participation in the labor force over the last 60 years did not drive men out of the job market; the economy adapted to the increased supply by creating jobs. Women didn’t take men’s jobs, and immigrants don’t take Americans’ jobs. Immigration creates jobs that wouldn’t otherwise exist.” [Foundation for Economic Education, 7/28/15] Jeff Spross: Sanders’ Argument That Unions Could Raise Wages In Service Industry Undermined His Claim That Immigrants Depressed Wages Because Service Industry Unions Included Immigrants. “There's a plausible economic story one can tell in which big influxes of immigrants drive down American wages, especially at the low end. But evidence that story is actually occurring has been scant. (Granted, throwing America's borders wide open would lead to far greater levels of immigration than anyone's had a chance to study.) But more deeply, is there an inevitable connection between higher immigration and depressed living standards? Or can the dynamic be avoided? Elsewhere in the Vox interview, Sanders inadvertently hit on evidence it can, when he observed that culinary and hotel workers in Las Vegas have secured high wages and health benefits. Sanders' point was simply that service sector jobs can be made into highly compensated jobs. But those are also the types of workers immigrants supposedly compete with. And the way they succeeded in Las Vegas suggests how wages and jobs for more vulnerable Americans could be boosted even if America was absorbing way more immigrants. What happened in Las Vegas was that the union movement cornered the market on those particular forms of labor.” [The Week, Jeff Spross, 7/29/15] Dylan Matthews: “I Was Disappointed, If Not Surprised, At The Visceral Horror With Which Bernie Sanders Reacted To The Idea” Of Open Borders. “So I was disappointed, if not surprised, at the visceral horror with which Bernie Sanders reacted to the idea when interviewed by my colleague Ezra Klein. "Open borders?" he interjected. "No, that's a Koch brothers proposal." The idea, he argued, is a right-wing scheme meant to flood the US with cheap labor and depress wages for native-born workers. "I think from a moral responsibility, we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty," he conceded, "but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer."” [Vox, Dylan Matthews, 7/29/15] 43 Dylan Matthews: Sanders’s View On Open Borders Were Empirically And Morally Wrong. “There are two problems with Sanders's view on this, one empirical and one moral. He's wrong about what the effects of an openborder policy would be on American workers, and he's wrong in treating Americans' lives as more valuable and worthy of concern than the lives of foreigners.” [Vox, Dylan Matthews, 7/29/15] Dylan Matthews: “I Don’t Doubt That Sanders Thinks He Takes Equality Serious […] But If He Does, Then His Views On Immigration Must Change.” “I don't doubt that Sanders thinks he takes equality seriously. I'm sure he thinks he's an egalitarian. I'm sure he believes that Nigerian lives and Bangladeshi lives and Haitian lives matter. But if he does, then his views on immigration must change.” [Vox, Dylan Matthews, 7/29/15] President Of FWD.us: Sanders Views On The Role Of Immigrants Were “Very Disappointing” And “Verifiably False;” Sanders Wrongly Believed That The Economy Was Zero-Sum And That Immigrants Hurt American Workers. “Don't get distracted by straw man argument over zero immigration levels in @SenSanders interview-the real issue is his false views 1/2 On the role of immigrants themselves - very disappointing to see his verifiably false comments that immigrants are taking jobs away 2/3 Sadly @SenSanders lands clearly in the camp that fails to understand the economy isn't zero sum & believe immigrants hurt US workers 3/3” [Twitter, Todd Schulte (FWD.us), 7/29/15, 7/29/15, 7/29/15] Sierra Blanca Nuclear Waste Site SANDERS SUPPORTED THE CONTROVERSIAL MAINE-VERMONT-TEXAS NUCLEAR WASTE COMPACT 1997: Sanders Voted For House Passage Of The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. “The House gave overwhelming approval Tuesday to a controversial deal that would allow Maine and Vermont to begin shipping low-level radioactive waste to a dump site near the tiny community of Sierra Blanca in West Texas. The agreement, known as the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, passed 309-107, as members signaled their intention to follow through on a 1980 federal law authorizing establishment of multistate dumps to handle increasing amounts of radioactive materials generated by hospitals, research facilities and nuclear power plants. Although the facility to be built near Sierra Blanca, about 16 miles from the Mexican border, will be prohibited from accepting high-level radioactive waste, opponents argued that it will pose a health and safety threat.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/8/97; HR 629, Vote #497, 10/7/97] 1983: Texas Began Searching For A Nuclear Waste Dump Location. “Texas began the search for a dump location in 1983, and agreed earlier this decade to link itself with the New England states.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] 1993: Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission Was Formed As A Result Of An Agreement Between Texas, Vermont And Maine. “The commission was formed through a compact agreement signed between Texas, Vermont and Maine in 1993 to dispose of the Lone Star State’s nuclear waste and allow the two smaller states to tag along.” [VTDigger.org, 9/28/12] Maine Would Later Pull Out Of Waste Dumping Commission After It No Longer Needed Space In Texas. “Meanwhile, Maine has dropped out of the compact. Its lone reactor, Maine Yankee, closed in 1996. All of its low-level waste was shipped elsewhere and it no longer needed space in the Texas site. ‘It was just a matter of timing,’ Hofmann said.” [Portland Press Herald, 9/26/12] 1998: Sanders Voted For Final Conference Version Of “Contentious” Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. “An arrangement allowing Maine and Vermont to ship low-level radioactive waste to Texas in exchange for payments of $25 million apiece won House approval Wednesday. The House action, on a 305-117 vote, means approval by the Senate and the president will complete federal action on the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. […] The Texas-Maine-Vermont alliance, been pending in Congress for several years, is the 10th and by far most contentious such compact up for congressional approval. It was negotiated under terms of a 1980 law that directed states to find a common solution to dispose of low-level radioactive waste from dismantled nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals and universities.” [Associated Press, 7/29/98; HR 629, Vote #344, 7/29/98] Sept. 1998: President Clinton Signed The Bill Into Law “To The Chagrin Of AntiNuclear Activists…” “President Clinton quietly signed the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact into law on Sunday, to the chagrin of anti-nuclear activists and the satisfaction of the deal’s congressional supporters.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] 44 Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Was 10 th Such Agreement Approved By Congress Under Terms Of A 1980 Law. “This is the 10th compact approved by Congress under terms of a 1980 law that urged states to band together to find a common solution for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Sanders: Entire Vermont Delegation Was “Undivided” In Support Of The Compact. “We have the two Members from Maine, the entire Vermont delegation, me, in support of the compact. I know that will carry a lot of weight. We are undivided on this issue, and we have two-thirds of the Texas House delegation in support of this compact.” [Congressional Record, H8517, 10/7/97] Sanders: The Waste Disposal Compact Made “Absolute Environmental Sense.” “The second issue, and actually the more important issue, has to do with good environmental policy. I happen to believe that passage of this amendment makes absolute environmental sense. The evidence is very, very strong that the geology of Vermont and Maine is such that it would be a serious environmental problem if we continued to keep the waste in those States.” [Congressional Record, H8517, 10/7/97] Sanders Supported The Waste Disposal Compact Because Stayed True To What He Felt Was A States-Rights Issue. “The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments make commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal a State, not a Federal responsibility. Since that time, 41 States from every region of the country have come together to form compacts. Essentially, all we are asking today is that our three States be given the same consideration that every other State which went before us received in this process. […] We hear a great deal of discussion in this body about devolution, returning powers to the States. If we believe in that concept and believe that States should have the right to come together in their own best interests to address this very difficult issue, then today's vote should be an easy one.” [Congressional Record, H3074, 5/12/98] Sanders Declared Himself “In Strong Support Of The Bill,” Nothing That The Compact Had Support In All Three States Involved.“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. Let me say a few words on process, and then a few words on substance. In terms of process, what is important for everyone to understand is that this compact bill has been passed overwhelmingly by the legislatures of Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and the legislation is strongly endorsed by the Governors of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. In fact, in Vermont the legislature approved this legislation by voice vote in the State Senate and by a 3 to 1 margin in the House. In Texas, the Texas State Senate approved this legislation 26 to 2, while the Texas House approved it by voice vote. In Maine, both the House and Senate approved the bill by wide margins. Under a statewide referendum held in Maine, the legislation passed by better than a 2 to 1 margin. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is supported by both Senators from Texas, both Senators from Maine, both Senators from Vermont. It is supported by the entire Maine delegation in the House, all two Members; the entire Vermont delegation, me; and as I understand it, two-thirds of the Texas House.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] Sanders Defended The Legislation, Saying “This Compact Is Not A New Idea.” “So there is opposition from some Members of the Texas House here, but two-thirds support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this compact is not a new idea. Since 1985, nine interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts have been approved by Congress, encompassing 41 States. I think all we are saying, if this approach is valid for 41 States in nine compacts, it certainly should be valid for Texas, Maine, and Vermont. That is the process.” [Congressional Record, H6527,7/29/98] Sanders: Compact Was About Getting Rid Of Radioactive Waste “In The Safest Possible Way.” “If I had my druthers, I would close down every nuclear power plant in America as quickly as we safely can. But the issue today is something different. The reality is, we have nuclear power plants. We have universities and hospitals that are using nuclear power. The environmental question today, therefore, is how do we get rid of that low-level waste in the safest possible way? In my view, that is what this legislation is about.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] SANDERS DENIED SPECIFICALLY TARGETING SIERRA BLANCA, BUT SIERRA BLANCA HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AS PLANNED SITE SINCE 1992 Sanders: “I Think The Evidence Is Pretty Clear That Texas Is In Fact The Best Location To Get Rid Of This Waste.” “I think the evidence is pretty clear that Texas is in fact the best location to get rid of this waste. The last point that I would make is there is nowhere in this legislation that talks about a specific site. Nowhere will we find that.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98]  Sanders Added, “We Are Not Voting On A Site.” “We are not voting on a site. That decision is left to the authorities and the people of the State of Texas.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] 1992: United Press International: The Toxic Waste Dumps “Are Planned For The Texas Communities Of Sierra Blanca, Spofford And Dryden.” “Mexican officials have accepted a U.S. offer to hold a high-level meeting to discuss three toxic waste dumps planned for Texas near the border, the Mexican Foreign Ministry said late Thursday. […] Mexico 45 said that under a 1983 accord with the United States both countries agree to consult with the other regarding possible environmental impacts in the border zone, defined as 60 miles on either side of the frontier. The dumps, two of which would accept radioactive waste, are planned for the Texas communities of Sierra Blanca, Spofford and Dryden.” [United Press International, 3/26/92] 1993: New York Times: Texas Government “Settled On A Spot Just Outside Sierra Blanca Last February” For Radioactive Waste Depository. “For more than a decade the Texas government has been searching for a place to put a federally mandated low-level radioactive waste depository. It settled on a spot just outside Sierra Blanca last February. That, plus the way the sludge project was handled -- no formal hearings were held -- and its size -- up to 94,369 acres, more than six times the size of Manhattan -- provoked fears like Mr. Addington's: ‘We've become a designated dumping ground for all the stuff no one else wants because we don't have enough people or money to fight back.’” [New York Times, 1/25/93] THE SIERRA BLANCA LOCATION BECAME CONTROVERSIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL, DIPLOMATIC, AND POLITICAL REASONS The Proposed Waste Dump Near Sierra Blanca “Would Hold Radioactive Waste Generated By Nuclear Power Plants, Industry, Medical Labs And Universities.” “The compact clears the way for construction of a low-level radioactive waste dump near Sierra Blanca, some 90 miles southeast of El Paso. Opponents, however, have vowed to derail the deal when the Texas Legislature meets next year. State lawmakers must appropriate funds for the dump’s construction.The proposed facility would hold radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, industry, medical labs and universities.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Critics Contended That The Sierra Blanca Site Was Seismically, Geologically, Environmentally, And Diplomatically Unsound. “Critics of the Sierra Blanca site contend it is seismically, geologically, environmentally and diplomatically unsound, potentially jeopardizing the region’s key water sources. Texas officials defend the location as safe. Two state hearing officers concluded in July that licensing of the state’s Sierra Blanca property should be denied because of questions about an underground fault.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Texas Governor George W. Bush Was A Major Proponent Of Sierra Blanca Waste Site. “The site has received strong support from U.S. politicians, including Gov. George Bush Jr. (R-TX). While former governor Ann Richards conceived the Sierra Blanca site, Gov. Bush perhaps has been the single greatest entity ‘lobbying hard in Congress to pass the compact with no restricting amendments.’ His support of the disposal site, coupled with financing from the nuclear industry, has made it difficult for community groups to respond, being outspent 1000-1.” [“Environmental Justice Case Study: The Struggle for Sierra Blanca, Texas Against A Low-Level Nuclear Waste Site,” umich.edu, accessed6/8/15] Opponents: Site Was Chosen Where Residents Held Little Political Clout; 67 Percent Were Hispanic And Earned $8,000 A Month On Average. “Opponents of the Maine-Vermont-Texas compact contend that Sierra Blanca was chosen as the site because it lacks political clout, considering it is 67 percent Mexican-American and its residents have an average income of $8,000. ‘In this area, we don’t want it. We don’t need it. And we shouldn’t have it,’ said Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas. Reyes and other opponents say it is not environmentally safe.” [Bangor Daily News, 7/30/98]  Deal Would Allow Maine And Vermont “To Dump Their Low-Level Nuclear Waste […] In A Poor Hispanic Town In West Texas.” “The House approved Wednesday a deal that would allow Maine and Vermont to dump their low-level nuclear waste from places like the now-closed Maine Yankee in a poor Hispanic town in west Texas. In a 305-117 vote, the House approved the compact without any of the troublesome amendments that had been previously attached to the tri-state deal, setting up a final showdown in the Senate that will determine its fate.” [Bangor Daily News, 7/30/98]  Local Opposition Coalition Leader: "If There Was Ever A Case Of Environmental Racism, Sierra Blanca Is It." “A coalition of environmental, religious, and Hispanic groups also is rallying against the disposal site, saying Texas authorities targeted Sierra Blanca because its poor, predominantly Mexican-American population of fewer than 800 lacked the political muscle to fight back. ‘They are turning a poor, Hispanic town into New England's pay toilet,’ said Bill Addington, a Sierra Blanca businessman and leader of the local opposition. ‘If there was ever a case of environmental racism, Sierra Blanca is it.’ [Boston Globe, 9/8/98]  Resident: Sierra Blanca, Already A Receptor Of New York City Sludge, Was Chosen “Because We Don’t Have Any Political Clout.” “Sierra Blanca is already home to one of the largest sewage sludge dumps in the country. Since 1992, three trainloads a week of New York City sludge have been dumped on a 36,400-hectare ranch just outside of town. […] ‘First sludge now nuclear waste,’ said Maria Mendez, another resident of Sierra 46 Blanca. ‘I think we were chosen because we don't have any political clout. Our home has been taken over as the nation's dumping ground.’ [Inter Press Service, 9/2/98]  LULAC And NCAACP Passed Resolutions Opposing The Sierra Blanca Site. “Several communities and organizations have passed resolutions opposing the Sierra Blanca site, including El Paso, Austin and McAllen, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the state conference of the NAACP.” [Dallas Morning News, 9/3/98]  Anti-Waste Dump Advocate: “Clinton Is Now An Accomplice To The Racist Government Of Texas.” "‘[President] Clinton is now an accomplice to the racist government of Texas,’ charged Richard Boren, coordinator of Southwest Toxic Watch, an advocacy group that monitors hazardous waste along the Mexico-U.S. border. ‘Now the United States government has given the green light to sendnuclear waste from primarily white states like Maine and Vermont to the Texas Border region that is over 70 percent Mexican- American,’ he said.” [Inter Press Service, 9/23/98]  Sierra Blanca Had Fewer Than 600 Residents At The Time. “The project is planned for the town of Sierra Blanca, 90 miles southeast of El Paso, with 600 residents, two-thirds of them Hispanic, and a per capita income of $8,000.” [New York Times, 10/22/98] Mexican Congress Urged U.S. Authorities To Stop The Sierra Blanca Project. “Although accords signed by Mexico and the United States prohibit the construction of installations that pollute the environment within 100 kilometers from the neighboring country's border, and the Mexican Congress has urged both local and U.S. authorities to stop the project, plans have gone forward without any changes, Greenpeace points out.” [Inter Press Service, 11/14/97] Mexican Government Believed Sierra Blanca Proposal Violated The La Paz Agreement Because It Undermined Efforts To Prevent Contamination Along The Border. “The Sierra Blanca proposal has created a public relations nightmare with the Mexican government who believe it violates the La Paz Agreement of 1983 signed by both Mexico and the United States. Article Two of this agreement states that both sides must work to "prevent, reduce, and eliminate any contaminating sources along the border zone extending sixty-four miles on either side of the border." Sierra Blanca is only sixteen miles from the Mexican border.” [“Environmental Justice Case Study: The Struggle for Sierra Blanca, Texas Against A Low-Level Nuclear Waste Site,” umich.edu, accessed 6/8/15]  Mexican Government Later Reversed Course And Approved The Sierra Blanca Site. “‘The planned waste site at Sierra Blanca represents no risk for our country's population or environment, as long as its storage facilities are constructed, operated and sealed in accordance with the documentation that has been submitted,’ said the Ministry for External Relations, Energy and Environment in a statement Monday.” [Agence France Presse, 9/7/98] THE SIERRA BLANCA LOCATION WAS ULTIMATELY REJECTED 1998: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Voted Against Granting Permit To Build Nuclear Waste Facility. “The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission rejected the application for the permit to build the dump at Sierra Blanca in 1998, citing geological instability.” [Des Moines Register, 10/5/03]  Boston Globe: Administrative Panel Had Recommended Rejecting Sierra Blanca Because Of Socioeconomic Impact And Potential For Earthquakes. “Although Texas has already spent more than $30 million developing the Sierra Blanca dump, a panel of administrative judges recently recommended rejecting the site because the state had not adequately studied the socioeconomic impact on the region and the potential for an earthquake. However, the ruling is not binding and is considered unlikely to block the dump's licensing and eventual operation, perhaps as early as next year. [Boston Globe, 9/8/98] African Americans Silent Sanders Advisor Admitted That He Is “Less Comfortable Discussing Identity Politics.” “One Sanders adviser has acknowledged that the senator, 73, is of an older generation — one a bit less comfortable discussing identity politics than the younger segments of the progressive base. But it’s also true that the senator’s frame of reference 47 is limited — he represents Vermont, one of the whitest states in the country, and also a rural state with relatively few immigrants.” [Politico, 6/12/15] Seven Days: Sanders Was Generally Silent On Race Issues As Mayor, U.S. Representative And Senator. “Sanders' tiny degree of support in minority communities reflects his scant name recognition there in contrast with Clinton's. But it also stems from Sanders' general silence on race issues during his eight years as Burlington mayor, 16 years as a U.S. House member and nine years in the U.S. Senate. The 73-year-old socialist has focused on class inequities throughout his career, and that emphasis encompasses many of the fundamental concerns of African Americans and Latinos. But Vermont's 95 percent white makeup means "he hasn't been forced to look at these issues through the lens of color," says Hal Colston, the African American director of Partnership for Change, a Burlington-area group advocating greater inclusiveness in public education.” [Seven Days, 7/1/15] Despite His History Of Civil Rights Activism, Sanders Had “Little Direct Experience With Black Voters As A Politician.” “Even his own campaign advisers acknowledge that Mr. Sanders is virtually unknown to many AfricanAmericans, an enormously important Democratic constituency. Though he led sit-ins as a civil rights activist in the 1960s, helped the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Sr. pull off a surprising campaign victory in Vermont in 1988, and espouses liberal policy ideas broadly popular with many Democrats, Mr. Sanders has had little direct experience with black voters as a politician in a state that is 95 percent white. And they have been largely absent from his campaign events so far.” [New York Times, 6/24/15] Bernie Sanders: "We Are The Whitest State In America." "'We are the whitest state in America [1,139 blacks at last count],' said Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders, who had endorsed Jackson. 'I think it's an extraordinary showing.'" [AP, 3/1/88] Vox: “Sanders Has Never Had To Win An Election By Working To Appeal To White, Black, And Latino Voters All At Once.” “But Sanders has only been able to build a career on talking about his own political principles, and assuming voters will respond, because he's in an unusual position for a Democratic (or Democratic-affiliated) politician. Sanders's Vermont is pretty homogeneous: 94 percent white, 96 percent American-born, relatively well-educated. Sanders has never had to win an election by working to appeal to white, black, and Latino voters all at once — he's won election after election by successfully representing the concerns of a single constituency. Most Democratic politicians at the statewide level don't have that option.” [Vox, 5/27/15] June 2015: Sanders “Has Yet To Take The Subject [Race Relations] On In A Forceful Way.” “And Mrs. Clinton is hardly sitting still: She has spoken out assertively on race relations and gun control over the past week, and she visited a black church on Tuesday near Ferguson, Mo., where the killing of an unarmed black man by a white police officer in August ignited protests. Mr. Sanders has lamented “the ugly stain of racism that still taints our nation,” but he has yet to take the subject on in a forceful way.” [New York Times, 6/24/15] At His Presidential Announcement Event, Sanders’ Speakers Were Nearly All White And His Speech “Made No Mention Of Problems Of Deep Concern To Many African-Americans.” “The challenge facing Mr. Sanders as a Ben & Jerry’s candidate seeking the nomination of President Obama’s party was on vivid display last month in Burlington, Vt., at his first campaign rally. Nearly all the speakers who preceded him — including the two ice cream entrepreneurs — were white, as were nearly all the supporters, many of them in tie-dyed clothes, who thronged a park on the shores of Lake Champlain. His jeremiads about campaign-finance overhaul and climate change inspired cheers and ovations. But he made no mention of problems of deep concern to many African-Americans, like policing, gun control, racial inequities or the high numbers of black men in prison.” [New York Times, 6/24/15] Huffington Post Column: “Sanders Has Never Been At The Forefront Of The Debate Around Issues Like Police Reform And Immigration.” “Sanders has never been at the forefront of the debate around issues like police reform and immigration. He's spent years in the Senate railing against the influence of Democratic bogeymen and billionaire oil barons Charles and David Koch. Moreover, his 2016 bid is widely viewed as a means to pressure the relatively centrist Hillary Clinton firmly into the progressive camp, especially on taxes and Wall Street reform.” [Huffington Post, 5/27/15] Vermont Partnership For Fairness And Diversity Executive Director: Bernie Sanders’s Message Is “Remarkably Consistent In That It Is Devoid Of Any Conversation About Race.” “But absent from his announcement were people like Curtiss Reed, the executive director for Vermont Partnership for Fairness and 48 Diversity, who skipped the event because of Sanders' one-note emphasis on class. "His message is remarkably consistent in that it is devoid of any conversation around race.” [CNN, 7/19/15] Vermont Partnership For Fairness And Diversity Executive Director: Bernie Sanders Is “Colorblind To An Extent That It Seems That Race Is Something That Is Uncomfortable For Him To Talk About.” “‘He is colorblind to an extent that it seems that race is something that is uncomfortable for him to talk about. He is like a lot of Vermonters,’ Reed said. ‘It’s easy to rattle off statistics, but that’s not engaging people of color.’” [CNN, 7/19/15] Racial Equality Trainer Curtiss Reed: “He’s [Sanders Had] Done Nothing Specific From My Accounting On Racial Justice, In The Way That Leahy Has Done.” “Leahy has introduced pivotal legislation for people of color. Sanders, on the other hand, hasn’t been a leader on civil rights issues, Reed says. ‘He’s done nothing specific from my accounting on racial justice, in the way that Leahy has done,’ said Reed, citing Leahy’s involvement in the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and ending mandatory minimum sentencing.” [VT Digger, 7/30/15] Crew Of 42: Sanders Sponsored His Private Prison Legislation, But Had Not Co-Sponsored A Number Of Major Criminal Justice Reform Bills Currently In The Senate. “Sen. Sanders is planning to introduce legislation that would bar federal money to be spent on private prisons. The bill will be the first justice reform legislation Sanders has offered in years. Sanders is currently not a sponsor or co-sponsor of any justice related legislation in the Senate. Bills such as the REDEEM Act, The Justice Safety Valve Act,Stop Racial Profiling and the Smarter Sentencing a Act are a few of the Justice bills that have been introduced in the Senate.” [Crew of 42, 9/10/15] Sanders Co-Sponsored End Racial Profiling Act Of 2015 On September 17, 2015. [S 1056, cosponsored 9/17/15] President Obama Sanders: “Yeah, I Am” Making The Case For A Course Correction From The Obama-Biden Administration. “CHRIS HAYES: Right, so that’s the question to me is, there’s two ways of thinking about the next Democratic president. One is a continuing on the trajectory that Barack Obama, and Joe Biden as, you know, as his Vice President, have laid out. And another is essentially a course correction, that the current trajectory won’t get us. It sounds to me like you’re making the latter case. BERNIE SANDERS: Yeah, I am. And what I am saying is look, I’m a great personal friend of the President and the Vice President, they’re both wonderful people and I think they’ve done a damn good job. But I personally believe, given the crisis we face right now, with the power structure in America, we have corporate America and the Koch brothers and the corporate media and so forth—so much power on top, we need a political revolution. We need to mobilize tens of millions of people to begin to stand up and fight back and to reclaim the government, which is now owned by big money. Do I think that is, was the work—was that the goal of the President and the Vice President? Not really, I don’t think so.” [All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC, 10/21/15] Sanders Argued In Favor Of A Primary Challenge To President Obama. “Sanders’ relationship with Washington Democrats remains fraught. Though he argued in favor of a primary challenge to President Barack Obama in July 2011, he campaigned for the president’s reelection in New Hampshire last fall. “I’m disappointed but not surprised,” Sanders says of the first few months of Obama’s second term, citing agreement with the president on gay rights and immigration issues and disagreement on economic policy.” [Seven Days Vermont, 3/13/13] HEADLINE: “Bernie Sanders: Obama Primary Challenge From A Progressive Would 'Enliven' 2012 Debate” [Huffington Post, 5/25/11] Sanders Said That If A Progressive Democrat Ran Against President Obama In A 2012 Primary, “I Think It Would Enliven The Debate.” “Between the tax cut compromise and new rounds of spending cuts, Senator Sanders doesn't see the government confronting the problem either. He's made his dissatisfaction with Democrats, Republicans and even President Obama loud and clear. Which begs the question: would a progressive candidate—perhaps Sanders—consider challenging Obama in a 2012 primary? Sanders' name came up as a possibility following December's epic filibuster. It helped that the speech was also in the wake of a November beating suffered by Democrats, which challenged confidence in an Obama reelection effort. However, the Senator said he has ruled out a run. [Sanders:] I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. But if a progressive Democrat wants to run, I think it would enliven the debate, raise some 49 issues and people have a right to do that. I've been asked whether I am going to do that. I'm not. I don't know who is, but in a democracy, it's not a bad idea to have different voices out there.” [WNYC, 3/16/11] Sanders Supported A Primary Challenge Against President Obama From The Left. “Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in an interview with progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann on Friday, said it would be good for America if Obama faced a primary challenger from the left. “I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing,” Sanders said.” [VTDigger.org, 7/25/11] Sanders Said “I Think There Are Millions Of Americans Who Are Deeply Disappointed With The President.” “A guest caller to the program urged Bernie to run, but his office confirmed Monday that the senator who has served Vermont in Washington since 1991, is not considering a presidential run. “I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed with the president,” said Sanders.” [VTDigger.org, 7/25/11] Brady Bill SANDERS VOTED AGAINST THE BRADY BILL THAT THE CBC SUPPORTED Despite Sanders’ Professed Closeness With The Congressional Black Caucus, Sanders Opposed The Brady Bill. “Sanders’ announced opposition to the Brady proposal seems especially incongruous. The independent socialist has said that, among his House colleagues, he feels politically closest to the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. And only one of Sanders’ 25 black colleagues is pledged to vote against the Brady bill.” [Seven Days, 4/11/91] Between 1991 And 1993, Sanders Voted Against The Brady Bill Five Times, Which Would Have Imposed A Five-Day Waiting Period For Handgun Purchases. “The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for wouldbe purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks.” [Politifact, 7/10/15] Women Women’s Rights SANDERS SAID WOMEN’S RIGHTS WERE A “DISTRACTION” FROM REAL ISSUES LIKE “CLASS STRUGGLE” A Vermont Vanguard Press Editorial stated that Bernie Sanders often forgets about women’s issues. ’Of course, Sanders has his faults – though not nearly so many as his opponents would have us believe. In his efforts to include the excluded, he often forgets women’s issues.’ [The Vermont Vanguard Press, 2/27/83] Bernie Sanders: “The reason women are excluded [and] working for miserable wages (are treated like shit, to my mind)…has to do with class analysis of America.” “The reason women are excluded … [and] working for miserable wages (are treated like shit, to my mind), or the reason that companies destroy the environment, has to do with class analysis of America – who owns the country and the political life… A woman is making minimum wage or an inadequate wage [and] that has got to be dealt with not just because she is a woman but because she is a worker. The goal of democratic socialism is that women should have as much representation as they are [a percentage of] the population.” [Steven Soifer, The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 198] Female academician said Sanders believed a focus on women’s issues would “detract from [his] ultimate concern [with the] working –class struggle.” “One academician felt Sanders has no special focus on feminist concerns because of his class analysis. Thus for him to separately put attention on women’s issues would ‘detract from [his] ultimate concern [with the] working –class struggle,’ she said.” [Steven Soifer, The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 197] According to Walter Shapiro of New England Monthly, Bernie Sanders “always had scant tolerance for the left’s” [non-economic] causes and concerns” including, “the women’s movement.” “At last, [Bernie Sanders] 50 had found a calling that combined his craving for recognition with his radical beliefs. He fall for statewide office four times over the next six years, and his best showing was six percent of the vote for governor in 1976. ‘What motivated him then is what I think is still his primary motivation: a passionate hatred of what economic injustice docs to people at the bottom of the economic ladder,’ says Huck Gutman, a close friend and an English professor at the University of Vermont. There was a you-gotta-listen-to-me intensity about Sanders during this period, and it ultimately prompted him to break with the Liberty Union Party in 1976. The rift was probably inevitable. Sanders always had scant tolerance for the left’s grab bag of causes and concerns: the women’s movement, guy rights, environmentalism, and the constant need to bear moral witness about something. Without being rigidly doctrinaire, Sanders saw every issue through the prism of the working class and his role as its tribune. ‘Bernie is mellow now, compared to what he was like then,’ recalls Greg Guma, former publisher of the local alternative weekly, the Vanguard Press. ‘He was an angry, angry man. You know, like that guy in the movie Network. Bernie was angry like that.’” [Walter Shapiro, New England Monthly, 12/85] AS MAYOR, SANDERS WAS DISMISSIVE OF WOMEN’S GROUPS Women’s groups did not have “an easy time gaining access to the Sanders administration.” “In general, those who often have trouble having their interests represented by city hall, that is, poor and working-class people, were much more fairly treated by Mayor Sanders. This isn’t surprising, as this group forms the backbone of his political support. However, as we shall see in more detail in Chapters 8 and 9, other interest groups, such as women and the peace movement, did not have such an easy time gaining access to the Sanders administration. Thus, progressives whose political agenda is somewhat different from that of Sanders often found themselves at odds with the mayor—and often left out of the decision-making process.” [Steven Soifer, The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 117-118] One feminist called Bernie Sanders efforts on women as “token.” ’Many feminists in the audience [at an event sponsored by the National Organization of Women and Everywoman’s Place] said they are less than satisfied with Sanders’ work on behalf of women. The efforts Sanders cited are ‘token,’ said Laurie Larsun.’ [The Vermont Vanguard Press, 2/27/83] Progressive interests like women’s groups were often left out of the decision-making process. “In general, those who often have trouble having their interests represented by city hall, that is, poor and working-class people, were much more fairly treated by Mayor Sanders. This isn’t surprising, as this group forms the backbone of his political support. However, as we shall see in more detail in Chapters 8 and 9, other interest groups, such as women and the peace movement, did not have such an easy time gaining access to the Sanders administration. Thus, progressives whose political agenda is somewhat different from that of Sanders often found themselves at odds with the mayor—and often left out of the decision-making process.” [Steven Soifer, The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 117-118] Feminists were not satisfied with Bernie Sanders’ work on behalf of women. “Many feminists in the audience [at an event sponsored by the National Organization of Women and Everywoman’s Place] said they are less than satisfied with Sanders’ work on behalf of women. The efforts Sanders cited are ‘token,’ said Laurie Larsun. ‘His class analysis is a little rusty,’ she added, because he doesn’t seem to recognize that women make up a large chunk of the 16 percent of city residents falling below the poverty line.” [The Vermont Vanguard Press, 2/27/83] Staff SANDER’S TOP 2016 CAMPAIGN STAFF IS PREDOMINANTLY MEN Markos Moulitsas: All of Bernie Sanders’ top staffers are white males. “Republicans are the homogeneous ones, not us. But you wouldn’t know that from looking at Sanders’s team. His campaign manager, communications director, press secretary, field director and top strategists, such as D.C. veteran Tad Devine, are all white males. You have to go deep into his digital team to find the first woman. This lineup might work in lily-white Vermont (or in the nonrepresentative early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire), but for any aspirant for national office, or in a state more diverse than a NASCAR rally, candidates’ staffs must reflect the people they are trying to win.” [Markos Moulitsas, Op-ed, the Hill, 7/28/15] WHEN SANDERS GOT ELECTED TO THE HOUSE, HE SAID HIS PRIORITY WAS NOT HIRING WOMEN 51 1990: Bernie Sanders: “I'm not going out of my way to hire a woman.” “O.K. Let me deal with that. You may like it or you may not like it. I will not hire someone because she or he is a woman or a man. I'll hire somebody because they can do the job. I'm not going out of my way to hire a woman.” [Bernie Sanders interview, Commonwoman, 1981; via Challenging the Boundaries of Reform, 1990, p. 195] SANDERS DID INCORPORATE WOMEN WHILE HE WAS MAYOR According to a Sanders biography, Bernie had “a clear tendency to concentrate power and limit access to internal decision-making processes to an inner circle of advisors, most of them men.” “It is ironic that while Sanders has opened up the democratic process within the city as a whole, within his own administration, there is a clear tendency to concentrate power and limit access to internal decision-making processes to an inner circle of advisors, most of them men. Those labeled as outsiders, for whatever reasons, have a difficult time getting a fair hearing by the mayor or his close advisors.” [Steven Soifer, The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 116-117] Sanders’s was “glib” when asked about his record of not appointing women. “Sanders was asked how his record on the appointment of women to key government positions compared to Gov. Madeleine Kunin’s (hers is outstanding; the reporter observed too that Sanders’ key appointees are male.) The mayor ticked off what he considered to be the accomplishments of his administration in meeting the needs of women. He also spoke of the growth of city spending for day care as compared to state spending. Another reporter tried for a more direct response; she noted that Sanders ‘inner circle’ of decision markers is exclusively male. Only slightly ruffled by the comment, Sanders said his record compared favorably to the ‘previous (city) administration,’ and assured the reporters women would be involved in his gubernatorial campaign. Clever fellow the mayor. Obvious too.” [“The Answer Is: Sanders is Glib,” Burlington Free Press editorial, 5/16/86] 1983: The director of Burlington’s battered women’s shelter backed Bernie Sanders’ Democratic opponent because she did not think Sanders gave women a sufficient role in his administration. “Some of the most militant feminists feel that Sanders does not take their issues seriously. The director of a new battered women's shelter, funded by the city and supported by Sanders, nevertheless backed his [Democratic] opponent, Stephany, because she didn't believe Sanders gave women a sufficient role in the administration. Sanders acknowledges that there is also potential tension when a large bloc of his support comes from blue-collar Catholics and another bloc includes advocates of gay rights and a woman's right to abortion-both of which he supports. A few people were unhappy when Sanders ordered a city hall display of Hiroshima photos taken down early after some city workers complained that the pictures were so disturbing that they couldn't work.” [In These Times, 3/23-29/83] 1983: Women held only 22 percent of jobs in Burlington city government, compared to 52 percent of municipal jobs in other Chittenden county communities. “Clavelle already has made a study of the status of women in city government. It revealed that women make up 54 percent of the city's population and hold only 22 percent of the jobs in city government. In other Chittenden County communities, women hold 52 percent of the municipal jobs. [sic] he said.” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 3/10/83] According to a Sanders biography, his “frequent retreat to an old-boy style of making decisions indicates that he has incorporated few of the principles that guide the women’s movement.” “The situation becomes even more difficult for Sanders when analyzed from a feminist perspective. His frequent retreat to an old-boy style of making decisions indicates that he has incorporated few of the principles that guide the women’s movement today, all the more disappointing to socialist feminists that see his administration as more of the same old patriarchy.” [Steven Soifer, The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 118] Previous Women Opponents Bernie Sanders in 1986: Voting for Madeleine Kunin in the Vermont gubernatorial election because she is a woman is “a sexist position.” “Sanders defended his position on women’s issues in this way: ‘[People say]: ‘I’m in the women’s movement. I’m in the environmental movement. I’m in this movement and I’m in that movement’ – and Ronald Reagan is President of the United States. Should we vote for Madeline [sic] Kunin [governor of Vermont] because Madeline Kunin is a woman? To the degree people think that that’s true, I would regard that as a sexist position. I get distressed when somebody looks at things from a single point of view. I think we need to develop a movement. And the movement has got to be based on class analysis. The class issue [is the most important.]’” [Sanders interview, 1/27/86; via The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 197] 52 Bernie Sanders’s mayoral election opponent Democrat Diane Gallagher: “He is setting me up to be the rich bitch, the girl with the pearls, Lady Di.” “[Democrat] Gallagher accused Sanders and the press of portraying her as a rich woman out of touch with Burlingtonians. ‘He is setting me up to be the rich bitch, the girl with the pearls, Lady Di, and that image is false,’ she said. ‘They say they are caretakers for the poor and that is a crock.” [Burlington Free Press, 2/19/85] Pay Equity 2012: SANDERS HAD THE LARGEST PAY GAP OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS Washington Free Beacon Analysis: Sanders’ Office Had Largest Pay Gap Of Democratic Senators At Nearly 48 Percent. The Washington Free Beacon reported, “A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called ‘gender pay gap,’ urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals. […] Other notable Senators whose ‘gender pay gap’ was larger than 23 percent: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.)—47.6” [Washington Free Beacon, 5/24/12] True North Reports Blog: “It Certainly Appears That Nobody’s Beating Bernie In A War Against Women.” According to the blog True North Reports, “An analysis of senate office salaries by the Washington Free Beacon revealed that Bernie Sanders’ office boasts the worst gender pay gap in the Democratic Caucus – a whopping 47.6 percent. This despite Sanders proclaiming in his usual bombastic way in an April 30 Op-Ed, ‘We are not going back to the days when it was legal for women to be paid less for doing the same work as men….’ In the same piece, Sanders also called on us to ‘…wage a moral and political war against the gross wealth and income inequality in America…’ […] Bernie concluded his chest-thumping Op-Ed with, “The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win.” Well, it certainly appears that nobody’s beating Bernie in a war against women.” [True North Reports, Blog, 5/24/14] Previous Writings Bernie Sanders wrote a stream-of-consciousness essay on the nature of male-female sexual dynamics. “What Sanders did share with the young radicals and hippies flocking to Vermont was a smoldering idealism forged during his college years as a civil rights activist—he coordinated a sit-in against segregated housing and attended the 1963 March on Washington—but only a fuzzy sense of how to act on it. Sanders bounced back and forth between Vermont and New York City, where he worked at a psychiatric hospital. After his marriage broke up in the late 1960s, he moved to an A-frame farmhouse outside the Vermont town of Stannard, a tiny hamlet with no paved roads in the buckle of the commune belt. He dabbled in carpentry and tried to get by as a freelance journalist for alternative newspapers and regional publications, contributing interviews, political screeds, and, one time, a stream-of-consciousness essay on the nature of male-female sexual dynamics.” [Mother Jones, 5/26/15]  Bernie Sanders’ essay suggested it was normal for men to fantasize about gang-raping a 12-yearold girl. “A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man – as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously. The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday – and go to Church, or maybe to their ‘revolutionary’ political meeting. […] Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspapers with the articles like ‘Girl 12 raped by 14 men’ sell so well? To what in us are they appealing? […] In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food – and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain – waiting to be shaken off.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Freemen, 2/72]  Bernie Sanders’ essay suggested it was typical for a woman to fantasize about being gang-raped. “A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man – as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously. The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday – and go to Church, or maybe to their ‘revolutionary’ political meeting.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Freemen, 2/72] 53  Bernie Sanders’ suggested women have an inherent primordial hatred of men. “‘But I reality,’ he said, ‘If you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me – just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or you sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person – as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me – and that’s a piggy thing to do.’” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Freemen, 2/72] Bernie Sanders wrote about restrained sexual attitudes in women leading to breast cancer. “What do you think it really means when 3 doctors, after intense study, write that ‘of the 26 patients (who developed breast cancer) below 51 (years of age), one was sexually adjusted.’ It means very bluntly, that the manner in which you bring up your daughter with regard to sexual attitudes may very well determine whether or not she will develop breast cancer, among other things. How much guilt, nervousness have you imbued in your daughter with regard to sex? If she is 16, 3 years beyond puberty and the time which nature set forth for childbearing, and spent a night out with her boyfriend, what is your reaction? Do you take her to a psychiatrist because she is ‘maladjusted,’ or a ‘prostitute,’ or are you happy that she has found someone with whom she can share love? Are you concerned about HER happiness or about your ‘reputation’ in the community?” [“Cancer, Disease and Society,” Vermont Freeman, 12/19 – 22/69] 54 ETHICS Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) SANDERS HELPED OBTAIN FUNDING FOR VEDA WHILE HIS WIFE SERVED ON THE BOARD 2013-2015: Jane O’Meara Sanders Served On The Board Of Directors For The Vermont Economic Development Authority. According to the Vermont Economic Development Authority, Jane O’Meara Sanders served on the board of directors for the Vermont Economic Development Authority. According to Sanders’ LinkedIn profile, she has served as a commissioner of VEDA since October 2013. [Vermont Economic Development Authority, accessed 7/15/15; Jane O’Meara Sanders, LinkedIn, accessed 7/15/15] 2014: Vermont 504 Corporation Received A Federal Award For A $216,100 Loan From The Department Of Agriculture. According to USA Spending, Vermont 504 Corporation received a federal award for a $216,100 loan with a face value of $1,000,000 from the Department of Agriculture. [USA Spending, 1/10/14]  Sanders’ And Other Congressional Offices Announced VEDA Was Awarded A $1 Million From The USDA Rural Development Intermediary Relending Program. According to a USDA Rural Development press release published on the Vermont Economic Development Authority’s website, “During a visit to Cork, a premium wine bar and specialty food establishment on Stowe Street in downtown Waterbury Monday, Governor Peter Shumlin, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials, and staff from Senator Patrick Leahy’s office, Senator Bernie Sanders’ and Congressman Peter Welch’s office announced that the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) has been awarded a $1 million USDA Rural Development Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) loan to support and expand small business lending. The new award will help VEDA to continue making USDA-supported loans to small businesses like Cork.” [Vermont Economic Development Authority, via USDA Rural Development Press Release, 2/11/14]  Sanders: “I Applaud The Good Work By The Vermont Economic Development Authority And The U.S. Department Of Agriculture For Making This Award Possible.” According to a USDA Rural Development press release published on the Vermont Economic Development Authority’s website, “’The $1M award will support small businesses and help create new jobs in rural Vermont’ said Senator Bernie Sanders. ‘I applaud the good work by the Vermont Economic Development Authority and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for making this award possible.’” [Vermont Economic Development Authority, via USDA Rural Development Press Release, 2/11/14] 55 [USA Spending, 1/10/14] SANDERS HELPED OBTAIN VEDA FUNDING BEFORE HIS WIFE STARTED SERVING ON THE BOARD 2013: Sanders And The Vermont Congressional Delegation Announced That VEDA Was Awarded A $2 Million Grant To Expand It Disaster Loan Fund. According to VT Digger, “U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Congressman Peter Welch announced Friday that the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) has awarded a $2 million grant to the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) to expand its disaster loan fund, and an additional $500,000 grant to the State of Vermont to help regional planning commissions and communities plan for future disasters.” [VT Digger, 4/26/13]  VEDA Planned To Use The $2 Million Grant To Create the EDA Business Recovery Loan Fund To Provide Low-Interest Loans To Businesses Affected By Tropical Storm Irene. According to VT Digger, “They said VEDA will use the $2 million grant to create the EDA Business Recovery Loan Fund. VEDA will team with the Vermont Small Business Development Center (SBDC) to offer special financing and technical assistance to businesses still suffering from the effects of Tropical Storm Irene. The recovery loan fund will provide low-interest loans to affected businesses and others to help stabilize communities, support innovationbased entrepreneurs, and create jobs.” [VT Digger, 4/26/13] VEDA CEO Joe Bradley Thanked Sanders And Vermont Congressional Delegation For Helping Them Secure $13.2 Million In Federal State Small Business Credit Funding In 2011. Vermont Biz reported, “The U.S. Treasury Department has announced that Vermont is one of only three states to have fully deployed their federal State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) funds. In 2011, through the Small Business Jobs Act, Vermont received $13.2 million in SSBCI funding, to be administered by the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA). The other two states to have fully deployed their respective federal funds are Idaho and North Dakota. ‘The fact that we were able to get these federal funds out to Vermont businesses so quickly is a real testament to the dedication of all VEDA Staff,’ said VEDA Chief Executive Officer Jo Bradley. In Vermont, the $13.2 million in SSBCI funds leveraged an additional $133.3 million in local funds on projects totaling $146.5 million. VEDA made 156 loans to 129 companies with 3,931 employees. The companies expected to add 2,233 in additional jobs as a result of the financed projects. […] ‘The SSBCI funding would not have been possible without the strong advocacy efforts of Vermont’s Congressional delegation,’ added Bradley. ‘We thank Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch for their help in securing this important investment in Vermont’s economic future.’” [Vermont Biz, 4/6/15] SANDERS RECEIVED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENTITIES AFTER IT RECEIVED VEDA FINANCING AGRI-MARK RECEIVED $2 MILLON FROM VEDA AFTER CONTRIBUTING $7,500 TO SANDERS 56 Agri-Mark Inc. Received $2 Million In Financing From VEDA To Help Buy And Renovate Its Cabot Corporate Headquarters. According to a press release from the Vermont Economic Development Authority, “Agri-Mark, Inc., Waitsfield – Financing of $2 million was approved as part of Agri-Mark, Inc.’s $2.8 million project to acquire and renovate as its Cabot corporate headquarters the former Northern Power Systems building in Waitsfield. In 2007, the Central Vermont Investment Corporation (CVIC) took adverse possession of the property and has been leasing space to Diffraction LTD. and the State of Vermont. ‘We are thrilled to see the ownership of this property transfer to Agri-Mark,’ stated Sam Andersen, Executive Director of CVIC/CVEDC. ‘We greatly appreciate their commitment to Vermont and to the economic vitality of the Mad River Valley.’ Agri-Mark currently has 599 employees in Vermont at several plant and administrative locations, and has plans to continue to expand its Cabot Brand business into the future. Established in 1918, Agri-Mark is a 100% dairy farmer-owned cooperative, with more than 1,200 member farms located in all six New England states and throughout upstate New York State. The farmers produce more than 2.5 billion pounds of milk each year. The cooperative owns and operates four dairy plants in Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont, including Cabot Creamery in Cabot and a cheese and whey processing plant in Middlebury, where it makes its award-winning products.” [Vermont Economic Development Authority, 5/2/13] Agri-Mark Contributed $8,000 To Sanders’ Campaign. According to the Sunlight Foundation, Agri-Mark donated $8,000 to Sanders’ campaign. [Sunlight Foundation, Influence Explorer, accessed 7/1/15] Agri-Mark Contributions To Sanders Donor Amount Date Agri-Mark Inc $500 07/10/2012 Agri-Mark Inc $500 03/28/2012 Agri-Mark Inc $500 09/26/2011 Agri-Mark Inc $500 07/11/2011 Agri-Mark Inc $500 09/24/2012 Agri-Mark Inc $1,000 08/10/2009 Agri-Mark Inc $1,000 06/23/2008 Agri-Mark Inc $1,000 10/11/2005 Agri-Mark Inc $1,000 06/07/2006 Agri-Mark Inc $500 09/06/2006 Agri-Mark Inc $500 09/06/2006 Agri-Mark Inc $500 07/30/2013 Total $8,000 [Sunlight Foundation, Influence Explorer, accessed 7/1/15] Burlington College O’MEARA SANDERS RECEIVED A $200,000 PAYOUT AS A SABBATICAL THE YEAR FOLLOWING HER RESIGNATION O’Meara Sanders Signed On To Spend A Year After Her Resignation As A Consultant For The College On Community Relationships And Development Of The New Campus. WCAX reported, “She'll spend the next year on sabbatical as a consultant for the college, and says her support for the school will never expire. Her new title will be President Emerita - a distinction reserved for the college's founder until now. ‘As a president, you have to have so many things that you're focusing on at all times, it's going to be very nice to focus on some of the things that are most crucial,’ said Sanders, ‘and honestly, I'm more interested in that.’ She says her primary responsibilities will be advising on community relationships and the development of the new campus.” [WCAX, 9/26/11] 57 O’Meara Sanders Accepted A Nearly $200,000 Payout From Burlington College When She Left. According to VT Digger, “A prominent Vermont businessman has released a television ad attacking Sen. Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane. The ad, paid for by Republican benefactor Rodolphe ‘Skip’ Vallee, demands that Jane Sanders return the severance pay she received in 2011 when she resigned as president of Burlington College. Vallee is owner of R.L. Vallee Inc., a gasoline distributor and operator of the Maplefields chain of convenience stores. This is at least the third time Vallee has produced a television ad attacking Sanders. The latest ad calls Sanders a hypocrite for criticizing ‘golden parachutes’ in the corporate world while his wife accepted nearly $200,000 when she left the college. In a phone interview Wednesday, Jane Sanders defended her payout, saying it was a paid year of sabbatical contractually due her, and standard practice in academia.” [VT Digger, 9/17/14]  O’Meara Sanders Refused To Seek A Buyout Of Her Contract But She Took A Year Of Sabbatical As Part Of Her “Presidential Parachute.” According to Seven Days, “The board said Sanders, who earns more than $165,000 a year, will get a yearlong sabbatical as part of her presidential parachute. During that time, she'll research, advise and consult with the college on fundraising, site development and other matters as needed. Her current contract was good through the end of 2013. […]Unlike outgoing University of Vermont president dan fogel, Sanders did not ask for a multiyear severance package. ‘I told the board I wouldn't seek or accept a buyout of the contract,’ Sanders told Fair Game. ‘We're a small school, and we can't afford that.’” [Seven Days, 9/28/11-10/5/11] 2011: O’MEARA SANDERS RESIGNED FROM BURLINGTON COLLEGE ADMIST SPECULATION SHE CONFLICTED WITH THE BOARD 2004: Sanders Was Named President Of Burlington College. According to Bloomberg Politics, “In 2004, Jane [Sanders] was named president of Burlington College, a small, alternative school in Burlington, Vermont. Burlington began in 1972 as the Vermont Institute of Community Involvement, a place to educate non-traditional college-aged students like Vietnam war veterans—or Jane.” [Bloomberg Politics, 5/12/12] 2011: Sanders Resigned In The Wake Of Speculation That Conflicts With The Board Of Directors Strained Their Relationship. According to WCAX, “The president of Burlington College is stepping down, after months of speculation that disagreements had strained her relationship with the board of directors. Monday night, both outgoing President Jane Sanders and students said they're relieved that a final decision has been made, and all parties say they think it's the right move for the school. In 2004, the Burlington College board of directors hired Sanders as their new president. Monday, after seven years, she tendered her resignation. Board-members congratulated her on a successful move to a new campus, and the expansion of academic studies. […]Sanders resignation will take effect in mid-October and shouldn't affect student studies in the short term.” [WCAX, 9/26/11]  O’Meara Sanders Refused To Discuss The Reason For Her Resignation, The Reason For Which Remained A “State Secret.” According to Seven Days, “At the time, she and board members publicly maintained that her departure was entirely voluntary, though they privately admitted relations had soured in the preceding months. Things came to a head in late September, when the board added ‘Removal of the President’ to a meeting agenda. After submitting her letter of resignation, O'Meara Sanders told Seven Days simply, ‘I feel it's a good time to leave.’ To this day, the reason for her exit remains a state secret. She declined requests for an interview on the subject, and the Sanders campaign refused to comment. ‘Her departure is kind of kept under seal. I have no idea. None,’ maintains Pomerleau Real Estate senior vice president YVES Bradley, who joined the board in 2013 and now serves as its chair. ‘It's just not talked about.’” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15]  Lloyd Said That O’Meara Sanders’ Resignation Also Followed “An Incident Where She Spoke Rudely To Some Students.” According to Seven Days, “According to Lloyd, O'Meara Sanders' departure was prompted by fundraising woes, but also by ‘an incident where she spoke rudely to some students.’ No other board member would speak on the record about the alleged incident, but one person purportedly involved says the president ‘blew up’ at two staff members and a student during a tour of the new campus, prompting a staff member to file a grievance with the board.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] Sanders Faced Scrutiny Over Her Fundraising Ability But She Defended Her Record Saying That The College Had Secured About $2.1 Million In Commitments While She Was President. WCAX reported, “Some board members reportedly had concerns about Sanders fundraising abilities, however, she says critiques that she was a poor fundraiser are baseless. Sanders said they've ‘done phenomenally well’ in that regard since she became president, securing about $2.1 million in commitments.” [WCAX, 9/26/11] 58  Burlington College Board Member Robin Lloyd Said: “We Felt That [O’Meara Sanders’] Connection Bernie Would Be Helpful, Certainly In Terms Of Fundraising” But She Did Not Come Through. According to Seven Days, “Burlington activist ROBIN LLOYD, who served on the board, says she supported O'Meara Sanders' hiring, in part, because, ‘We felt that her connection with Bemie would be helpful, certainly in terms of fundraising.’ But when the college had to come up with the cash to make its payments, O'Meara Sanders didn't pull through, she says. ‘She was very confident and gave good presentations to the board, but, frankly, she didn't raise money,’ Lloyd says.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] SANDERS WAS CRITICIZED AFTER HIS WIFE TOOK A GOLDEN PARACHUTE Sanders Was Accused Of Hypocrisy In An Ad After His Wife Accepted A “Golden Parachute” From Burlington College While He Criticized Golden Parachutes For Wealthy Executives. According to WCAX, “A political attack ad is about to run, slamming a Vermont candidate who is not up for election this year. A Shelburne businessman and former George W. Bush appointee paid for the commercial, which calls Sen. Bernie Sanders, IVermont, a hypocrite. Sanders has criticized excessive bonuses and severance packages on Wall Street in recent years. The ad due to start running on WCAX asks Sanders to return hundreds of thousands of dollars it argues amounts to a golden parachute for his wife. Sanders is a frequent critic of the United States' wealthiest citizens. In an attack ad scheduled to be released Thursday, Sanders is accused of hypocrisy. The ad includes a snippet of a Sanders' speech, in which he says, ‘They're able to manipulate a rigged system, tax breaks for them sending American Jobs all over the world, getting golden parachutes.’ The ad alleges Sanders' wife, Jane, the former president of cash-strapped Burlington College, received a golden parachute of her own. […] Shelburne businessman Skip Vallee spent $10,000 to purchase about a week's worth of airtime on WCAX. He says he wants viewers to call Sanders and demand the college's money back.” [WCAX, 9/17/14] Shelburne Businessman Skip Vallee Who Paid For The Ad Said: “Bernie Has Consistently Said That These Golden Parachutes Should Not Be Allowed To Happen And I Think He Should Back Up His Rhetoric And Give The Money Back.” According to WCAX, “Shelburne businessman Skip Vallee spent $10,000 to purchase about a week's worth of airtime on WCAX. He says he wants viewers to call Sanders and demand the college's money back. ‘Bernie has consistently said that these golden parachutes should not be allowed to happen and I think he should back up his rhetoric and give the money back,’ Vallee said. ‘There's no question that this is the ultimate of hypocrisy.’” [WCAX, 9/17/14] O’Meara Sanders Beleaguered Tenure as Burlington College WHILE O’MEARA SANDERS WAS PRESIDENT, BURLINGTON COLLEGE PAID HER DAUGHTER’S BUSINESS MORE THAN $55,000 IN 2009 2009: Burlington College Paid More Than $55,000 To The Vermont Woodworking School, A Business CoFounded And Run By O’Meara Sanders’ Daughter Carina Driscoll, As Part Of A Craftsmanship Degree. According to Seven Days, “In addition to the Andros Beach Club expenditure, the school's 2009 IRS form also listed paying more than $55,000 to the Vermont Woodworking School, a business cofounded and run by Burlington College president Jane Sanders' daughter CARINA DRISCOLL. We note that this year, Burlington College announced a new bachelor of fine arts in craftsmanship and de-sign via the woodworking school, which is based in Fairfax. Go figure.” [Seven Days, 9/28/11] Vallee Questioned Burlington Colleges Relationship With For-Profit Vermont Woodworking School (CoFounded By Her Daughter) After They Partnered Together While O’Meara Sanders Was College President. According to Seven Days, “Vallee also questions Burlington College's affiliation with the for-profit, Fairfax-based Vermont Woodworking School, which Driscoll cofounded and runs. Though it was arranged under O'Meara Sanders' reign, a 2011 evaluation by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges found that the motherdaughter ‘relationship is clear to all constituents, from the Board on down to the faculty’ and that measures had been taken to avoid conflicts of interest. Driscoll declined to comment, as did the Sanders campaign, though last fall spokesman MICHAEL BRIGGS called Vallee ‘pathetic’ and a ‘junior varsity version of the Koch brothers.’” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] O’MEARA SANDERS BROKED A RISKY AND POTENTIALLY FRAULENT LAND PURCHASE THAT NEARLY BANKRUPTEC THE COLLEGE 59 2010: O’Meara Sanders Convinced Burlington College Board Members To Buy A 32 Acre-Parcel Of Land That Required The College To Borrow $10 Million. According to Seven Days, “A year and a half earlier, in May 2010, O'Meara Sanders had convinced board members to buy one of Burlington's premier properties: a 32-acre stretch of mostly undeveloped land between Lake Champlain and North Avenue. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington had been eager to sell off the parcel to pay a $20 million settlement related to sexual abuse allegations. ‘She was the one who really sought that out, dealt with the diocese right from the get-go and was very aggressive about doing so,’ says board member PATRICK mahoney, a retired orthopedic surgeon from South Burlington. ‘I thought she did a very good job.’ But in order to finance the new campus, Burlington College had to borrow $10 million - $6.5 million in tax-exempt bonds held by People's United Bank and another $3.5 million loan from the diocese itself. Even proponents of the deal say it was a stretch.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15]  Redstone Commercial Groups Had Estimated That The Property Was Worth About $6 Million. According to Seven Days, “An unlikely buyer beat them to it: Burlington College, under the leadership of then-president Jane Sanders, took on $10 million in debt to acquire the 32-acre parcel in 2010. Erik Hoekstra of Redstone Commercial Group, who had been among the interested developers, estimated the property was worth roughly $6 million at the time. ‘When I heard that Burlington College was buying it for a number way north of that, I was baffled,’ Hoekstra recalled during a recent interview in his College Street office.” [Seven Days, 11/5/1411/12/14] SOME DOUBTED THE COLLEGE COULD AFFORD THE PROJECT Two Vermont Education & Health Buildings Financing Agency Board Members Disapproved Of A Tax Exempt Loan For Burlington College To Build New Campus. According to Vermont Watchdog, “While borrowing millions to build a campus on Lake Champlain may have sounded like a good idea at the time to leaders at Burlington College, two board members at the agency tasked with approving the tax-exempt loan said no way. ‘One board member thought the property could be put to better use than being used as a college campus, and the other board member questioned the college’s viability and whether they would be able to repay the debt,’ Robert Giroux, executive director of the Vermont Educational and Health Buildings Financing Agency, told Vermont Watchdog.” [Vermont Watchdog, 8/29/14] Two VEHBFA Did Not Think That Burlington College Had Enough Money To Afford The Project. According to Vermont Watchdog, “’It did seem Burlington College didn’t have the wherewithal to put this thing together. I didn’t think it was ready for prime time,’ Tom Pelham, one of two agency board members who voted against the loan, told Vermont Watchdog. […] Charly Dickerson, the other VEHBFA board member who voted against the loan, said he doubted the college could afford the new campus. ‘I didn’t think at the time that the college had a strong enough balance sheet to be able to assume such a project. That’s why I voted against it,’ Dickerson said.” [Vermont Watchdog, 8/29/14]  VEHBFA Board Member: “I Did Think If This Wasn’t Jane Sanders, It Probably Wouldn’t Be Going As Far As It Did.” According to Vermont Watchdog, “[VEHBFA board member Tom] Pelham said the speed of the sale was suspicious as well. […] ’The property was on the market for less than a month as I recall — it was on the market for a very short period of time. It was one of the most extraordinary pieces of vacant property in the state,’ he said. ‘… I did think if this wasn’t Jane Sanders, it probably wouldn’t be going as fast as it did.’” [Vermont Watchdog, 8/29/14] Daily Caller Alleged That O’Meara Sanders “May Have Defrauded” A State Agency By Falsifying The Amount Of Pledged Donations In Order To Satisfy A Loan Requirement. “Perhaps more damaging than the TV ad was a March 2015 story in the Daily Caller, a conservative news outlet, which alleged that O'Meara Sanders ‘may have defrauded’ a state agency when Burlington College borrowed money to finance its expansion. Couched in the conditional, the story questioned the discrepancy between the $2.6 million the college listed in pledged donations in its December 2010 loan application and the $1.3 million it listed in an audit the following summer. The allegation, bolstered by attorney and Fox News talking head jonna spilbor, was that O'Meara Sanders cooked the books in order to satisfy a loan requirement that Burlington College show at least $2.27 million in pledged contributions.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] The College’s Loan Application Stated That It Had Two $1 Million Gifts Coming In But O’Meara Sanders Said She Learned Later Than One Of The Gifts Was A Bequest, Meaning The School Could Not Count On Having Soon. Seven Days reported, “In its application to the state agency — the Vermont Educational and Health Buildings 60 Financing Agency — the school promised that ‘one gift of $1-million has been committed and another $1-million has been verbally pledged.’ Years later, in August 2014, O'Meara Sanders' successor told WCAX she had belatedly learned that one of those pledges was actually a bequest, meaning the school couldn't count on it anytime soon.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15] Seven Days: “Other Critics Question Whether She Was Responsible For The School’s Near-Demise LastYear, When The Cash-Strapped College Found Itself Struggling To Meet Payroll.” According to Seven Days, “Other critics question whether she was responsible for the school's near-demise last year, when the cash-strapped college found itself struggling to meet payroll. They say she over-leveraged the institution by borrowing $10 million to finance a risky campus expansion, assuming she could make payments by increasing enrollment and donations during an economic downturn.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] SOME SUGGESTED BERNIE SANDERS’S PRESUMED CONNECTIONS BIASED THE PERCEIVED VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT Burlington College Received A $500,000 Bridge Loan From “Real Estate Magnate” Tony Pomerleau Who Made The Loan “In Support Of Both The College And Its Then-President, Jane Sanders.” The Burlington Free Press report, “$500,000 in the form of a "bridge loan" from real estate magnate and philanthropist Tony Pomerleau. This was money for basic work on the diocese building to allow the college to move in and begin using it. Pomerleau said last week that he made the loan in support of both the college and its then-president, Jane Sanders, who orchestrated the purchase. ‘It wouldn't have happened without Jane,’ Pomerleau said. ‘In my mind, she did a tremendous job.’” [Burlington Free Press, 8/16/14] Burlington Free Press: “Pomerleau Is Also An Old Friend Of Sanders’ Husband, Having Been One Of The Few Local Developers To Back Bernie Sanders As A Candidate For Mayor Of Burlington In 1981.” The Burlington Free Press reported, “Pomerleau is also an old friend of Sanders' husband, having been one of the few local developers to back Bernie Sanders as a candidate for mayor of Burlington in 1981. When Sanders won election, Pomerleau recalled proudly, ‘I was the first one to congratulate him.’ As for his loan, the college has not repaid it. ‘Maybe some interest,’ Pomerleau said. The due date for payment in full has been pushed forward a year, to Dec. 31.” [Burlington Free Press, 8/16/14] Former Reported For Vermont Digger Said That “The Reason Everybody Felt It Was Safe To Do This Is Because With Bernie And The Connections He Has, And Tony And The Connections He Has, How Could It Fail?” According to the Daily Caller, “Greg Guma, who covered Burlington’s growing financial difficulties as a reporter for the Vermont Digger and recently ran an unsuccessful campaign for mayor of Burlington, told The DCNF that the deal was plagued by excessive optimism from the beginning, thanks to the involvement of influential figures including Jane Sanders and Tony Pomerleau, a real estate developer who provided a $500,000 bridge loan to facilitate the transaction. ‘Jane was president, Pomerleau was the broker of the sale who convinced Jane it was something she should do, and the reason everybody felt it was safe to do this is because with Bernie and the connections he has, and with Tony and the connections he has, how could it fail?’ ‘Pomerleau is known as the ‘godfather of retail shopping centers’ in Vermont,” Guma noted, ‘and that was probably enough for the bank.’” [Daily Caller, 3/26/15] 61 Using His Position to Benefit Family O’MEARA SANDERS WORKED FOR FREE AS SANDERS’S CHIEF OF STAFF O’Meara Sanders Worked In Her Husband’s Congressional Office For Five Years In A Volunteer Capacity. According to Seven Days, “After he won a seat in the U.S. House in 1990, O'Meara Sanders spent five years working in a voluntary capacity in his congressional office. According to her Linkedln page, she served during that period as ‘press secretary, chief of staff or policy analyst as needed.’” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN PAID HIS WIFE AND STEPDAUGHTER $95,000 IN 2002 & 2004 Maplefields Owner Skip Vallee Hit Sanders’ Campaign For Paying O’Meara Sanders $30,000 For Campaign Work And Paying His Step-Daughter Carina Driscoll $65,002 For He Work As His Campaign Manager. According to Seven Days, “The Maplefields owner [Skip Vallee] also criticizes O'Meara Sanders and her daughter, CARINA DRISCOLL, for their paid work, more than a decade ago, on Sanders' reelection campaigns. In addition to the $30,000 O'Meara Sanders made, Driscoll earned $65,002 for her work as campaign manager, fundraiser and database manager during the 2000 and 2004 cycles, the Reformer reported. Vallee calls the payments ‘a moneylaundering scheme’ designed ‘to take campaign money and put it in your own bank account,’ noting that the House subsequently voted to ban the practice. Weaver defended the arrangement at the time, saying, ‘They earned every penny they got.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] Opponent Richard Tarrant’s Campaign Called Out Sanders’ Campaign For Paying His Wife And Stepdaughter $95,000 To Work On His Earlier Campaigns. According to the Hotline, “IDX Systems Corp. chair Richard Tarrant's (R) campaign ‘has resurrected news stories’ revealing that Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders -- a former professional media buyer -- was paid $30K for working on Sanders' '02/'04 campaigns and his step-daughter, Carina Driscoll, had been paid about $65K over a 5-year period. Tarrant manager Tim Lennon: ‘Far more than a spouse wanting to help a spouse, it's a politician using their office to get wealthy and using their spouse as the agent to do it.’” [Hotline, 5/2/06]  O’Meara Sanders Earned About $30,000 Working As An Ad Buyer For Sanders’ 2002 And 2004 Elections. According to Seven Days, “And when the congressman was up for reelection, O'Meara Sanders worked as his television ad buyer, earning roughly $30,000 in commissions during the 2002 and 2004 elections, the Brattleboro Reformer re-ported at the time.” [Seven Days, 6/17/15-6/24/15] Republicans Alleged That Sanders “Has Personally Benefited From Serving In Public Office” By Paying His Wife For Ad Buys In 2002 And 2004. Roll Call reported, “Republicans in Vermont and Washington, D.C., are trying to use an issue that has hurt some of their own officeholders in the past to allege that Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has personally benefited from serving in public office. Sanders, who is seeking the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.), is fighting back, saying that his likely Republican opponent, millionaire businessman Richard Tarrant, is lying. The Tarrant campaign has resurrected news stories revealing that Sanders' wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders - a former professional media buyer - was paid $30,000 for working on Sanders' 2002 and 2004 House campaigns and his step-daughter, Carina Driscoll, had been paid about $65,000 over a five-year period.” [Roll Call, 5/2/06] Vermont Republican Committee Chairman Jim Barnett Questioned Whether O’Meara Sanders Was Paid, Saying It “Appears To Be A Form Of Self-Dealing.” The Brattleboro Reformer reported, “Jim Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Committee, questioned whether Sanders' wife was paid, saying it ‘appears to be a form of self-dealing.’” [Brattleboro Reformer, 4/11/06] Sanders Called A Newspaper Report Highlighting Campaign Payments To His Wife And Step Daughter “A Lie” Despite FEC Reports Outlining The Payments. According to the Brattleboro Reformer, “Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., refuted a Wednesday newspaper report that highlighted his payments to family members for campaign-related work. The report, which cited Federal Election Commission documents filed by Sanders' campaign committee between 2000 and 2004, outlined payments of about $156,000 to the lawmaker's wife and stepdaughter. The payments are allowed under law. Sanders' staff said a total of about $95,000 was paid to his wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders, and stepdaughter, Carina Driscoll, as consulting fees and wages. About $61,000 of the $156,000 was applied to the purchase of television and radio advertising time, Chief of Staff Jeff Weaver said in 62 an interview Tuesday. ‘Your story was a lie, and I don't talk to people who lie,’ Sanders told the Brattleboro Reformer Thursday before entering a committee hearing on Capitol Hill.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 4/15/05] Sanders’ Chief Of Staff Said That Sanders’ Wife And Daughter Were Qualified For The Work They Did. Accoexrding to the Associated Press State & Local Wire, “Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees. […]Weaver argued that both Jane O'Meara Sanders and her daughter Carina were well qualified for the work they did. ‘Both Jane and Carina are widely respected for their work in politics and public service in Vermont,’ he said.” [Associated Press State & Local Wire, 4/13/05] Executive Director Of The Center For Responsive Politics: “Anytime You Pay A Family Member There’s Going To Be Questions Raised.” According to the Brattleboro Reformer, “No laws prohibit candidates from paying family members for campaign work. But the appearance that law-makers use their position to benefit people close to them concerns watchdog groups. ‘Anytime you pay a family member there's going to be questions raised,’ said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group in Washington.” [Brattleboro Reformer, 4/13/05] SANDERS’S SON WORKED AS A CONSULTANT TO HIS SENATE CAMPAIGN Levi Sanders Served As A Consultant To Sanders’ Senate Campaign. According to his LinkedIn profile, Levi Sanders served as a consultant to the Bernie Sanders for Senate Campaign from January 2006 to September 2007. He “Organized and facilitated campaign meetings and fundraising activities for successful Vermont Senate campaign” and “drafted position papers on Social Security, health care, housing, welfare reform, nutrition and other social service issues.” [Levi Sanders LinkedIn, accessed 7/29/15] Pay to Play SANDERS ACCEPTED THOUSANDS IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AMERICAN CHRYSTAL SUGAR WHICH LOBBIED ON THE FARM BILL TO PROTEC THE SUGAR INDUSTRY Sanders Accepted $14,000 From American Crystal Sugar. According to the Sunlight Foundation, Sanders accepted $14,000 from American Crystal Sugar accumulated during three separate years: 2005, 2006, and 2012. [Sunlight Foundation, Influence Explorer, accessed 7/28/15] 2012: American Crystal Sugar Spent $1.3 Million On Lobbying The Federal Government. According Open Secrets, American Crystal Sugar spent $1,315,602 on lobbying the federal government. [Open Secrets, accessed 7/20/15] Part Of Debate Over 2012 Farm Bill Extended To Disagreement Over Whether Or Not To Extend Restrictions On How Much Sugar Could Be Imported And Sold In The U.S. According to the U.S. News & World Report, “Sugar seldom fails to sweeten the deal, but the exception might be the 2012 farm bill. The fight over sucrose is seeping into congressional offices across the Hill, as lobbying firms on both sides sweet talk lawmakers and their staffs. The disagreement is over whether or not to extend the U.S. sugar program, which restricts how much sugar can be imported from overseas and sold in the United States. […]In 2012, the sugar growing and production lobbies have poured more than $2.1 million into influencing legislators, according to Open Secrets. American Crystal Sugar, a leading lobbying group, has spent $951,300 alone over the last year.” [U.S. News & World Report, 6/8/12] SANDERS VOTED MULTIPLE TIMES TO EXTEND THE SUGAR PROGRAM 2012: Senate Approved S. 3240 A Farm Bill That Would Have Continued Existing Sugar Programs. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Earlier in 2012, the Senate approved a farm bill (S. 3240) that would have continued existing sugar program authorities.” [Congressional Research Service, Sugar Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, 3/21/14]  Sanders Voted In Favor Of S. 3240, Which Passed 64-39. According to GovTrack, Sanders voted in favor of S. 3240, which passed 64-39. [GovTrack, Vote on S. 3240 (112th), 6/21/12] Senate Rejected S.Amdt 2393 Which Would Have Phased Out The Sugar Program In Three Years. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Earlier in 2012, the Senate approved a farm bill (S. 3240) that would have 63 continued existing sugar program authorities. Two floor amendments offered to change the Senate Agriculture Committee-reported measure were defeated. S.Amdt. 2393 (tabled, or rejected, on a 50-46 vote) would have phased out the program within three years.” [Congressional Research Service, Sugar Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, 3/21/14]  Sanders Voted To Table S.Amdt 2393, Which Passed 50-46. According to GovTrack, Sanders voted to table S.Amdt 2393, which passed 50-46. [GovTrack, Vote on S.Amdt. 2393, 5/24/12] Senate Defeated S.Amdt 2433 Which “Would Have Reverted Most Program Authorities To Those In Effect Prior To The 2008 Farm Bill Changes And Would Have Repealed The Sugar-To-Ethanol Program.” According to the Congressional Research Service, “S.Amdt. 2433 (defeated on a 46-53 vote) would have reverted most program authorities to those in effect prior to the 2008 farm bill changes and would have repealed the sugar-toethanol program.” [Congressional Research Service, Sugar Provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, 3/21/14]  Sanders Voted Against S.Amdt 2433, Which Was Defeated 46-53. According to GovTrack, Sanders voted against S.Amdt 2433, which was defeated 46-53. [GovTrack, Vote on S.Amdt. 2433, 6/20/12] …BUT OPPOSED EFFORTS PREVIOUSLY Sanders Supported An Amendment Effectively Ending A Non-Recourse Loan Program For Sugar. On July 24, 1997, Bernie Sanders supported a Rep. Miller, R-Fla., amendment to prohibit the use of funds in the bill to pay the salaries and expenses of Department of Agriculture personnel who issue non-recourse loans to sugar beet or sugar cane processors, effectively ending the non-recourse loan program for sugar. Rejected 175-253: R 103-120; D 71-133; I 1-0. A majority of House Democrats opposed the proposal. [H R 2160, Vote #312, 7/24/97; CQ Floor Votes, 7/24/97] Cronyism SANDERS INTENDED TO CHANGE CRONYISM IN BURLINGTON Sanders Said “There Has Been Far Too Much Cronyism At City Hall…I Intend To Change That.” “It is no secret that, in the past, there has been far too much cronyism in in City Hall – and that people outside of a small inner circle have not been involved in the decision making processes as much as they should have been. I intend to change that.” [Sanders Speech, 1981] BUT HE STAFFED CITY HALL WITH HIS FRIENDS Burlington Free Press Editorial: “Sanders Staffs Empire In City Hall With Friends” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/3/83] Free Press Editorial: “For A Man Who Once Proclaimed Himself An Enemy Of Patronage, Mayor Bernard Sanders Has Done A Remarkable Turnabout On The Issue”. “For a man who once proclaimed himself an enemy of a patronage, Mayor Bernard Sanders has done a remarkable turnabout on the issue in a relatively short time”. [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/3/83] Free Press Editorial: Sanders Created Seven New City Hall Jobs “In A Matter Of Weeks”, Including The Position Of Head Of The Youth Office Which Was Given To Future Wife Jane Driscoll. “But it was not until this year that Sanders began a more ambitious program to fatten his staff. In a matter of weeks, he created seven new jobs in City Hall. Perhaps the most controversial position was that of head of the Youth Office, a job which was given to Jane Driscoll, a close friend and companion of the mayor”. [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/3/83] Free Press Editorial: “What Emerges Is The Picture Of A Mayor Who Is Busily Building An Empire In City Hall And Staffing It With Several Of His Friends”. “What emerges is the picture of a mayor who is busily building an empire in City Hall and staffing it with several of his friends. The costs, of course, will be borne by the same city taxpayers for whom Sanders has shed copious crocodile tears in the past. The salary tab for the new positions will be about $130,000, excluding fringe benefits”. [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 7/3/83] 64 Sanders Took Burlington Aldermen To Court Over Their Reluctance To Confirm His City Hall Appointees. “The mayor insisted he could not accomplish the goals of his administration unless he could appoint his political allies to the key positions in city government. When he took the board to court last year, he said he felt the issue of the mayor’s appointment powers should be settled in the courts. But Monday night he said he would drop the case even though the legal question of the appointment powers of the mayor has not been resolved. ‘You go to court to fight in what you believe in. We have no case,’ Sanders said. ‘The courts are not a law school to decide academic questions,’ he said, adding they are there to decide ‘real problems.’” [“Sanders’ Appointees Approved”, 4/13/82] Burlington Free Press: “Mayor Bernard Sanders Named A Half Dozen ‘Philosophically Attuned’ Political Friends To Key Posts In Burlington City Hall”. “Mayor Bernard Sanders named a half dozen ‘philosophically attuned’ political friends to key posts in Burlington City Hall Friday, touching off a wave of political bickering”. [Burlington Free Press, 5/30/81] Sanders Said His City Hall Nominees Share His Political Views. “The mayor said he had been elected to bring about ‘serious change,’ and to accomplish that he needs people ‘in tune with the kind of change I want to bring about. I need a team around me.’ Sanders said he is aware his plans could result in ‘bitter feelings,’ but the decisions were made ‘for the betterment of the city.’ He called his nominees ‘extremely well-qualified,’ and said they share his political views.” [Burlington Free Press, 5/30/81] Former Burlington Assistant Clerk Andrew Sullivan Said Sanders Was Politicizing City Hall Posts. “Sullivan, 47, questioned how somebody whose job deals with day-to-day paper work and administering records and files could help shape city policy. He said the mayor is elected to guide the city and that making policy is not listed in the job description for assistant city clerk. ‘This is not a political office,’ Sullivan said A former insurance investigator and real estate dealer, Sullivan complained that the mayor is trying to turn his post into a political plum. ‘When you do things like this, you’re going to have trouble getting people to take these,’ he said. Sanders’ plan could lead to a revolving door for appointed officials after every mayoral election, he said.” [Burlington Free Press, 5/30/81] 1983: Board Of Aldermen Voted To Approve A $20,890 Salary For The “Mayor’s Personal Friend”, Jane Driscoll, To Run The Mayor’s Youth Office. “The Burlington Board of Aldermen, on a 9-4 vote, approved Mayor Bernard Sanders’ proposed $14.7 million budget early this morning, with minor changes […] Also approved was a $20,890 salary for the mayor’s personal friend, Jane Driscoll, to run the Mayor’s Youth Office. An amendment offered by Alderman Diane Gallagher, R-Ward 6, to advertise for the position of office coordinator was rejected.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/28/83] Free Press: “The Mayor’s Proposed Salaries For Kraft And Driscoll…Came Under Heavy Attack”. “The mayor’s proposed salaries for Kraft and Driscoll, both of whom have worked as volunteers for two years, came under heavy attack. Mahoney complained that inserting line items in the budget for specific people violates the spirit of fair hiring practices. He accused the mayor of ‘abuse of the spoils system and abuse of the taxpayers’ money for political payola.’” [Burlington Free Press, 6/28/83] LTE: “Sanders And His Progressive Coalition Have Become Increasingly Angered By Any Opposition To Their Proposals And Ideals”. “In the past few months, Mayor Sanders and his Progressive Coalition have become increasingly angered by any opposition to their proposals and ideals. They seem to feel they are the only people who have the best interests of Burlington at heart and so should be the only spokesmen. They caustically refer to the Republicans and Democrats on the Board of Alderman as ‘obstructionists’ if they fail to support Coalition proposals”. [Jeanne M. Popecki, Letter To The Editor, 7/14/15] As Mayor, Sanders He Tried To Replace Well Regarded City Employees With Campaign Workers and Acquaintances. “The Democrat-controlled Board of Aldermen voted 11-2 Monday against Sanders' plan to replace some longtime city employees, whose terms expire next month, with his own appointees. But Sanders, who defeated a five-term Democratic incumbent in March, said at a news conference that he won't accept the vote. […] ‘We are going to fight this tooth and nail and we are going to prevail,’ he added. ‘I'm not going to be stopped.’ The mayor accused the board's Democrats of ganging up on him before Monday's meeting and deciding to vote against his plan, which he said would end the cronyism he said existed in city government during the previous administration. […] Sanders wants to replace City Treasurer F. Lee Austin, City Clerk Frank Wagner and several other longtime city employees. He has nominated his former campaign adviser, Jennie Stoler, as city treasurer, and 65 John Franco Jr., a county public defender, for the post of city clerk. Other nominees are Sanders' former campaign workers or acquaintances.” [Associated Press, 9/01/81] Sanders Believed That He Had The “Right To Choose” Like-Minded Political Appointees. “There was a split over the issue of political appointees – Stephany and Gilson argued the best qualified person should be selected over the choice of a mayor while Sanders retorted a mayor has the ‘right to choose’ people in agreement with his own political platform to enable a cooperative administration.” [Vermont Cynic, 2/17/83] Peter Clavelle’s Appointment As Director Of Economic Development Office Was Questioned Because He Had Written The Job Description. “The appointment of Peter Clavelle, former Winooski city manager and Burlington’s personnel director, to the job of city economic development director this week by the alderman is a case in point. That Clavelle, as personnel director, wrote the job description for the post might not have been improper – if he had not ultimately gotten the appointment. But it was commonly known before the description was written and the post advertised that Clavelle was the principal candidate for the job. Under those circumstances, it should not be surprising that several aldermen raised questions about his role in writing the job description.” [Unknown Newspaper, 7/21/83] Sanders Denied That The Position Had Been “Greased” For Clavelle. “Even though Mayor Bernard Sanders’ allies in City Hall saw nothing wrong with the situation and the mayor denied the post had been ‘greased’ for Clavelle, nagging doubts are bound to remain in the minds of some aldermen and people of the city about the wisdom of allowing Clavelle to draw up the job description.” [Unknown Newspaper, 7/21/83] Alderman Robert Paterson Acknowledged That There Was “A Little Bit Of A Conflict Of Interest” In The Hiring Of Peter Clavelle To Oversee The Community And Economic Development Office. “Sanders set up a five-member committee to screen applicants for the job and advertised it in Vermont and in newspapers outside the state, including the Boston Globe and New York Times. About 150 people applied, and the committee pared the list to eight. Clavelle was the unanimous choice. Jonathan Leopold Jr., city treasurer, acknowledged Clavelle wrote the job description, but said it was so general it applied to any qualified contender. ‘There is a little bit of a conflict of interest,’ said [Alderman Robert] Paterson, who said Leopold and Clavelle are friends.” [Burlington Free Press, 7/19/83] Sanders Admitted It Was A Mistake To Praise The City Hall Employees He Wanted To Replace. “Sander acknowledged that he erred in making a point of praising the people he wants to replace. At a news conference last Friday, Sanders said the people he was firing are competent and hardworking.” [Burlington Free Press, 6/3/81] Independent Coalition: “Too Many Decisions Are Made By A Small Group Of Sanders' Friends, And Those Outside Of The Sanders Circle Are Not Involved.” “Too many decisions are made by a small group of Sanders' friends, and those outside of the Sanders circle are not involved. Now the city must organize to meet the needs of our neighborhoods.” [Independent Coalition endorsement of Judy Stephany for Mayor, undated] Sanders’s “Inner Circle” Of Decision Makers Were Exclusively Male. “Sanders was asked how his record on the appointment of women to key government positions compared to Gov. Madeleine Kunin’s (her’s is outstanding; the reporter observed too that Sanders’ key appointees are male.) The mayor ticked off what he considered to be the accomplishments of his administration in meeting the needs of women. He also spoke of the growth of city spending for day care as compared to state spending. Another reporter tried for a more direct response; she noted that Sanders “inner circle” of decision markers is exclusively male. Only slightly ruffled by the comment, Sanders said his record compared favorably to the “previous (city) administration,” and assured the reporters women would be involved in his gubernatorial campaign.” [Unknown, 5/16/86] In Two Years As Mayor, Sanders Had “Wiped The [Slate] Clean” In City Hall By Removing Holdover Appointees And Developing Third Party Aldermen Support. “Sanders has come a long way since his 1981 victory when he had support from just two aldermen. With five board supporters – four Citizens Party members and one independent – he has veto power over the board, meaning nothing gets done in the city unless there are negotiations among the three factions and compromises are struck for the seven votes necessary to approve any ordinance. The mayor has wiped the slate [clean] in City Hall, getting rid of [many] holdover appointees from Paquette’s regime and putting in his own loyalists. In solidifying control of government, the left-wing former Liberty Union Party member has been able to put in his own programs.” [Burlington Free Press, 9/6/83] 66 Sanders Was Criticized By Opponents For Hiring His Campaign Manager As The Mayor’s Administrative Aide. “Early starters include Aldermen Joyce Desautels, board president until this month, and Maurice Mahoney, Both are Ward 1 Democrats who supported Gordon Paquette this year. Mahoney has set himself off as one of Mayor Bernard Sanders' chief opponents. He, more than other aldermen, criticized Sanders over the hiring of Linda Niedweske, Sanders' campaign manager, as the mayor's administrative aide.” [Burlington Free Press, 4/26/81] Sanders’ Opponents Argued That Cronyism Was Rampant In City Hall, That His Environmental Record Left A Lot To Be Desired, And That He Was Responsible For The City’s Fiscal Crisis. “Opponents argue that cronyism is still rampant in City Hall, and that Sanders is responsible for a fiscal crisis in Burlington. Further, they say, his environmental record leaves much to be desired and he is dabbling in areas (foreign policy, cable TV) where city government doesn’t belong.” [Vanguard Press, Vol. IX No. 12, 4/6/86-4/13/86] 67 HYPOCRISY Wall Street SANDERS REPEATEDLY ATTACKS HILLARY CLINTON FOR HER TIES TO WALL STREET Sanders: “Who Is Going To Take On The Corporate Interests And Wall Street And Try To Create A Government That Works For All The People In This Country Rather Than A Small Number Of Billionaires? […] If People Think Hillary Clinton Is That Candidate, Go For It.” CHARLIE ROSE: Anything else that you think she ought to change on that she has not changed on yet? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, yeah. This is what it’s about, Charlie. What it’s about is not just this issue or that issue – I guess she recently came out – you know, I don’t know – a month or two months ago, I came out against private corporations running prisons, and I understand now she’s come out against that as well. The issue is to understand what are the most important problems facing our country, and they are huge. And to me, it comes down to the fact that it’s not just income and wealth inequality. It is not only corporate control over the media. It is not only the fact that we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth. It is not only that we have a campaign finance system which is corrupt. The real issue is who is going to stand up to all of that. Who is going to take on the corporate interests and Wall Street and try to create a government that works for all the people in this country rather than a small number of billionaires? That’s the issue. And if people think Hillary Clinton is that candidate, go for it.” [Interview with Charlie Rose, 10/26/15] Sanders: “There Is One Candidate In This Race Who Is In Fact Prepared To Stand Up To The Billionaire Class, To Wall Street, Corporate America, The Big Money Interests Who Have Running A Rigged Economy And A Corrupt Campaign Finance System.” “CHARLIE ROSE: They should vote for her? BERNIE SANDERS: They should vote for her. CHARLIE ROSE: If they think she will stand up to those -- what you call those establishment interests, then they should vote for her. BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. CHARLIE ROSE: If they don't think she should (sic) stand up, or if they think you would stand taller -- BERNIE SANDERS: I don't think it's about standing taller. You look at my life's work and you look at what I -- my agenda is today, suggests there is one candidate in this race who is in fact prepared to stand up to the billionaire class, to Wall Street, Corporate America, the big money interests who have running a rigged economy and a corrupt campaign finance system.” [Transcripvia Federal News Service, Charlie Rose Show, 10/26/15] BUT SANDERS VOTED FOR THE COMMODITIES FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT Sanders Voted For Conference Report Of Bill That Included Commodity Futures Modernization Act. “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 - Enacts the following measures into law: (1) H.R. 5656 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (2) H.R. 5657 (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (3) H.R. 5658 (Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001), as introduced on December 14, 2000; (4) H.R. 5666 (Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001, with the exception of section 123), as introduced on December 15, 2000; (5) H.R. 5660 (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000), as introduced on December 14, 2000…” [HR 4577, Vote #603, 12/15/00] THE CFMA EXEMPTED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS FROM REGULATION, AND WAS CITED AS A FACTOR IN THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE Commodity Futures Modernization Act Exempted Swaps And Derivatives From Regulation By The CFTC. “The final language, which the public was hardly aware of, contained some new sections not in the original Ewing bill that, for all intents and purposes, exempted swaps and derivatives from regulation by both the CFTC, which had already implemented rules that it would not regulate swaps and derivatives, and the SEC. Also, hidden within the bill was an exemption for energy derivative trading, which would later become known as the “Enron loophole” – this 68 loophole would provide the impetus for Enron’s nose dive into full blown corporate corruption.” [Center for Responsive Politics, 4/1/09] Problems With The Unregulated Market Of Credit Default Swaps Led To The Collapse Of Bear Strearns, Lehman Brothers, And AIG. “Ultimately, while the unregulated market in derivatives and swaps did not cause the economic downturn itself, it was a propellant of the crisis, accelerating the collapses of major financial companies across the globe. As of June 30, 2008, the global derivatives market had exploded to $530 trillion, while credit default swaps had grown from mere insignificance to $55 billion. When the credit crisis and the mortgage meltdown began to take hold, major firms found out the swaps made their investments far riskier than they could handle. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and American International Group (AIG) all collapsed due to problems with the unregulated market of credit default swaps. The major banks were also heavily involved with credit default swaps.” [Center for Responsive Politics, 4/1/09] SANDERS DEFENDED HIS VOTE 2009: Sanders Spokesman Defended Vote For Commodity Futures Modernization Act Because The Defeat Of The Omnibus Spending Bill Would Have “Shut Down The Government.” “Sanders' spokesman Michael Briggs defended the senator's vote, saying that defeat of the $450-billion omnibus spending bill would have "shut down the government." "Unfortunately, in those kinds of situations ... individual members don't always have the choice to pick and choose between different parts of a bill," Briggs said.” [Inside FERC Gas Market Report, 4/3/09] 2008: Sanders Called On Congress To Address The So-Called Enron Loophole, Which Passed As Part Of The Commodities Futures Modernization Act, In Order To End Oil Speculation. “Congress has to also address another area where there is strong evidence that speculators, both in hedge funds and in other financial institutions, are driving the price of oil to outrageously high levels. What we have to address is undoing the so-called Enron loophole. This loophole was created in 2000, as part of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a provision in that bill was inserted in the dark of night with no congressional hearings. Specifically, the Enron loophole exempts electronic energy trading from Federal commodities laws. Virtually overnight the loophole freed over-the-counter energy trading from Federal oversight requirements, opening the door to excessive speculation and energy price manipulation. Of course, nobody knows exactly what the impact of the Enron loophole is. But we do know huge amounts of money are being made, not simply in the production of oil but in driving oil futures prices up.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 4/30/08] Sanders Said Enron Loophole Was Inserted “In The Dark Of Night” At The Behest Of Enron Lobbyists Without Congressional Hearings. “This loophole was created in 2000, as part of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. At the behest of Enron lobbyists, a provision in that bill was inserted in the dark of night with no congressional hearings.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 4/30/08] Sanders Praised Efforts To Close The Enron Loophole To Prevent Price Manipulation And Excessive Speculation Of Oil Prices. “Closing the Enron loophole would subject electronic energy markets to proper regulatory oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prevent price manipulation and excessive speculation. I applaud Senators Levin, Feinstein, Dorgan, and others who have focused on this issue. In addition to an excise profits tax on the oil companies, we must go after the speculation on the part of people within hedge funds and in the financial institutions industry who are simply playing games, making money, and driving the price of oil up. Those are two important steps we must take to lower the price of gas and oil.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 4/30/08] SANDERS BLAMED THE CFMA FOR THE LEHMAN BANKRUPTCY 2008: Sanders Blamed Commodity Futures Modernization Act For Lehman Bankruptcy. “Still, in Professor Cohen's article: How does this relate to Lehman's bankruptcy? "CDSs were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back." When you and I were younger, Mr. President, banks knew the people to whom they made loans. They didn't give a loan to somebody they knew would not be able to pay it back. But that is no longer the case. "The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of Federal oversight...” And it was due to these CDSs that Wall Street held an emergency session yesterday to try to minimize the damage of Lehman's CDSs and other derivatives. Unfortunately, the session did not produce much, thanks to the built-in lack of knowledge of the risks in these 69 transactions that Gramm's legislation ensured. You are going to be reading more and more about CDSs over the months ahead.” [Sanders Remarks, Congressional Record, 9/17/08] 2009: Sanders Blocked Nomination Of CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler In Part For His Role In Clinton Administration Deregulation. “Mr. President, for the past five months, I blocked consideration of the nomination of Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). As a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, I took no pleasure in doing this. But given Mr. Gensler's history as a senior executive of Goldman Sachs for 18 years and the role Mr. Gensler played in deregulating the financial services industry as a senior Treasury Department official from 1999-2001, I did not believe that Mr. Gensler was the right person at the right time to help lead this country out of the financial crisis we are in today.” [Sanders Press Release, 5/19/09] Sanders Was Specifically Concerned About Gensler’s Work On The Commodity Futures Modernization Act. “Gerry Gensler was named the new chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) by a vote of 88-6 this week after Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Maria Cantwell (DWA) withdrew holds they had on his nomination. The senators had concerns regarding Gensler's previous work as an assistant secretary of the Treasury Department under President Clinton, specifically his work on the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act.” [Gas Processors Report, 5/27/09] Sanders Withdrew Hold After Gensler Committed To Specific Reforms Of CFTC. “Sanders and Cantwell expressed doubts that Gensler would be able to lead the CFTC's bid to overhaul the commodities markets. However, Sanders obtained several commitments from Gensler in exchange for removing his hold. These included guiding the CFTC to close the London loophole, which allows traders of U.S. commodities to bypass U.S. regulations and standards when trading on foreign-based exchanges. Congress has already moved to close this loophole, so this commitment is more of a perfunctory pledge.” [Gas Processors Report, 5/27/09] 2013: Sanders Opposed Jack Lew’s Nomination For Treasury Secretary Due In Part To His Support Of Wall Street Deregulation. ““As a supporter of the president, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street. In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person. “We don't need a treasury secretary who thinks that Wall Street deregulation was not responsible for the financial crisis. We need a treasury secretary who will work hard to break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions so that Wall Street cannot cause another massive financial crisis.” [Sanders Press Release, 1/10/13] Jack Lew Was One Of President Clinton’s Top Economic Officials When The Commodity Futures Modernization Act Was Signed. “He was one of the top economic officials in the Clinton administration when the president signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into law that declared all of those "derivative products" exempt from the reach of any existing government regulation or regulatory agency. It was aimed at silencing the warning of Brooksley Born, who, as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to control the burgeoning market in the toxic assets that have carried such a huge human price in foreclosed homes and lost jobs.” [Robert Scheer, Athens Messenger, 1/13/13] Sanders Questioned Lew On Effects Of Deregulation During 2010 Confirmation Hearing. “SANDERS: We are in the midst of a horrendous recession right now; 16 percent of our people are unemployed or underemployed. Clearly the immediate precipitating factor was the collapse on Wall Street. Do you believe that the deregulation of Wall Street pushed by people like Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin contributed significantly to the disaster we saw on Wall Street several years ago? LEW: […] I do not personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I do not believe that deregulation was the proximate cause. I would defer to others who are more expert about the industry to try and parse it better than that.” [Senate Budget Committee Hearing, 9/23/10] 2009: Sanders Co-Sponsored Legislation To Remove A Provision Of The Modernization Act That Exempted Derivative Traders From State Gambling Regulations. “Moving beyond Dodd's proposal, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) also introduced legislation this week that would give state regulators and attorneys general more authority to monitor and crack down on unregulated derivatives trading. Their proposal would remove a provision in the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that exempted derivatives traders from state gambling regulations, a loophole that Cantwell characterized as a contributing factor to the growth of the derivatives market.” [Oil Daily, 11/12/09; S 1682, introduced 9/17/09] 70 1994 Crime Bill SANDERS CAMPAIGN PLANNED TO HIGHLIGHT HILLARY CLINTON’S STATEMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE 1994 CRIME BILL… October 2015: Sanders Campaign Claimed It Was Collecting Hillary’s Statements In Support Of The 1994 Crime To Use Against Her. “At the top of that list her support of the USA Patriot Act, which Sanders has repeatedly opposed. The Sanders camp has also been combing the record of Clinton’s statements in support of the nownotorious 1994 crime bill. Her remarks back then about the evils of urban gangs filled with ‘super-predators’ with ‘no conscience, no empathy’ are unlikely to endear her to the Black Lives Matter movement and other foes of mass incarceration because of its racially disparate impact.” [Bloomberg, 10/28/15] …BUT SANDERS VOTED FOR THE 1994 CRIME BILL… Bernie Sanders Voted For The 1994 Anti-Crime Bill Signed By President Clinton. On August 21, 1994, Bernie Sanders voted yes on House Vote #416. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report to authorize $30.2 billion over six years and to require that all spending authorized by the bill come from a six-year, $30.2 billion crime trust fund realized from eliminating 270,000 federal jobs. The bill would authorize $6.9 billion for crime prevention programs, such as after-school sports leagues and job training programs, $8.8 billion for community policing programs and the hiring of 100,000 new police officers, and a $7.9 billion grant program to build state and local prisons. The bill also would ban 19 specific assault weapons, expand the death penalty to dozens of new federal crimes, mandate life imprisonment without parole for three-time violent felons, provide for community notification of violent sex offenders, allow prior sex offenses to be admitted in federal trials and require HIV testing when requested in federal rape trials. [CQ Floor Votes; House Vote #416, 8/21/1994] …AND SPOKE OUT IN FAVOR OF THE BILL… Sanders Spoke In Support Of The Bill Twice, Supported Increased Funding For Police, Children’s Programs, Addicts And Battered Women. “Sanders spoke in support of the rule and the bill twice Thursday before the vote. He told his colleagues that the nearly $57 million the state would receive during the next six years would mean additional police officers, a variety of children’s programs, help for drug addicts and programs for battered women.” [Gannett News Service via Burlington Free Press, 8/12/94] Sanders Said He Would Vote For The Crime Bill, Despite Opposing Some Provisions, Said That The Crime Control Provisions Outweighed The Negatives. “Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favor of the crime bill today, despite some provisions in it with which I stongly disagree because, on balance, its positive initiatives to control crime outweigh the negatives. But I want to make it clear that in my view, no approach toward crime will be effective if we continue to ignore the poverty, despair and hopelessness which are the root causes of crime.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Sanders Said “The Crime Bill Is Far From Perfect.” “Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, the crime bill is far from perfect, but I'm getting a little bit tired of hearing from some Members who criticize every program that will try to prevent young people from turning to crime, violence, and drugs as pork.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/18/94] Sanders Supported Crime Prevention Provisions Of The Crime Bill And Supported Provisions To “Keep Young People From Turning To Crime, Drugs, And Violence.” “Let me be very clear, I do not consider it as pork or wasteful spending if we are successful in developing approaches which keep young people from turning to crime, drugs, and violence. In fact, I consider that money very well spent and an important investment for the future of this country. Further, when we spend $25,000 a year to keep one prisoner in jail, I consider crime prevention to be very cost effective for the taxpayers, in other words, I would prefer to spend a few hundred million dollars on a program which keeps kids from turning to crime than a hundred times more money keeping those same young persons in jail.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/18/94] Sanders Supported Increased Funding For Police, Drug And Crime Enforcement, Anti-Crime And Children’s Programs In The Crime Bill. “Mr. Speaker, at a time when increased property taxes in Vermont are placing a very painful burden on our citizens, it is absolutely appropriate that the Federal Government play an increased role in 71 helping our communities address the crime problem. Under this legislation the State of Vermont will receive at least $44 million dollars to hire more than 500 new Police officers; $6.5 million for drug and crime enforcement in our most rural areas; $3 million for our cities and towns to use in ways they feel useful, and $1.2 million for a variety of children's programs.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] Sanders Said The Violence Against Women Funding In The Crime Bill Was “Perhaps Most Important To Me.” “Perhaps most important to me, however, this crime bill will provide $8 million dollars to Vermont to allow us to deal with the epidemic of violence against women. In Vermont, there were six women murdered last year, and every single one of them was killed by an abusive spouse or partner-and God only knows how many other women were beaten and assaulted. This bill, through funding for a wide variety of services, will finally allow us to give women the protection that they have long been denied.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] …AND CRITICIZED THOSE WHO OPPOSED IT… Sanders Was Upset That Republicans Tried To Defeat The Crime Bill And Complained They Cared More About Defeating Bill Clinton Than “More Money For Police In Vermont And More Money For Prevention Programs.” “Republicans succeeded Thursday in handing President Clinton a defeat on the anti-crime bill, but Rep. Bernard Sanders said it is the average person who will suffer if Congress can’t salvage the bill. “What upset me is that very clearly on the part of many Republicans, they wanted to give Bill Clinton a defeat,” Sander said. “There are a lot of provisions in this bill I don’t like, but I thought it meant more money for police in Vermont and more money for prevention programs.” He joined 11 Republicans and 198 Democrats in voting for a procedural rule to bring the $30.2 billion measure to the floor for debate and a vote. Fifty-eight Democrats and 167 Republicans, however, voted against it. The 225-210 vote leaves Democrats scrambling to pick up the pieces.” [Gannett News Service via Burlington Free Press, 8/12/94] Sanders Criticized Opponents Who Called The Crime Bill “Pork”, Said That It Would Protect People Against Crime. “But when some of us ask, Why is it that we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world; why is it that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world; why is it that our kids drop out of school; and why is it that we are not feeding hungry kids and providing jobs for our kids and educational opportunities for our kids? They say that is pork. Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities right. Let us protect the people. Let us protect them against crime.” [Rep. Bernard Sanders, Congressional Record, 8/11/94] …AND TOUTED IT ON HIS 2006 SENATE ELECTION WEBSITE Sanders Campaign Website Had A Section Called “BERNIE SANDERS' STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORTING TOUGH ON CRIME LEGISLATION” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders’ Campaign Highlighted All Of Sanders Votes For Increased Funding For Police And Anti-Drug Programs. “SANDERS: STRONG ON FUNDING POLICE AND ANTI-DRUG PROGRAMS Voted for Over $650 Million to Fight Crime. [Vote #104, 4/14/94, H.AMDT.499 on H.R.4092, passed 395-25, Sanders: Y] Voted for $200 Million for Local Police Programs. [Vote #193, 5/26/93, H.R.2244, passed 287-140, Sanders: Y] Voted for $1.8 Billion for Police Officers and $233 Million for Crime Prevention Programs. [Vote #571, 7/25/95, H.R.2076, Sanders: Y] Voted for $30.5 Million for Anti-Drug Program, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program . [Vote #173, 6/20/01, H.R.2216, failed 212-216, Sanders: Y] Voted for $175 Million for Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. [Vote #287, 7/27/01, H.R.2620, failed 197-213, Sanders: Y] Voted for $9 Million for Anti-Drug Program, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. [Vote #343, 6/29/05, H.R.3058, passed 315-103, Sanders: Y]” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders Campaign Highlighted His Support For The COPS Programs, Including His Vote For The Crime Bill That Created The Program. “SANDERS: STRONG ON THE COPS PROGRAM Voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that Created the COPS Program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y] Voted for $7.5 Billion for Cops on the Beat Program . [Vote #124, 2/14/95, H.R.728, failed 196-235, Sanders: Y] Voted for Reauthorization of COPS Program . [Vote #232, 6/17/99, H.R.1501, failed 191-233, Sanders: Y] Voted for $300 Million Increase to $1.3 Billion Total for COPS Program . [Vote #386, 8/5/99, H.R.2670, failed 208-219, Sanders: Y] Voted for $11.7 Million Increase for COPS Meth Seizure Program . [Vote #233, 7/17/01, H.R.2500, failed 187-227, Sanders: Y] Voted for $106.9 Million for the COPS Program. [HR 4754, Vote #330, 7/7/04; CQ Vote Report #330, 7/7/04; Houston Chronicle, 2/3/04; New York Times, 5/25/04; R 74-148; D 131-64; I 1-0] Voted for $200 Million for Local Law Enforcement Including $100 Million for COPS . [Vote #244, 6/14/05, H.R.2862, failed 196-230, Sanders: 72 Y] Voted for $10 Million Increase in Funding for COPS Program . [Vote #248, 6/14/05, H.R.2862, failed 260-168, Sanders: Y]” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] Sanders’ Campaign Boasted That He “Has Voted for Over $186 Billion for the Justice Department to Fight Crime.” “Sanders Has Voted for Over $186 Billion for the Justice Department to Fight Crime. Sanders has a strong record of voting for funding for the Justice Department to fight crime. [Vote #154, 6/13/91, H.R.2608, Sanders: Y; Vote #354, 7/30/92, H.R.5678, Sanders: Y; Vote #517, 10/19/93, H.R.2519, Sanders: Y; Vote #408, 8/18/94, H.R.4603, Sanders: Y; Vote #135, 4/25/96, H.R.3019, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #455, 9/28/96, H.R.3610, Sanders: Y; omnibus bill: Vote #355, 7/30/98, H.R.4328, Sanders: Y; Vote #538, 10/20/98, conference report to H.R.4328, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #610, 1/18/99, H.R.3194, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #603, 12/15/00, H.R.4577, Sanders: Y; Vote #438, 11/14/01, H.R.2500, Sanders: Y; consolidated appropriations: Vote #542, 11/20/04, H.R.4818, Sanders: Y; Vote #268, 6/16/05, H.R.2862, Sanders: Y]” [Bernie Sanders For Senate Campaign Website, 10/18/06] THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE CRIME BILL TO PROVE HE HAD A STRONG RECORD FIGHTING CRIME AGAINST WOMEN Sanders’ Campaign Highlighted His Support For The Crime Bill And Its Creation Of the Violence Against Women Act. “Sanders Voted for Violence Against Women Act and Tried to Restore It After the Supreme Court Overturned it in 2000. In 1994 Sanders voted for the 1994 Crime Bill that created the Violence Against Women Act and he voted in 2000 to reauthorized the program. The program provided grants to combat violence against women, created a domestic violence hotline, funding battered women's shelters, and educating judges and court personnel. In 1998, Sanders also was an original cosponsor of legislation to further the program and provided additional assistance to children who are victims of violence. In May 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the act violated portions of the commerce clause that allows Congress to regulate interstate Commerce. Sanders cosponsored legislation to restore provisions of the program and is currently a cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the program. [Vote #416, 8/21/94, conference report on H.R.3355, Sanders: Y; Vote #491, 9/26/00, H.R.1248, passed 415-3, Sanders: Y; H.R.3514, 105 th Congress, introduced 3/19/98; H.R.5021, 106 th Congress, introduced 7/27/00; H.R.3171, 109 th Congress, introduced 6/30/05]” Sanders Campaign Said He Had A Strong Record Fighting Crimes Against Women, Cited His Vote For The Crime Bill Creating Community Notification Of Sex Offenders And Allowing Rape Victims to Request HIV Status Of Attackers. “Bernie Sanders has a strong record of achievement in Congress when it comes to fighting the worst kinds of crimes against women. He has voted to give rape victims the right to request the HIV status of their attacker; voted for community notification of violent sex offenders; voted for the creation of the national sex offender database; and voted for life sentences without parole for repeat sex offenders. Bernie has also done so much to help Vermont women who are the victims of violence. In November 2001, he secured $100,000 for the building renovation and construction of a battered women's shelter in St. Albans . In November 2004, he secured $72,750 in funding for the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault for the construction and rehabilitation of domestic violence shelters in Vermont.” [Bernie.org via Archive.org, accessed 8/24/15] Holding Companies Accountable SANDERS WANTS TO HOLD FAST FOOD COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR OBESITY… 2004: Sanders Voted Against Releasing Food Manufacturers And Restaurants From Liability Due To Health Problems Such As Obesity. “The House on Wednesday passed, 276-139, a bill that would protect food manufacturers, restaurants and trade associations from being held liable for their customers’ health problems, such as obesity. Sanders, Bernard: Nay.” [Gannet News Service, 3/12/04; HR 339, Vote #54, 3/10/04] 2005: Sanders Voted Against Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. [HR 554, Vote #533, 10/19/05] Bill Would Block Lawsuits By People Who Blame Fast-Food Chains For Their Obesity. “The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would block lawsuits by people who blame fastfood chains for their obesity. The "cheeseburger bill," as it has been dubbed in Congress, stems from classaction litigation that accused McDonald's of causing obesity in children. The legislation's backers say matters of personal responsibility don't belong in the courts.” [CNN, 10/20/05] 73 …BUT VOTED TO PROTECT GUN MANUFACTURERS FROM LIABILITY Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2005 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children […] In 2005, a Republicandominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] Anti-Labor Contribution SANDERS ACCEPTED THOUSANDS IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A COMPANY WHILE IT WAS INVOLVED IN A BITTER LABOR DISPUTE Sanders Accepted $14,000 From American Crystal Sugar. According to the Sunlight Foundation, Sanders accepted $14,000 from American Crystal Sugar accumulated during three separate years: 2005, 2006, and 2012. [Sunlight Foundation, Influence Explorer, accessed 7/28/15] August 2011: American Crystal Sugar Locked Out 1,300 Workers, One Of The State’s Largest Labor Stoppages In Recent Years. According to the Star Tribune, “Thirty years of labor peace at a Red River Valley institution, American Crystal Sugar, ended Monday with 1,300 workers locked out of their jobs. It's one of the biggest labor stoppages in the state in recent years, and one that involves one of northwestern Minnesota's largest private employers. Moorhead-based American Crystal, a farmer-owned co-op and the largest U.S. beet sugar producer, made good on its lockout threat after workers resoundingly rejected a contract offer Saturday. The old contract, which covered Moorhead and four other Red River Valley plants, expired at midnight Sunday.” [Star Tribune, 8/2/11] August 2011: Twenty-Three Mason City American Crystal Sugar Plant Workers Were Locked Out Of The Facility After Contract Negotiations Broke Down. The Globe Gazette reported, “Twenty-three Mason City sugar plant workers were locked out of the American Crystal Sugar plant on Monday after negotiations broke down on Sunday. The local is one of seven affected by the contract breakdown. The Mason City labor force is a small part of the estimated 1,300 workers in plants in North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa. The seven-year contract expired at midnight, said BCTGM Local 269G President Tom Johanns. A lockout was initiated because without a contract no labor force can be allowed on the premises, Johanns said.” [Globe Gazette, 8/1/11]  Half A Dozen Locked Out Workers Protested Outside The Plant. The Globe Gazette reported, “The sevenyear contract expired at midnight, said BCTGM Local 269G President Tom Johanns. A lockout was initiated because without a contract no labor force can be allowed on the premises, Johanns said. ‘I guess management is running things inside,’ he said. Johanns was one of half a dozen workers who publicized and protested the lockout just outside the plant on 300th Street, just off Highway 65 north of Mason City. […]Despite the high heat and humidity, the workers plan around-the-clock protests at the site.” [Globe Gazette, 8/1/11] With Nearly All Workers Voting, The Contract Offer Was Rejected By A 96 Percent Vote, Although Union President John Riskey Said The Union Was Ready To Continue Negotiations. The Star Tribune reported, “With nearly all members of Local 167A of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers voting, 96 percent rejected the company's offer, union President John Riskey said in a statement. He said the union is ready to resume talks as soon as possible. ‘A lockout will be devastating not only to the 1,300 affected families, but to the entire Red River Valley community.’” [Star Tribune, 7/31/11]  American Crystal Sugar “Offered A 17 Percent Pay Increase Over Five Years But Workers Were Upset About Provisions Covering Job Security And Health Care Costs.” The Globe Gazette reported, “American Crystal, the largest beet sugar processor in the U.S., had offered a 17 percent pay increase over five years but workers were upset about provisions covering job security and health care costs. Yet, workers said, sugar sales are up and management earned a 28 percent increase.” [Globe Gazette, 8/1/11] 74  Contract Offer Would Move Workers To Its Corporate Health Plan, Requiring The Workers To Start Paying Premiums Of Over $850 Per Year. The Star Tribune reported, “American Crystal Sugar's offer would put union workers under its corporate health plan, not a separate union plan. That would mean union workers, who currently pay no premiums, would pay premiums for family coverage of over $850 a year.” [Star Tribune, 7/29/11]  Union Estimated That “Union Members’ Average Out-Of-Pocket Health Care Expenses Would More Than Double If They Accepted The Offer.” The Star Tribune reported, “The union estimates that including increases in deductibles under the company plan, union members' average out-of-pocket health care expenses would more than double if they accepted the offer.” [Star Tribune, 7/29/11]  Union Said That American Crystal Sugar “Wants To Be Allowed To Contract Out Union Jobs To Other Firms, And Dismantle Seniority.” The Star Tribune reported, “Work rules have been a big sticking point in contract talks. The union has said that the company wants to be allowed to contract out union jobs to other firms, and dismantle seniority.” [Star Tribune, 7/29/11] American Sugar Company Brought In Replacement Workers At Some Locations. The Globe Gazette reported, “American Sugar Co. is based in Moorhead, Minn. According to The Associated Press, replacement workers arrived before dawn at some locations on Monday. […] Besides Mason City, the company has plants in East Grand Forks, Moorhead, Crookston and Chaska, Minn., and in Hillsboro and Drayton, N.D. No replacement workers were seen in Mason City.” [Globe Gazette, 8/1/11] Union Representing 1,300 American Crystal Sugar Co. Employees Filed An Accusation With The National Labor Relations Board Accusing The Company Of Threatening With A Lockout. The Bismarck Tribune reported, “The union that represents more than 1,300 American Crystal Sugar Co. employees has gone to the National Labor Relations Board with accusations that the Red River Valley sugar beet cooperative is threatening workers with a lockout. A July 18 memo from Crystal management tells employees at factories in eastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota to remove all personal belongings from company property before Aug. 1 in case of a lockout. John Riskey, president of the local affiliated with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, said the company has been preparing for a lockout since last year. ‘They had absolutely no intention of negotiating a new contract in good faith, and that is illegal,’ he said.” [Bismarck Tribune, 7/22/11] AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR FOUGHT UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO LOCKED OUT EMPLOYEES American Crystal Sugar Asked The North Dakota Supreme Court To Reconsider Its Decision That Granted Locked-Out Workers Unemployment Benefits. The Bismarck Tribune reported, “Lawyers for American Crystal Sugar are asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to reconsider a decision to grant locked-out workers unemployment benefits. The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled last month that more than 400 locked-out workers in North Dakota are eligible for unemployment benefits from Job Service North Dakota. That decision reversed a lower court's ruling that said state law prohibits unemployment insurance for workers involved in labor disputes. Legislators are considering a proposal to make make the locked-out workers ineligible.” [Bismarck Tribune, 3/15/13] Union President John Riskey Said The Court’s Unemployment Benefits Decision Was “Going To Mean A Lot” For “All These Families Without Anything, Most Of Them Scraping By To Put Food On the Table.” The Associated Press reported, “More than 400 American Crystal Sugars workers in North Dakota who are locked out in a contract dispute are eligible for unemployment benefits, the state Supreme Court said in a ruling issued released Tuesday. The decision reverses a lower court's ruling that said the workers were not eligible for benefits from Job Service North Dakota because state law prohibits unemployment insurance for workers involved in labor disputes. Nearly 1,300 American Crystal Sugar workers in North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa, have been locked out since Aug. 1, 2011, after their union rejected the cooperative's proposed contract. Minnesota and Iowa workers had already been allowed to collect unemployment benefits. John Riskey, a spokesman for the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers union, said the ruling will mean ‘quite a bit’ for the 420 locked-out workers in North Dakota. ‘To be locked out by Crystal Sugar as they have, all these families without anything, most of them scraping by to put food on the table, it's going to mean a lot,’ Riskey said.” [Associated Press, 2/27/13] Minnesota AFL-CIO Sought “Unlimited Unemployment Benefits For Workers Who Have Been Locked Out Of Their Jobs.” According to the Legal Ledger reported, “The Minnesota AFL-CIO wants to boost the minimum 75 wage to $10.55 an hour and index it to inflation moving forward. That would be an increase of nearly 50 percent over the current rate of $7.25 an hour. Officials with the labor organization pointed out that, when inflation is taken into account, such an increase would restore the salary level to where it was at in 1968. The state labor body detailed several other proposals that it intends to pursue during the current legislative session: Unlimited unemployment benefits for workers who have been locked out of their jobs. Several high profile lockouts -including employees at American Crystal Sugar and members of the Minnesota Orchestra -- have been in the headlines recently. The AFL-CIO also wants businesses that lock out their employees to face a financial penalty. Expressly allow workers to walk away from meetings aimed at influencing their views on labor matters, political issues or religious topics. The labor group also wants a prohibition on firing workers who refuse to attend such meetings. Labor has long chafed at mandatory employee meetings where companies seek to dissuade them from joining a union.” [Legal Ledger, 1/29/13] Children Of Locked Out American Crystal Sugar Company Wrote Letters To The Company Detailing How The Lockout Hurt They Families And Their Worries That They Would Run Out Of Food Or Lose Their Homes. According to the Grand Forks Herald, “Locked-out American Crystal Sugar Co. workers have called on their children to get the company to negotiate an end to the labor dispute. The company locked out its regular workers almost 14 months ago in a union contract dispute. Company officials have said they have made their final offer, but the locked-out workers want to continue negotiations. Children of the workers gathered recently to write letters to company officials and farmers who are company board members. The letters describe the impact the lockout has had on them in the hope of making the company realize it needs to end. Some of the children say the lockout has hurt their families and created worry that they will run out of food or lose their homes.” [Grand Forks Herald, 10/1/12] Op-Ed: Lockout Created Hardship For Workers’ Families Who Had A Difficult Time “Providing For Their Families And Paying For Their Mortgage And Costs Of Living.” According to an op-ed published in the Grand Forks Herald, Tom Ricker wrote, “The union workers at American Crystal Sugar have now been locked out of their jobs for almost a year and a half. For more than a full calendar year - for two Christmas seasons, for more than 18 months - these men and woman have struggled to pay their bills and put food on the table for their families, and have been tortured by the question: How could the company they gave their lives to just throw them away so callously? Some 1,300 American Crystal workers have been deprived of their livelihoods. And rather than participating in genuine ‘goodfaith’ negotiations, the managers of American Crystal decided to use the economic hardship resulting from a lockout to force workers to capitulate to their one and final offer. Lockouts are not strikes. Rather than walk off the job, workers are forced off the job by management as an extreme bargaining tactic. […]On one level, the lockout has been very successful. It has caused great economic hardship for these American workers. Workers who once were economically secure, now struggle to provide the essentials of human life for themselves and for their families. They are having a hard time doing the simple things: providing for their families and paying their mortgage, utilities and costs of living. And the lockout has caused even more human suffering. In many communities, small businesses have suffered economic loss. There also are losses that go far beyond financial: The lockout has divided communities and torn apart families and neighbors.” [Grand Forks Herald, Op-Ed, 2/10/13] Lockout Ended In May 2013 When 400 Union Members Returned To Work After Accepting The Company’s Final Contract Offer April 2013: Union Workers Voted By 55 Percent To Accept American Crystal Sugar’s Final Contract Offer. The Bismarck Tribune reported, “Union workers in North Dakota, Minnesota and Iowa who have been locked out of their jobs for 20 months at American Crystal Sugar Co. have voted to ratify the company's proposed contract. Fiftyfive percent voted to accept the contract offer. It was the workers' fifth time voting on the contract. Employees last voted on the contract in December, when 55 percent voted to reject the offer. Nearly 1,300 employees were locked out on Aug. 1, 2011, after rejecting the cooperative's proposed contract. Company officials said many of those workers retired or resigned. The union originally focused its complaints on contract provisions regarding seniority and job security. The company said it's a good contract with substantial increases in wages and other benefits. American Crystal is the country's largest sugar beet processor.” [Bismarck Tribune, 4/14/13] May 2013: Lockout Ended After 22 Months With About 400 Union Members Returning To Work While Nearly 650 Union Workers Had Quit Or Retired. The Aberdeen American News reported, “The American Crystal Sugar lockout effectively ended on May 28 when union workers showed up for their first day of work in almost 22 months, their relatively thin ranks testifying to the bitterness of the labor dispute. Just over 400 union members reported for 76 work after voting last month to end one of Minnesota's longest and largest work stoppages in decades. On Aug. 1, 2011, about 1,300 workers were locked out by Moorhead-based Crystal Sugar when they resoundingly rejected their employer's final offer. In April, what was left of the union membership voted for the fifth time on what was essentially the same proposal, with 55 percent saying ‘yes.’ But even before the final vote, nearly 650 Crystal union workers had retired or formally quit, moving on to other jobs. And since the ‘yes’ vote, a couple hundred workers haven't attended required back-to-work safety courses and didn't show up for work May 28, said Brian Ingulsrud, a Crystal vice president.” [Aberdeen American News, 6/7/13]  American Crystal Sugar Lockout Was One Of Minnesota’s Longest Labor Disputes. The Star Tribune reported, “Now that one of Minnesota’s longest labor disputes has ended, union members and workers who replaced them for more than 20 months at American Crystal Sugar face a daunting challenge: Working together.” [Star Tribune, 4/15/13] State Safety Inspectors Found 30 Alleged Safety Violations At American Sugar Crystal’s East Grand Forks Plant After Accidents Seriously Burned Three Workers. The Star Tribune reported, “After accidents seriously burned three workers at American Crystal Sugar, state inspectors found 30 alleged violations of safety regulations at the company's East Grand Forks plant. The accidents occurred earlier this year while Crystal Sugar was mired in an ugly lockout of its union workers, but the company and state regulators continue to wrangle over most of the safety citations, which could lead to more than $60,000 in fines. Crystal Sugar is contesting many of the citations from OSHA inspections at its East Grand Forks plant, as is common for companies to do.” [Star Tribune, 9/5/13] Offshore Tax Havens SANDERS RELEASED A REPORT HIGHLIGHTING & HITTING OFFSHORE PROFITS AND INTRODUCED A BILL TO BAN THE PRACTICE… Sanders Report: “It Is Time For These Corporate And Wall Street Tax Dodgers To Pay Their Fair Share Of Taxes And Bring Jobs Back Home To America.” According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “Recently, the Business Roundtable came out with a plan to raise the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to 70, cut Social Security and veterans’ benefits, and increase taxes on working families. Many of the corporations and Wall Street banks represented by the Business Roundtable have: avoided more than $128 billion in taxes by setting up over 500 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens since 2008; received more than $6.5 billion in tax refunds from the IRS, after making billions in profits; outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits; and received a total taxpayer bailout of more than $2.5 trillion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department and nearly caused the economy to collapse over four years ago. Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans’ benefits, it is time for these corporate and Wall Street tax dodgers to pay their fair share in taxes and bring jobs back home to America.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] 2015: Sanders Sponsored A Bill “To Stop Profitable Corporations From Sheltering Income Overseas In The Cayman Islands And Other Tax Havens To Avoid Paying Taxes.” According to Congressional Documents & Publications, “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced a bill to stop profitable corporations from sheltering income overseas in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The legislation also would end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs and factories overseas. ‘At a time when we have a $18.2 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit; at a time when many of the largest corporations in America are paying no federal income taxes; and at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, it is past time for corporate America to pay their fair share in taxes so that we can create the millions of jobs this country needs,’ Sanders said at a Capitol news conference. Eighty-three of the Fortune 100 companies in the United States have used offshore tax havens to lower their taxes, according to the most recent Government Accountability Office study. Sanders' bill and a companion measure introduced today in the House by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) would yield more than $590 billion in revenue over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.” [Congressional Documents & Publications, 4/14/15]  2013: Sanders Proposed Legislation That “Would Limit The Ability Of American Businesses To Shelter Overseas Income From Taxation Back Home.” The New York Times reported, “A bill proposed in the United States by Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, would limit the ability of American businesses to 77 shelter overseas income from taxation back home. It would also make it more difficult for Americans to escape tax liability by using offshore corporate entities.” [New York Times, 3/27/13] SANDERS WIFE OWNED A STAKE IN SEVERAL COMPAINES THAT HE CRITICIZED FOR USING OFFSHORE TAX HAVENS Sanders Report Hit JP Morgan Chase For Using Offshore Tax Havens To Avoid Paying $4.9 Billion In U.S. Income Taxes. According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “JP Morgan Chase has stashed $21.8 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $4.9 billion in federal income taxes.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] Sanders Report Hit General Electric For Using Offshore Tax Havens To Avoid Paying $35.7 Billion In Federal Income Taxes & Shipping At Least 25,000 Job Overseas Since 2001. According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “GE has stashed $102 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $35.7 billion more in federal income taxes. […] Since 2001, General Electric has closed more than 30 manufacturing plants in the United States, cut 34,000 American jobs, and added 25,000 jobs overseas. General Electric now has more workers abroad than it does in the United States.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] Sanders Report Hit Verizon For Using Offshore Tax Havens To Avoid Paying An Estimated $525 Million In Federal Income Taxes. According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “Verizon has stashed $1.5 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Verizon would owe an estimated $525 million in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] Sanders Report Hit Merck On Using Offshore Tax Havens To Avoid Paying $15.5 Billion In Federal Income Taxes. According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “Merck has stashed $44.3 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $15.5 billion more in federal income taxes.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] Sanders Report Hit Microsoft On Using Offshore Tax Havens To Avoid Paying $19.4 Billion In Federal Income Taxes. According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “Microsoft has stashed over $60 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid 19.4 billion more in federal income taxes.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] Sanders Report Hit Cisco For Using Offshore Tax Havens To Avoid Paying $14.4 Billion In Federal Income Taxes. According to a U.S. Senate report released by Sanders, “Cisco has stashed $41.3 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Cisco would owe an estimated $14.455 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.” [Senator Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senate Report, accessed 7/23/15] SANDERS’S WIFE HELD AS MUCH AS $427,000 IN MUTUAL FUNDS WHOE LARGEST HOLDINGS STORED PROFITS OVERSEAS 2014: Sanders Reported That His Wife Owned Shares In Several Mutual Funds From Valic And Vanguard Totaling $75,000 To $427,000. According to Sanders’ financial disclosures available through OpenSecrets.org, Sanders reported that his wife had $75,019-$427,000 worth of investments Valic and Vanguard mutual funds. [OpenSecrets.org, Bernie Sanders, Reports 1995-2014, accessed 7/14/15] Several Valic Mutual Funds’ Top Holdings Kept Billions Of Dollars In Profits Overseas To Avoid U.S. Taxes. According to Morning Star, Valic Stock Index, Valic Science & Tech, Valic Div Value, Valic Core Equity, Valic Asset Allocation, Valic Social Awareness and Valic Socially Responsible Fund all reported companies in their top five holdings that, according to Bloomberg Business, stored billions of dollars in profits offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. Bloomberg Business reported, “Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home. Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.10 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations. The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles. The money pileup, reflecting 78 companies’ incentives to park profits in low-tax countries, has drawn the attention of President Barack Obama and U.S. lawmakers, who see a chance to tap the funds for spending programs and to revamp the tax code. That effort is stalled in Washington, and there are few signs that tech companies will bring the profits back to the U.S. until Congress gives them an incentive or a mandate.” [Morning Star, accessed 7/23/15; Bloomberg Business, 3/4/15] Sanders Reported Mutual Funds With Overseas Profit Holdings Mutual Fund Ticker Top Holdings Weig 2014 PreMost Recent ht % 2014 Year Disclosed VALIC DIV VALUE VCIGX Pfizer Inc 3.01 $5 bill $74 bill 2014 General Electric Co 2.93 $9 bill $119 bill Merck & Co Inc 2.68 $3 bill $60 bill Verizon 2.3 N/A $1.3 bill Communications Inc JPMorgan Chase & Co 2.28 $3 bill $31.1 bill VALIC STOCK VSTIX Apple Inc 3.94 $15 $69.7 bill 2014 INDEX bill Microsoft Corp 2 $17 $92.9 bill bill Exxon Mobil 1.86 $4 bill $51 bill Corporation Johnson & Johnson 1.45 $3 bill $53.4 bill VALIC SCIENCE & VCSTX Apple Inc 6.42 $3 bill $31.1 bill 2014 TECH Amazon.com Inc 3.53 N/A $2.5 bill Google Inc Class A 3.44 $9 bill $47.4 bill Microsoft Corp 3.26 $17 $92.9 bill bill VALIC ASSET VCAAX Apple Inc 1.47 $15 $69.7 bill 2014 ALLOC bill VALIC CORE VCCEX JPMorgan Chase & Co 3.61 $3 bill $31.1 bill 2014 EQUITY Citigroup Inc 3 N/A $43.8 bill Cisco Systems Inc 2.54 $5 bill $52.70 VALIC SOCIAL VCSOX Microsoft Corp 1.13 $17 $92.9 bill 2014 AWARENESS bill Johnson & Johnson 1.07 $3 bill $52.4 bill VALIC SOCIALLY VCSRX Microsoft Corp 2.38 $17 $92.9 bill 2014 RESP bill Johnson & Johnson 2.26 $3 bill $52.4 bill Google Inc Class C 1.82 $9 bill $47.4 bill Capital Stock Berkshire Hathaway 1.71 N/A $10 bill Inc Class B [OpenSecrets.org, Bernie Sanders, Reports 1995-2014, accessed 7/14/15; Morning Star, accessed 7/23/15; Bloomberg Business, 3/4/15] 2014: Companies Among Valic Mutual Fund’s Top Holdings Piled Up $68 Billion In Overseas Profits, With More Than $708 Billion Stockpiled Abroad Pre-2014. According to Morning Star and Bloomberg Business, the top holdings of several Valic mutual funds—including General Electric, Citigroup, Microsoft and Exxon Mobil— accumulated $68 billion in foreign profits in 2014. The companies had stockpiled $708.8 billion overseas pre-2014. [Morning Star, accessed 7/23/15; Bloomberg Business, 3/4/15]  Google, Apple, And Microsoft “Each Boosted Their Accumulated Foreign Profits By More Than 20 Percent. According to Bloomberg Business, “Microsoft, Apple and Google each boosted their accumulated 79 foreign profits by more than 20 percent over the year, the largest increases by any of the 34 companies with at least $16 billion outside the U.S. International Business Machines Corp., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle, Qualcomm Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. each added at least $4 billion.” [Bloomberg Business, 3/4/15] Companies With Overseas Profit Holdings Top Holdings 2014 Pre2014 Amazon.com Inc N/A $2.5 bill Apple Inc $15 bill $69.7 bill Berkshire Hathaway Inc N/A $10 bill Class B Cisco Systems Inc $5 bill $52.7 bill Citigroup Inc N/A $43.8 bill Exxon Mobil Corporation $4 bill $51 bill General Electric Co $9 bill $119 bill Google Inc Class A $9 bill $47.4 bill Johnson & Johnson $3 bill $53.4 bill JPMorgan Chase & Co $3 bill $31.1 bill Merck & Co Inc $3 bill $60 bill Microsoft Corp $17 bill $92.9 bill Pfizer Inc $5 bill $74 bill Verizon Communications N/A $1.3 bill Inc Total $68 bill $708.8 bill [Bloomberg Business, 3/4/15] Nuclear Energy SANDERS HAS SPOKEN OUT AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY… Sanders Opposed Further Construction Of Nuclear Power Plants, And Supported Further Investment In Solar, Wind And Geothermal As More Cost Effective Options. ”I believe that climate change is perhaps the most significant planetary crisis that we face and we have got to be extremely bold in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and towards energy efficiency and sustainability. The fact is that investing in solar, wind, geothermal and energy efficiency is far more cost-effective than nuclear plants. Further, I do not support more nuclear power plants when we do not know how we get rid of the toxic waste from the ones that already exist.” [Reddit, 5/19/15] Sanders Said That Nuclear Energy Is “The Most Expensive Way” To Produce New Energy. “Many of my Republican friends, and some Democrats want to build a whole lot of new nuclear power plants. And what I want the American people to understand is, when you’re talking about the new production of electricity […] the most expensive way to go is nuclear power. And when you’re talking about a major American welfare program, you’re also talking about nuclear power. As taxpayers, what we do is put at risk, we are providing major major insurance to the nuclear power industry that Wall Street won’t give them.” [Brunch With Bernie, 3/16/12, 8:00] Sanders: “I Doubt That We Would Have Much Of A Nuclear Industry Today At All “If The Federal Government Had Not Agreed to Partially Indemnify Nuclear Energy Companies. "SANDERS: 'Well, that's a 80 very good point Steve. What there is, is a provision, it's called the, what is it? The Price--' HARTMANN: 'Price Anderson Act.' SANDERS: 'Price Anderson Act, that's right, that's exactly right Thom. What Price Anderson says, if God forbid there is a nuclear disaster, the industry will pick up a certain amount of the cost, but if it becomes too large, the United States government will be there to pick up some of that liability. Interestingly enough, our friends in the nuclear sector who, you know, when we say "well why don't you go to Wall Street? Why don't you go to the private insurance companies to get that insurance?" The answer is they can't get it, because the private insurance companies will not provide it them because it's just too risky. So I think that Steve makes a very, very good point, and that's just one of the many ways, Steve, that the Federal government is promoting nuclear industry. Right now these, some of my colleagues in the Senate who want to have tens and tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants. But without the strong intervention of the federal government, I doubt that we would have much of a nuclear industry today at all.'" [Thom Hartmann Program, 9/30/11] … AND SANDERS OPPOSED THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL… 2002: Bernie Sanders Voted Against Approval Of Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Disposal Site Over Transportation Safety Concerns. “The House voted this year to approve Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste dump. Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voted against the plan in part because of concerns about transportation safety.” [Gannett News Service, 7/8/02; HJ Res 78, Vote #133, 5/8/02]  2005: Sanders Supported $15.5 Million Cut to Nuclear Waste Storage & Reprocessing. In 2005, Bernie Sanders voted in favor of cutting $15.5 million from interim nuclear waste storage and direct the funds towards energy efficiency and conservation. While the legislation left it up to the Energy Department to select one or more interim storage sites, a report accompanying the bill suggested the Energy Department’s Savannah River weapons facility in South Carolina, the Hanford complex in Washington state and a facility in Idaho as possible locations. It also said the department should consider other federal sites, including closed defense bases. The interim storage proposal came amid delays in opening the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The amendment to strip funding for the project failed 110-312. [Associated Press, 5/25/05; HR2419, Vote #207, 5/24/05] …BUT SANDERS SUPPORTED THE CONTROVERSIAL MAINE-VERMONT-TEXAS NUCLEAR WASTE COMPACT 1997: Sanders Voted For House Passage Of The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. “The House gave overwhelming approval Tuesday to a controversial deal that would allow Maine and Vermont to begin shipping low-level radioactive waste to a dump site near the tiny community of Sierra Blanca in West Texas. The agreement, known as the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, passed 309-107, as members signaled their intention to follow through on a 1980 federal law authorizing establishment of multistate dumps to handle increasing amounts of radioactive materials generated by hospitals, research facilities and nuclear power plants. Although the facility to be built near Sierra Blanca, about 16 miles from the Mexican border, will be prohibited from accepting high-level radioactive waste, opponents argued that it will pose a health and safety threat.” [Houston Chronicle, 10/8/97; HR 629, Vote #497, 10/7/97] 1983: Texas Began Searching For A Nuclear Waste Dump Location. “Texas began the search for a dump location in 1983, and agreed earlier this decade to link itself with the New England states.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] 1993: Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission Was Formed As A Result Of An Agreement Between Texas, Vermont And Maine. “The commission was formed through a compact agreement signed between Texas, Vermont and Maine in 1993 to dispose of the Lone Star State’s nuclear waste and allow the two smaller states to tag along.” [VTDigger.org, 9/28/12] Maine Would Later Pull Out Of Waste Dumping Commission After It No Longer Needed Space In Texas. “Meanwhile, Maine has dropped out of the compact. Its lone reactor, Maine Yankee, closed in 1996. All of its low-level waste was shipped elsewhere and it no longer needed space in the Texas site. ‘It was just a matter of timing,’ Hofmann said.” [Portland Press Herald, 9/26/12] 1998: Sanders Voted For Final Conference Version Of “Contentious” Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. “An arrangement allowing Maine and Vermont to ship low-level radioactive waste to Texas in exchange for payments of $25 million apiece won House approval Wednesday. The House action, on a 305-117 vote, means approval by the Senate and the president will complete federal action on the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact. […] The Texas-Maine-Vermont alliance, been pending in Congress for several years, is the 10th and by far most contentious such compact up for congressional approval. It was negotiated under terms of a 1980 law that 81 directed states to find a common solution to dispose of low-level radioactive waste from dismantled nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals and universities.” [Associated Press, 7/29/98; HR 629, Vote #344, 7/29/98] Sept. 1998: President Clinton Signed The Bill Into Law “To The Chagrin Of AntiNuclear Activists…” “President Clinton quietly signed the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact into law on Sunday, to the chagrin of anti-nuclear activists and the satisfaction of the deal’s congressional supporters.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Was 10 th Such Agreement Approved By Congress Under Terms Of A 1980 Law. “This is the 10th compact approved by Congress under terms of a 1980 law that urged states to band together to find a common solution for disposal of low-level radioactive waste.” [Bangor Daily News, 9/22/98] Sanders: Entire Vermont Delegation Was “Undivided” In Support Of The Compact. “We have the two Members from Maine, the entire Vermont delegation, me, in support of the compact. I know that will carry a lot of weight. We are undivided on this issue, and we have two-thirds of the Texas House delegation in support of this compact.” [Congressional Record, H8517, 10/7/97] Sanders: The Waste Disposal Compact Made “Absolute Environmental Sense.” “The second issue, and actually the more important issue, has to do with good environmental policy. I happen to believe that passage of this amendment makes absolute environmental sense. The evidence is very, very strong that the geology of Vermont and Maine is such that it would be a serious environmental problem if we continued to keep the waste in those States.” [Congressional Record, H8517, 10/7/97] Sanders Supported The Waste Disposal Compact Because Stayed True To What He Felt Was A States-Rights Issue. “The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and its 1985 amendments make commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal a State, not a Federal responsibility. Since that time, 41 States from every region of the country have come together to form compacts. Essentially, all we are asking today is that our three States be given the same consideration that every other State which went before us received in this process. […] We hear a great deal of discussion in this body about devolution, returning powers to the States. If we believe in that concept and believe that States should have the right to come together in their own best interests to address this very difficult issue, then today's vote should be an easy one.” [Congressional Record, H3074, 5/12/98] Sanders Declared Himself “In Strong Support Of The Bill,” Nothing That The Compact Had Support In All Three States Involved.“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report. Let me say a few words on process, and then a few words on substance. In terms of process, what is important for everyone to understand is that this compact bill has been passed overwhelmingly by the legislatures of Texas, Maine, and Vermont, and the legislation is strongly endorsed by the Governors of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. In fact, in Vermont the legislature approved this legislation by voice vote in the State Senate and by a 3 to 1 margin in the House. In Texas, the Texas State Senate approved this legislation 26 to 2, while the Texas House approved it by voice vote. In Maine, both the House and Senate approved the bill by wide margins. Under a statewide referendum held in Maine, the legislation passed by better than a 2 to 1 margin. This bill, Mr. Speaker, is supported by both Senators from Texas, both Senators from Maine, both Senators from Vermont. It is supported by the entire Maine delegation in the House, all two Members; the entire Vermont delegation, me; and as I understand it, two-thirds of the Texas House.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] Sanders Defended The Legislation, Saying “This Compact Is Not A New Idea.” “So there is opposition from some Members of the Texas House here, but two-thirds support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this compact is not a new idea. Since 1985, nine interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts have been approved by Congress, encompassing 41 States. I think all we are saying, if this approach is valid for 41 States in nine compacts, it certainly should be valid for Texas, Maine, and Vermont. That is the process.” [Congressional Record, H6527,7/29/98] Sanders: Compact Was About Getting Rid Of Radioactive Waste “In The Safest Possible Way.” “If I had my druthers, I would close down every nuclear power plant in America as quickly as we safely can. But the issue today is something different. The reality is, we have nuclear power plants. We have universities and hospitals that are using nuclear power. The environmental question today, therefore, is how do we get rid of that low-level waste in the safest possible way? In my view, that is what this legislation is about.” [Congressional Record, H6527, 7/29/98] F-35 SANDERS TALKS ABOUT CONFRONTING WASTE IN THE MILITARY… 82 At A Town Hall, Sanders Said We Have To Have The “Courage To Understand We Cannot Afford A Lot Of Wasteful, Unnecessary Weapons Systems.” "The point that you are making [inaudible] is absolutely true. In very clever ways, the military industrial complex puts plants all over the country so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what they're saying is you're going to be losing jobs in that area. As I mentioned earlier, I think that we've got to have the courage to understand that we cannot afford a lot of wasteful, unnecessary weapons systems, and I hope we can do that." [Bob Farnham YouTube, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders Speaking In Warner NH, uploaded 6/29/14; 45:10] …BUT SANDERS SUPPORTS THE F-35 PROGRAM… 2009: Bernie Sanders Praised News That Vermont Was Among Candidates to Base F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “The Air Force conducted a system-wide review of more than 200 locations before selecting Burlington and nine other bases as finalists for either the training or primary operations of the F-35. […] Sanders said, ‘This is a tribute to the Vermont National Guard.’ The 10 final candidate bases will now each undergo a further review that will include an environmental analysis, site surveys and public meetings.” [Congressional Documents and Publications, 10/29/09] Sanders Said “Whether One May Like It Or Not” The F-35 Was The Plane Of Choice And He Preferred That It Be Located In Vermont. “Sanders said he was proud of the Vermont Air National Guard. ‘The F-35, whether one may like it or not, is the plane of choice not only for the U.S. Air Force, but for the Navy, Marines and much of NATO,’ Sanders said in a statement issued by his Washington office. ‘If the F-35 ends up not being located here, it will end up at a National Guard base in Florida or South Carolina. I would rather it be here.’” [Associated Press, 10/18/12] …DESPITE CALLING IT “INCREDIBLY WASTEFUL” Sanders Said He Opposed Cutting F-35 Spending, Despite Calling It “Incredibly Wasteful.” “QUESTIONER: Thanks again, Senator, for coming out to New Hampshire to talk to us today. I had a question, you mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day, I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The lifetime estimated cost of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program? SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, and I’ll tell you why, because it's essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, the Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.” [Bob Farnham YouTube, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders Speaking In Warner NH, uploaded 6/29/14; 45:35] Sanders Was Called A “Vermont Exceptionalist” For His Support Of F-35s. “At times, Sanders has even showed a willingness to compromise that's disappointed longtime ideological allies. He has supported the F-35, Lockheed Martin's problem-plagued fighter jet that has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, which just so happens to be manufactured in Vermont. "He became what we call up here a 'Vermont Exceptionalist,'" Guma says, of the candidate's pragmatic streak.” [Mother Jones, 5/28/15] Ethanol SANDERS SUPPORTS THE RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD Sanders Supported The Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), Said “We Got To Put More Emphasis On Cellulosic Ethanol.” “Brent Roske: “We’re in Iowa right now. Back in 2007 you voted for the Renewable Fuel Standard in the Senate. What are your thoughts about it now?” Sen. Sanders: “I think as somebody who believes climate change is the greatest global crisis that we face, I think it’s absolutely imperative that we move away from fossil fuel, from oil, from coal, move to energy efficiency and move to sustainable energies. "And Iowa, by the way, in general is doing a very good job, as is my home state of Vermont. "Iowa is one of the leaders in the country in wind and in biofuels. "So I support the Renewable Fuel Standard, I think we got to put more emphasis on cellulosic ethanol, which is a more efficient form of biofuel than what we currently have.”” [Transcript via Press Release via Biofuels Journal, America’s Renewable Future, 9/15/15] 83 Sanders Told Quad City Times He Did Not Have A Definitive Answer On Renewable Fuel Standard And Ethanol Incentives. "Times reporter Ed Tibbetts pressed Sanders for a position on the Renewable Fuel Standard that includes incentives for Iowa ethanol production. “I know this is important to Iowa. I don’t have a definitive answer. I’ve got to learn more. You will get an answer.”" [Editorial, Quad City Times, 5/30/15] SANDERS PREVIOUSLY OPPOSED ETHANOL SUBSIDIES Burlington Free Press: Bernie Sanders Is “On Record Opposed To Continuing Ethanol Subsidies.” “Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., are on record as opposed to continuing ethanol subsidies, but Welch has been more outspoken on the subject, supporting a 2011 GOP amendment to ban funding for EPA regulations on the ethanol content of gasoline.” [Burlington Free Press, 11/17/13] Sanders Ethanol Is Not As Effective As Other Energy Sourced Because It “Drives Up Food Prices.” Well, that among other things [ethanol] drives up food prices. You want people around the world to have enough food to eat. But I think bottom line here is that in terms of energy I think we are facing a moral imperative and that is the need to move away from fossil fuel and move to energy efficiency, where my state is doing a pretty good job, and to sustainable energy like wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. [Iowa Public Television, 3/23/15] 2011: Sanders Voted For Bill That Eliminated Ethanol Blenders Tax Credit, And Eliminated 54-Cent-PerGallon Ethanol Tax. On June 16, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted yes on Senate Vote #90. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Feinstein, D-Calif., amendment no. 476 that would eliminate the 45-cents-per- gallon tax credit that refiners get for blending ethanol with gasoline and the 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on imported ethanol. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #90, 6/16/2011]  Sanders: Subsidies To The Ethanol Industry Had “A Negative Impact On Farmers And Consumers…” “I voted today to end the ethanol subsidy which would save taxpayers $3 billion for the remainder of this year. Subsidizing the ethanol industry not only is a great expenditure of taxpayer dollars, but it also has a negative impact on farmers and consumers in Vermont and around the world in terms of higher feed prices and higher prices for food.” [Sen. Bernie Sanders press release, 6/6/11]  The Ethanol Blenders Tax Credit Had Existed For 30 Years. “The Senate voted June 16 to repeal the 30-year-old ethanol blenders tax credit by a wide 73 27 margin, thus signaling growing support to eliminate the subsidy as negotiations continue to find an appropriate vehicle in the House that would allow Congress to end the credit. The amendment not only would end the 45-cents-per-gallon tax credit that refiners get for blending ethanol with gasoline, but also the 54-cents-per-gallon tarif on imported ethanol. An analysis of the vote showed that 33 Republicans, 38 Democrats and both of the Senate's independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) were in favor of eliminating the ethanol subsidy and tarif.” [The Food & Fiber Letter, 6/20/11] 84 SANDERS HAS EVOLVED ON NUMEROUS ISSUES Sanders Said He Hasn’t Changed His Views 2006: Sanders Said That He Had Never Changed His Mind On A Closely-Held Position. “Q: My third and last question let me start with Mr. Sanders, you’ve served 8 terms in congress, that’s 16 years. I wonder during this time period could you give us an example of an issue where you originally had one position and then as you learned more about it, you completely changed your mind. Sanders: No. Q: It’s never happened. Sanders: No I mean I think you learn more about an issue. Your position may evolve in a nuanced way. But no. My views pretty much from a philosophical perspective are not different than when I came to Congress.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2006: No Change In Policies,” Accessed 6/8/15] Marriage Equality SANDERS HAS EVOLVED ON MARRIAGE EQUALITY Headline: “Sanders Has Evolved On Same-Sex Marriage Too” [NBC News, 10/29/15] NBC News: “Sanders' Support [For LGBT Rights] Has Not Always Been So Steadfast.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders has been attacking Hillary Clinton for her stance on gay marriage and framing himself as a longstanding advocate for gay rights, but Sanders' support has not always been so steadfast.” [NBC News, 10/29/15] Gun Manufacturer Liability Sanders Said He Was Willing To Take Another Look At The Gun Liability Issue. “That was a complicated vote and I am willing to see changes in that provision, here is the reason I voted for the way voted. If you were a gun shop owner in Vermont and you sell someone a gun and that person flips out and then kills somebody, I don’t think it is really fair to hold that person responsible, the the gun show, the gun owner, the gun shop owner. On the other hand, where this is a problem, is there is evidence that manufacturers, gun manufacturers, do know that they are selling a whole lot of guns in an area that really should not be buying that many guns, that many of those guns are going to other areas, probably for criminal purposes, so can we can take another look at that liability issue? Yes.” [Meet the Press, NBC News, 10/11/15] Headline: “Under Pressure From Clinton, Bernie Sanders Softens on Gun Rights” [Bloomberg, 10/12/15] Sanders Voted For Passage Of 2005 Version Of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. “He also supported the most odious NRA–backed law in recent memory—one that may block Sandy Hook families from winning a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the gun used to massacre their children […] In 2005, a Republicandominated Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law doesn’t protect gun owners; it protects gun manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers. The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.” [Slate, 5/6/15; S 397, Vote #534, 10/20/05] Drugs NOW: SANDERS SUPPORTS REMOVING MARIJUANA FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S LIST OF OUTLAWED DRUGS Sanders Announced That He Supported Removing Marijuana From The Federal Government’s List Of Outlawed Drugs. “Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders announced his support Wednesday for removing marijuana from a list of the most dangerous drugs outlawed by the federal government — a move that would free states to legalize it without impediments from Washington. The self-described “democratic socialist” senator from Vermont shared his proposal during a nearly two-hour town hall meeting with college students that he said was broadcast on 85 the Internet to about 300 campuses across the country from George Mason University in Fairfax County, Va. “Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use,” Sanders told a live audience of more than 1,700 students, which erupted with applause. “That’s wrong. That has got to change.”” [Washington Post, 10/29/15] Bernie Sanders: “In My View, The Time Is Long Overdue For Us To Remove The Federal Prohibition On Marijuana.” BERNIE SANDERS: “Let’s be clear, but I think a lot of people may not fully appreciated this is that a criminal record could mean not only time in jail, but a criminal record makes it harder for a person to get a job, harder for a person to get public benefits, harder for a person to even get housing. A criminal record stays with a person for his or her entire life. It is a serious business. Right now, marijuana is listed by the federal government as a schedule one drug, meaning that is considered to be as dangerous as heroin. That is absurd. In my view, the time is long overdue for us to remove the federal prohibition on marijuana.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, National Student Town Hall, 10/28/15] Pacifism SANDERS WAS A CONCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR TO THE WAR IN VIETNAM BECAUSE HE WAS A PACIFIST Sanders Campaign Acknowledged That Sanders Applied For Conscientious Objector Status During The Vietnam War. “Bernie Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, his campaign confirmed to ABC News. "As a college student in the 1960s he was a pacifist," Michael Briggs, campaign spokesman added in an email. "[He] isn't now."” [ABC News, 8/31/15] BUT NOW, SANDERS SAYS HE IS NOT A PACIFIST Sanders Said He Was Not A Pacifist, And Would Be Prepared To Take The Country To War. “SANDERS: I am not a pacifist, Anderson. I supported the war in Afghanistan. I supported President Clinton's effort to deal with ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I support air strikes in Syria and what the president is trying to do. Yes, I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort that we have got to exercise diplomacy. But yes, I am prepared to take this country into war if that is necessary.” [Democratic Primary Presidential Debate, CNN, 10/13/15] Sanders Said He Was Not A Pacifist, Despite Previously Applying For Conscientious Objector Status, And Cited His Votes For The Afghan And Kosovo Wars. “EDITORIAL BOARD: We had--we published an op-ed from a Vietnam vet who questioned how as someone who has described himself as a conscientious objector, you could be commander in chief. So, obviously you have voted different ways on different conflicts, so how would you define when you use US troops and when you would act militarily? SANDERS: Well, let me answer that Lynn. I applied, this was over 50 years ago, five zero years ago when I was a pretty young guy, I applied for conscientious objector status because I very strongly disagreed with the war in Vietnam and I would not have fought in that war. I went to Congress in ‘91 and have voted for military operations. I am not a pacifist, I respect people who are pacifists, I am not a pacifist. I think that in the very crazy, complicated world that we live in today force has to be used. And I’ve given you examples where I’ve supported President Clinton in trying to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, where I voted for the war in Afghanistan to make sure that Osama Bin Laden was captured. And I believe that the use of force is obviously an option that we must always have. There are times when you may have to use force.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] 86 SANDERS IS RE-WRITING HISTORY ON HIS RECORD Defense of Marriage Act SANDERS SAID HE OPPOSED DOMA BECAUSE HE SUPPORTED MARRIAGE EQUALITY Sanders Said He Voted Against DOMA Because “I Thought Then And I Think Now That People Have The Right To Love Those Folks That They Want To Love.” “And it was not an easy vote. I voted against DOMA because I think -- I thought then and I think now that people have the right to love those folks that they want to love and get married regardless of their sexual orientation. It was not an easy vote. But that was the issue.” [State of the Union, CNN, 10/25/15] Sanders Said Vote Against DOMA Was “Difficult” But Found It Was “Absurd” To Deny Gay Married People Equal Benefits. ““It is one thing now for every politician in the world, at least on the Democratic side, to be wildly enthusiastic about gay rights,” Sanders said. “That wasn’t the case back in 1996.” Sanders characterized his vote as “difficult” but said he concluded it was “absurd to tell gay married people that they couldn’t enjoy the benefit of their marriage in 50 states.” Sanders supported Vermont’s approval of civil unions in 2000 and its legalization of same-sex marriages in 2009.” [Washington Post, 6/29/15] …BUT IN 1996, HIS SPOKESPERSON SAID HE OPPOSED THE LAW BECAUSE OF STATES RIGHTS In 1996, Jane Sanders, Sanders’ Wife And Then-Chief Of Staff, Told The Associated Press That He Opposed DOMA Because “It Weakened The Section Of The Constitution That Says States Must Respect Laws That Are Made In Other States.” “In addition, his reasoning for opposing efforts to restrict gay marriage was much narrower and legalistic than he now makes it seem. When Sanders was asked on Sunday about his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act on CNN, he said that he believed back in 1996 that gay couples had the right to gay marriage. ‘I thought then and I think now that people have the right to love those folks that they want to love and get married regardless of their sexual orientation,’ he said. That wasn’t the answer his staff gave in 1996, however. His wife and chief of staff Jane Sanders told an Associated Press reporter in July of 1996 that he opposed the law because it weakened the section of the Constitution that says states must respect laws that are made in other states. ‘We’re not legislating values. We have to follow the Constitution,’ Jane Sanders said. ‘And anything that weakens the Constitution should be (addressed) by a constitutional amendment, not by a law passed by Congress.’” [Time, 10/28/15] Sanders Voted Against DOMA Explicitly On States’ Rights Grounds, Rather Than Because He Supported Marriage Equality. “Like his current Senate colleague Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Sanders deserves credit for opposing DOMA—then a popular measure with bipartisan support—while a member of the House of Representatives in 1996. But Sanders’ efforts to parlay this vote into indisputable proof of his marriage equality bona fides ring hollow in light of his statements at the time. Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff declared that it was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality. Explaining that he wasn’t “legislating values,” she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another. “You’re opening up Pandora’s box here,” she said at the time. “You’re saying that any state can refuse to … recognize the laws of another state if they don’t like them.”” [Slate, 10/5/15] Sanders’ Rationale For Voting Against DOMA At The Time “Was Hardly A Full-Throated Cry For Equality.” “Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it. Sanders’ rhetoric leads listeners to believe that the congressman championed gay rights and rebuked Congress’ homophobia during the DOMA debate. But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.” [Slate, 10/5/15] 2009: Sanders Spokesman Said Sanders Had “Long Believed Marriage Is A Matter Of State, Not Federal, Law,” But Personally Supported Marriage Equality. ““Everybody knows where Vermont’s governor stands on 87 same-sex marriage. But what about the state’s other elected officials? They’ve been strangely quiet on the subject of matrimonial rights. So we asked them to weigh in. […] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I): “Senator Sanders has long believed marriage is a matter of state, not federal, law. Personally, he believes in marriage equality,” said Michael Briggs, Sanders’ spokesman.” [Seven Days Vermont, 4/1/09] Immigration Reform SANDERS SAID HE VOTED AGAINST THE 2007 IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL BECAUSE IT MISTREATED IMMIGRANTS… Sanders Said He Voted Against Immigration Reform In 2007 Because Of Guest Worker Provisions That The SPLC Criticized As Semi-Slavery. “LOPEZ: Gracias, Anderson. Senator Sanders, in 2013, you voted for immigration reform. But in 2007, when Democrats controlled Congress and the Bush White House was onboard, you voted against it. Why should Latino voters trust you now when you left them at the altar at the moment when reform was very close? SANDERS: I didn't leave anybody at the altar. I voted against that piece of legislation because it had guest-worker provisions in it which the Southern Poverty Law Center talked about being semislavery. Guest workers are coming in, they're working under terrible conditions, but if they stand up for their rights, they're thrown out of the country.” [Democratic Primary Presidential Debate, CNN, 10/13/15] …BUT AT THE TIME SANDERS WAS CONCERNED IMMIGRANTS WERE LOWERING WAGES FOR AMERICAN WORKERS Sanders Said It Made “No Sense” To “Bring Millions Of ‘Guest Workers' Into This Country Who Are Prepared To Work For Lower Wages Than American Workers.” “The Senate rejected an immigration reform package that Senator Bernie Sanders opposed because it would have driven down wages and benefits for U.S. workers by letting employers recruit lower-paid foreign guest workers. "At a time when the middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing and millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages it makes no sense to me to have an immigration bill which, over a period of years, would bring millions of ‘guest workers' into this country who are prepared to work for lower wages than American workers. We need to increase wages in this country, not lower them," Sanders said after senators voted 53-to-46 to set aside the legislation. We need an immigration policy which addresses the very serious problems of illegal immigration, continues our historic support of legal immigration, but protects the shrinking middle class." [Sanders Press Release, 6/28/07] Sanders Said That Largest Corporations Supported Immigration Reform Because They “Want To See Is A Continued Influx Into This Country Of Cheap Labor.” “Here is the point, and this is not a complicated point. Many of the largest corporations in this country are supporting this legislation. And you know why? It is not because they are staying up late at night worrying about some Mexican kid in Detroit or Chicago and what will be the future of that kid. They are not worrying about that. What they want to see is a continued influx into this country of cheap labor. They are not content with outsourcing millions of good-paying jobs. They are not content with fighting against working people who want to form unions. They are not content with their opposition, successful until recently, of keeping the minimum wage at $5.15 an hour for 10 years. That is not good enough. Now they are saying: Gee, we can't move Wal-Mart from America to China, we can't move hotels to China, we can't move restaurants to China, so what is the best way to continue keeping wages low for those workers?” [Congressional Record, 6/6/07] Sanders Said Corporations Like Wal-Mart Supported Immigration Reform Because It Increased Supply Of Low Wage Workers, Enabling Them To Keep Wages Low. “So the idea Wal-Mart and other similar-type companies would say: Gee, we can't find workers to do that work, is just plain wrong. What they want to do is have a surplus of workers coming into this country so wages do not go up. So instead of having to raise wages and benefits, in order to attract workers and retain workers, what you do is simply open the door and you bring in more and more cheap labor. That enables them to keep wages low.” [Congressional Record, 6/7/07] Sanders Was Concerned H-1B Visas Were Being Used To Replace American Workers With Foreign Workers Willing To Work For Lower Wages. “That sounds good on its face, and it may also have the benefit of being true in some cases, but there are those in this Chamber and across the country who are very concerned that in many instances the H-1B program is being used not to supplement American high-tech workers when they might be needed but instead is being used to replace them with foreign workers who are willing to work for substantially lower wages.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] 88 Sanders Said The H-1B Visa System Was “Working Against The Best Interests Of The American Middle Class.” “In my view, the H-1B system is working against the best interests of the American middle class. It is displacing skilled American workers, it is lowering our wages, and it is part of the process by which the middle class of this country continues to shrink. Meanwhile, it is creating huge profits for foreign companies that traffic in H-1B visas.” [Congressional Record, 5/24/07] Brady Bill SANDERS SAID HE OPPOSED THE BRADY BILL BECAUSE IT HAD WAITING PERIODS Sanders’ Campaign Manager Said He Opposed The Brady Bill Because He Believed Implementing A National Waiting Period Was “Federal Overreach” And Because His Constituents Opposed The Bill. “According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his job. ‘He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down,’ Weaver said. ‘He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont.’” [Politifact, 7/10/15] …BUT BACK IN THE EARLY 1990S, INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECKS WOULD HAVE GUTTED THE BRADY BILL Washington Post: Sanders Defense Of His Brady Bill Vote Has Shifted Toward Misleading Language That Ignores That Instant Background Checks In The Brady Bill Had “Almost The Opposite” Effect As The Similarly Named Provision In The Post-Newton Gun Proposals. “Now, on the presidential campaign trail, his defense has shifted. He instead points to his other votes, including his long-time support for instant background checks and expanded background checks. But this is misleading language. The instant background check provision in the Brady bill would have had quite a different — if not, almost the opposite — effect than the instant background check provision in the post-Newtown gun proposal. In effect, it would have killed the Brady bill. Yet to the public, this technical difference is not clear.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 10/19/15] Today, Legislation Requires Use Of The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, But Instant Checks Would Have Rendered Background Checks Moot In 1993 Because The Technology Did Not Yet Exist. “There is an important distinction here between the “instant background checks” he supported in the Brady bill. The background check provision in the post-Newtown legislation was to require a check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for all firearm sales and to prohibit straw purchase firearms. Sanders supported this. The provision in the Brady bill essentially would have rendered background checks moot, because the technology did not exist at the time. Sanders also supported this.” Washington Post Fact Checker: Sanders Created “A Misleading Impression” By Saying He Always Supported “Instant Background Checks.” “In the context of the Brady bill, ‘instant background checks’ are a different provision than in the context of the Newtown bill. Sanders needs to make that clear and be transparent, rather than creating a misleading impression using technical terms that mean little to ordinary people. Two Pinocchios.” [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 10/19/15] 89 SANDERS PAST EXTREME POSITIONS 100 Percent Top Tax Rate SANDERS SUPPORTED A 100 PERCENT TAX RATE FOR INCOME ABOVE $1 MILLION 1980s: Sanders Wanted To Impose A 100 Percent Tax Rate On Incomes Above $1 Million. “Sanders said there are several ways to return government and economic control to the people, all of which involve tax reform: 1) Make it illegal to amass more wealth than a human family could use in a lifetime. A 100 percent tax rate on incomes above this level ($ one million per year) would recycle this money for the public need.” [Newspaper Unknown, “Concentrated Wealth Is Causing Economic Illness,” date unknown] 1974: Sanders Said “Nobody Should Earn More Than $1 Million.” “And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.” [Politico, 7/6/15] Vouchers & Ending Compulsory Education SANDERS SUPPORTED VOUCHERS FOR STUDENTS TO PUT “FREE ENTERPRISE” INTO EDUCATION Liberty Union Called For An End To Compulsory State Education And For Vouchers To Fund Alternative Education. “Some of the platform positions adopted by the People’s Party are as follows: […] A voucher system to fund alternative forms of education and an end to laws which make state education compulsory.” [A Report on the People’s Party Convention, Martha Abbott, Chairperson of the Liberty Union, August 1972] 1972: Bernie Sanders Advocated A Voucher System For Funding Public Schools, Maintaining It Would “Put Back Free Enterprise Into Education.” “On education, Sanders carries over his ideas about making government and the economy more responsive with his support of the voucher system for schools. ‘The voucher system would put back free enterprise into education,’ he maintained, ‘and result in better schools competing for students.’ With the voucher system, in which parents choose where they want to send their children, Sanders believes the education system will ‘really open up.’” [Bennington Banner, 9/5/72] SANDERS SAID PUBLIC SCHOOLS RUINED CHILDREN 1969: Sanders Said That Declining Support For Public Schools Was “One Of The Most Heartening Signs In Recent Years.” “In a letter to the editor published in the Freeman in 1969, he called the growing disillusionment with public schooling "one of the most heartening signs in recent years," and he remarked that "the basic function of the schools is [to] set up in children patterns of docility and conformity—patterns designed not to create independent and free adults, but adults who will obey orders, be 'faithful' uncomplaining employees, and 'good' citizens."” [Mother Jones, 7/6/15] 1970: Bernie Sanders Drew A Strong Distinction Between “The Radical Approach To Education And ChildUpbringing” And The “Liberal And Conservative” Approaches. “The radical approach to education and childupbringing is as different to the liberal and conservative approaches, as the latter two are to each other. The radical approach to education and child-bringing as exemplified by such schools as A.S. Neill’s Summerhill, stats off with very different assumptions about human nature and society than do the other two approaches.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] 1970: Bernie Sanders: “The Radical Educator Believes… Human Instincts Are Good And That Society By Repressing… These Natural Feelings… Brings About The Hate, Sickness, And Misery Which Fills The World.” “The radical educator believes that, basically, the human instincts are good and that society by repressing and distorting these natural feelings of children, brings about the hate, sickness, and misery which fills the world. As much as possible, therefore, he allows children to act naturally and without constraint. He sees absolutely no sense in discipline for discipline’s sake. He sees no sense in imposing on children a particular body of knowledge—much of which he considers in any case, wrong or useless.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] 1970: Bernie Sanders: “The Radical Educator” Believing “Present Day Society” To Be “Sick And Anti-Life… Has No Desire ToEducate Children So That They Will Fit Into That Society.” “Because he sees present day society as 90 being basically sick and anti-life, the radical educator has no desire to educate children so that they will fit into that society, His concern is with what he conceives to be the health and happiness of the children, and if a child grows up with self-confidence, a sense of spontaneity, and a strong sense of his own abilities, the radical educator fells that he has done his job well.” [Vermont Freeman, 4/3/70] 1971: The Liberty Union Party’s Platform Called For “The Abolition Of Compulsory Education” And The “Legalization Of… The Use Of Marijuana.” “Among other Liberty Union platform items are the abolition of compulsory education and the funding of alternativeeducation; legalization of abortions and the use of marijuana; withdrawal of military forces from all foreign countries and the end of support for overseas dictatorships distribution of foreign aid through international agencies.” [Vermont Freeman, “Early November,” 1971] Liberty Union Called For Abolishment Of Structured Classes, Grade Levels, And For A Child’s Voice To Count “As Much As An Administrator's Does.” “Liberty Union calls for drastic revisions in the educational system to make schools into places for learning, where a student is encouraged to become an individual, not merely pressured to conform to a set of social standards. One essential change is the ending of the system of marks, of graded levels, and of structured, compulsory classes. A child should be free to learn what he feels he needs at the rate of speed he wishes to go without fear of someone else's standards. Schools must also be made democratic environments where a child's voice counts as much as an administrator's does.” [Liberty Union Principles, IX: Education, 4/22/71] Sanders: America’s Compartmentalization Of Different Aspects Of Life Through Education Was A Possible Explanation As To Why The U.S. Could “Napalm Children In Vietnam—And Not Care.” “All aspects of life are related —and it is only a schizophrenic society such as ours which segregates them and puts them into separate little boxes. We go to school and study ‘education’ and ‘psychology’ and ‘politics’ and ‘literature’ and ‘sexuality’ (if it is a ‘progressive’ school). How absurd: All of life is one and if we want to know, for example, how our nation can napalm children in Vietnam —AND NOT CARE—it is necessary to go well beyond ‘politics.’ We have got to get into the areas of feeling and emotion, pain and love—and how people relate to each other and how people shut off their feelings.” [Movement, Vol.1, No.5, Early August, 1972] Mother Jones: Sanders Said That Potentially Well-Meaning Infringements On Individual Choice, Such As Water Fluoridation, Dairy Regulations And Compulsory Education, Contributed To The Deterioration Of The Human Condition. “Some of his rants bordered on libertarian. He referred to water fluoridation, dairy regulations, and compulsory education as perhaps well-meaning infringements on individual choice that were contributing to the overall deterioration of the human condition. "It is obvious that in the name of 'public safety' the State is usurping the rights of free choice in many domains of life," he wrote in a 1969 essay entitled "Reflections on a Dying Society." Such regulations had a depressing effect on the soul, Sanders contended, citing a condition Freud referred to as the global "death instinct."” [Mother Jones, 7/6/15] Bernie Sanders: “Schools… serve no other function than to squash the life, joy and curiosity out of kids.” “With regard to the schools that you send your children to, are you concerned that many of these institutions serve no other function than to squash the life, joy and curiosity out of kids. When a doctor write[s] that the cancer personality “represses hate, anger, dissatisfaction and grudges, or on the other hand, is a ‘good’ person, who is consumed with self pity, suffers in stoic silence,” do you know what he is talking about, and what this has to do with children, parents and schools. It means this quite simply. A child has an old bitch of a teacher (and there are many of them) or pe[r]haps he simply is not interested in school and would rather be doing other things[s]. He complains and rebels against the situtiaon, which is the healthy reaction. When a person is hurt, no matter what age, he SHOULD rebel.” [Bernard Sanders, Vermont Freeman, 12/19-22/69] Legalizing All Drugs 1971: Bernie Sanders Ran On A Platform Calling For The Legalization Of All Drugs. “Freedom: ‘The government spies on its citizens, ignores civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, and imposes penalties for crimes which have no victim.’ Sanders said he would seek an end to abortion laws, legalize all drugs, eliminate restrictions on birth control, and end all discrimination based on sex, race or anything else.” [Bennington Banner, 12/11/71] 1972: Bernie Sanders Advocated The Legalization Of Marijuana. “In response to a number of students’ questions, Sanders advocated: […] --The legalization of marijuana.” [Bennington Banner, 10/25/72] 1971: Bernie Sanders Advocated The Legalization Of Heroin. “About drugs, Sanders asked, ‘What does it say about this country when two kids in New York City die every day from an overdose of heroin? Everybody knows it’s 91 a killer; the government tries to stop its use by making it illegal, and yet people keep taking it. They’re committing suicide, and they know it. What does that say about a young person’s will to live, about the value of human potential? If heroin were legal, at least we’d know the dimensions of the problem, and be able to deal with it rationally.’” [Bennington Banner, 12/11/71] 1986: Sanders Decried “Ineffective” Use Of State Funds To Prosecute Marijuana Users And Supported An Individual’s Right To Engage In Any Activity In The Privacy Of Home. “The Burlington mayor also said that he believes it is ‘an ineffective’ use of state funds to prosecute marijuana users and that in general he supports an individual’s right to engage in any activity in the privacy of his own home as long as it does not endanger… [CUT OFF].” [Rutland Daily Herald, 8/20/86] 92 REPEALING OBAMACARE AND REPLACING IT WITH A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM RUN BY THE STATES Sanders’s Single Payer Plan Would Repeal Obamacare and Other Health Programs & Ban Private Insurance Sanders: “It Is Time For A Medicare For All Single-Payer Healthcare System.” “As president, Sen. Sanders would fight for a Medicare for All single-payer healthcare system to make healthcare a right for all Americans. If the United States joined every major country on earth and enacted a universal healthcare program, women would benefit the most. Today, women have much higher healthcare expenses than men and pay a greater portion of their healthcare costs out of their own pockets. Women make up two-thirds of the low-wage workforce and only about 23 percent of low-wage jobs provide health insurance. It is time for a Medicare for All single-payer healthcare system.” [Issue Pages, Bernie 2016, Accessed 10/1/15] 2013: Sanders Sponsored S. 1782, American Health Security Act Of 2013. [S 1782, introduced 12/9/13] Sanders Said American Health Security Act Would Provide Every American With Health Care Coverage, Including Dental Care, Mental Health Care And Low Cost Prescription Drugs. “The only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program. […] Congressman Jim McDermott and I have introduced the American Health Security Act. Our bill will provide every American with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program, including dental and mental health coverage and low-cost prescription drugs. It would require the government to develop national policies and guidelines, as well as minimum national criteria, while giving each state the flexibility to adapt the program as needed. It would also completely overhaul the health coverage system, creating a single federal payer of state-administered health plans.” [Bernie Sanders, The Guardian, 10/7/13] S 1782 Would Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Federal Employees Health Benefit Program and TRICARE. “SEC. 106. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAMS. (a) Medicare, Medicaid And State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).— (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraph (2)— (A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished after December 31, 2014; (B) no individual is entitled to medical assistance under a State plan approved under title XIX of such Act for any item or service furnished after such date; (C) no individual is entitled to medical assistance under an SCHIP plan under title XXI of such Act for any item or service furnished after such date; and (D) no payment shall be made to a State under section 1903(a) or 2105(a) of such Act with respect to medical assistance or child health assistance for any item or service furnished after such date. […] (b) Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.—No benefits shall be made available under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, for any part of a coverage period occurring after December 31, 2014. (c) TRICARE.—No benefits shall be made available under sections 1079 and 1086 of title 10, United States Code, for items or services furnished after December 31, 2014.” [S 1782, Sec 106]  S 1782 Would Not Impact Medical Benefits Of Veterans Or Native Americans. “(d) Treatment Of Benefits For Veterans And Native Americans.—Nothing in this Act shall affect the eligibility of veterans for the medical benefits and services provided under title 38, United States Code, or of Indians for the medical benefits and services provided by or through the Indian Health Service.” [S 1782, Sec 106] S 1782 Would Repeal The State Exchanges Created Under The Affordable Care Act. “SEC. 107. REPEAL OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE STATE EXCHANGES. Title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) (and the amendments made by title I) is repealed.” [S 1782, Sec 107] S 1782 Appropriated All Funds Previously Granted To Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employee Health Benefits, And TRICARE To The American Health Security Trust Fund. “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, there are hereby appropriated to the Trust Fund for each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2015) the amounts that would otherwise have been appropriated to carry out the following programs: (A) The Medicare program, under parts A, B, and D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (other than amounts attributable to any 93 premiums under such parts). (B) The Medicaid program, under State plans approved under title XIX of such Act. (C) The Federal employees health benefit program, under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. (D) The TRICARE program (formerly known as the CHAMPUS program), under chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code. (E) The maternal and child health program (under title V of the Social Security Act), vocational rehabilitation programs, programs for drug abuse and mental health services under the Public Health Service Act, programs providing general hospital or medical assistance, and any other Federal program identified by the Board, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to the extent the programs provide for payment for health services the payment of which may be made under this Act.” [S 1782, Sec 801] American Health Security Act Prohibits Sale Of Health Insurance That Duplicates Insurance Provided By States. “(c) No Duplicate Health Insurance.—Each State health security program shall prohibit the sale of health insurance in the State if payment under the insurance duplicates payment for any items or services for which payment may be made under such a program.” [S 1782, Sec 201] Sanders: " I think that is not an area where private insurance companies should be functioning." “Ezra Klein: What is the underlying principle there? What are the situations where you look at a given area of the economy and say, "That's something we should turn over to the market," or, "That's something we should possibly federalize"? Bernie Sanders: Good questions. Health care, to my mind, is a right of all people. That's what I believe. I think every man, woman, and child is entitled to health care, and that right exists in virtually every other major industrialized country on Earth. We are the odd guys out there. Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act we have 35 million people who still have no health insurance, and, more importantly, millions more are underinsured with high copayments and high deductibles. I think a Medicare-for-all, full-single-payer approach is the way to do it. I believe in Medicare for all people, and I think that is not an area where private insurance companies should be functioning, because once you have private insurance companies their goal is to make as much money as possible, not to provide quality care. In terms of health care, yeah, we should have a public health-care system guaranteeing health care to all people in a cost-effective way. I think a Medicare-for-all, full-single-payer approach is the way to do it.” [Vox, 7/28/15] Sanders Supports a Single Payer Plan Administered by the States Sanders Said The Healthcare System Should Be Administered At The State Level, Not In Washington. And eventually we will have a national healthcare system in this country; I hope administered at the state level, not in Washington, which will end the absurdity and the horror of 48 million people not having any health insurance at all. So I hope that Vermont will lead the nation in that direction. [Senator Bernie Sanders on Government Shutdown, 9/27/13, 25:00] Sanders Said He Would Create A “Mass Movement” Of Middle Class Americans To Defeat Congressional Republican Opposition To A Single-Payer, Universal “Medicare-For-All.” “DIANE REHM: “As president, would you push for a single-payer plan nationally? And once again, with a Republican Congress in power, how would or could you make that happen?” BERNIE SANDERS: “…I do believe in Medicare-for-all, single-payer program, administered at the statewide level.” DIANE REHM: “But how would you do it? How would you get that through?” BERNIE SANDERS: “Okay, Diane, the main point that I've been making in this campaign is that no president, not Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, not anybody, is going to accomplish what the middle class of this country needs, unless there is a mass movement of people who say enough is enough, government has got to start representing us. When we raise public consciousness, when we educate, when we organize so that when we bring a bill on the floor to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, millions of people are on the telephone telling their Republican representatives they better vote for that, or there's going to be a very short term, and they're going to be out of office.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Diane Rehm Show, 6/10/15] STATES WERE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP, ADMINISTER, AND COVER EXCESSIVE COSTS OF THE PLAN Under S 1782, States Were Required To Plan A State Health Program Or Join With One Or More Neighboring States For A Regional Program. “(1) IN GENERAL.—Each State shall submit to the Board a plan for a State health security program for providing for health care services to the residents of the State in accordance with this Act. (2) REGIONAL PROGRAMS.—A State may join with 1 or more neighboring States to submit to the Board a plan for a regional health security program instead of separate State health security programs.” [S 1782, Sec 404] 94 If A State Failed To Submit A Plan, The Board Would Develop A Plan For The State. “(4) STATES THAT FAIL TO SUBMIT A PLAN.—In the case of a State that fails to submit a plan as required under this subsection, the American Health Security Standards Board Authority shall develop a plan for a State health security program in such State.” [S 1782, Sec 404] Under S 1782, Federal Government Would Cover Between 81 And 91 Percent Of The Cost Of Each State Health Program, Depending On A Formula Weighing State Attributes. “(b) Federal Contribution Percentage.— The Board shall establish a formula for the establishment of a Federal contribution percentage for each State. Such formula shall take into consideration a State’s per capita income and revenue capacity and such other relevant economic indicators as the Board determines to be appropriate. In addition, during the 5-year period beginning with 2012, the Board may provide for a transition adjustment to the formula in order to take into account current expenditures by the State (and local governments thereof) for health services covered under the State health security program. The weighted-average Federal contribution percentage for all States shall equal 86 percent and in no event shall such percentage be less than 81 percent nor more than 91 percent.” [S 1782, Sec 604] Spending Above Budget In A Given Year Would Be Funded By State Revenues. “(d) Effect Of Spending Excess Or Surplus.— (1) SPENDING EXCESS.—If a State exceeds its budget in a given year, the State shall continue to fund covered health services from its own revenues.” [S 1782, Sec 604] S 1782 Capped Administrative Costs For State Projects At Three Percent Of Total Expenditures. “(2) LIMIT ON CLAIMS PROCESSING AND BILLING EXPENDITURES.—Each State health security budget shall provide that State administrative expenditures, including expenditures for claims processing and billing, shall not exceed 3 percent of the total expenditures under the State health security program, unless the Board determines, on a caseby-case basis, that additional administrative expenditures would improve health care quality and cost effectiveness.” [S 1782, Sec 603] S 1782 Allowed For Up To One Percent Of The States Budgets For First Two Years Of The Program To Be Allocated Toward Workers Assistance For Administrative Workers Who Were Laid Off As A Result Of Implementation Of The Act. “(3) WORKER ASSISTANCE.—A State health security program may provide that, for budgets for years before 2017, up to 1 percent of the budget may be used for purposes of programs providing assistance to workers who are currently performing functions in the administration of the health insurance system and who may experience economic dislocation as a result of the implementation of the program. […] SEC. 905. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TITLE. The amendments made by this title shall take effect January 1, 2015.” [S 1782, Sec 603] $15 Trillion Cost SANDERS’S HEALTH PLAN IS ESTIMATED TO COST $15 TRILLION Wall Street Journal: Sanders’ Single-Payer Health Care Proposal Would Cost An Estimated $15 Trillion. “His agenda includes an estimated $15 trillion for a government-run health-care program that covers every American, plus large sums to rebuild roads and bridges, expand Social Security and make tuition free at public colleges.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] THE SANDERS CAMPAIGN HAS SAID $15 TRILLION IS IN THE BALLPARK Sanders’ Senate Aide Said That The Wall Street Journal’s $15 Trillion Estimate Of A Single-Payer Health Plan Was A Fair Estimate. “Mr. Sanders declined a request for an interview. His campaign referred questions to Warren Gunnels, his policy director, who said the programs would address an array of problems. “Sen. Sanders’s agenda does cost money,” he said. “If you look at the problems that are out there, it’s very reasonable.” […] Mr. Gunnels, the Sanders aide, said the campaign hasn’t worked out all details on his plan—for instance, his version might allow each state to run its own single-payer system. But he said the $15 trillion figure was a fair estimate.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/14/15] Sanders: “Even Assuming That It Were $15 Trillion Over 10 Years .  .  . [Americans] Would No Longer Be Paying Private Health Insurance.” “‘The point is, we haven’t finished the proposal yet,’ Sanders said, when asked about the details of his health-care plan. A recent report in the Wall Street Journal quoted an estimated that a plan Sanders has supported in the past that would cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Sanders said that missed the point. 95 ‘Even assuming that it were $15 trillion over 10 years .  .  . [Americans] would no longer be paying private health insurance’ at the same time, so they’d be saving money that way, Sanders said.” [Washington Post, 10/1/15] BUT SANDERS DISPUTES THE $15 FIGURE Sanders Claimed That The Wall Street Journal Exaggerated How Much His Health Care Plan Would Cost. “MITCHELL: Now, today's "Wall Street Journal" itemizes what they say would be the price tag of what you are proposing, the social programs. $18 trillion over ten years. Is that sustainable given the economy, given where the budget is and the deadlock in Congress? SANDERS: Andrea, that is not the reality. We will be responding to "The Wall Street Journal" on that. I think most of the expense that they put in there, the expenditures have to do with the single payer health care system. They significantly exaggerated the cost of that and they forgot to tell the American people in that article that that means eliminating the costs that you incur with private health insurance.” [Transcript via Federal News Service, Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC, 9/15/15] Sanders Said Analysts “Exaggerate What We Are Doing” Because “We Pay For What We Are Doing.” “TOM ASHBROOK: Washington Post estimates today that your program would cost $3.27 trillion. That is a lot of money. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes, but like other analysts who, um, exaggerate what we are doing. We pay for what we are doing. But here is the point Tom. Yes, I am not going to deny that if you make certain that every public college and university is tuition free and if you, by the way, substantially lower student debt, which is now a very serious problem, Tom. That will cost you about 70 billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but you know how we pay for it? We pay for it based on a tax on Wall Street speculation. Yes, I oppose cutting Social Security benefits, I want to expand it. We pay for that by demanding that the wealthiest people in this county, people earning over $250,000 a year, we will lift the cap on taxable income and they will, in fact, pay on all of their income rather the at $118,000 right now. So you name the issue and we are paying for it by doing away with, for example, the absurd loophole that now exists such that profitable corporations making billions of dollars a year can stash their money in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda and not pay a nickel taxes.” [On Point With Tom Ashbrook, WBUR, 10/1/15] Sanders Said The Wall Street Journal Forgot To Say That Under His Health Care Plan Individuals And Business Would Not Have To Pay For Health Care Premiums. “NAIR: Because right now, you've seen estimates. People are saying the estimate for The Wall Street Journal is $18 trillion to cover. SANDERS: But what The Wall Street Journal said and we responded to it is that that included 15 billion dollars for national health care program. What they forgot to say is that you would not be paying and businesses would not be paying for private health insurance. So, in other words, right now if you're paying $12,000 a year for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, you would not be paying that. In fact, every study indicated that we pay more per capita for healthcare than any nation on earth. We would lower that goal.” [This Morning, CBS News, 9/18/15] Sanders Said The Wall Street Journal Was “Dead Wrong” On A Number Of Points They Made About The Cost Of His Agenda. “Mark Halperin: I know the [Wall Street] Journal did a story that you dispute with about the specifics. But there is no doubt you are for increased spending in a lot of areas, increased revenue in some areas, but would in your first budget for instance submit a balanced budget? Bernie Sanders: No no no, you could do that. But let me just say a few things. And the Wall Street Journal was dead wrong on a number of points they are making. When you talk, they suggest I’m spending 18 trillion over a 10 year period. Fifteen of that was spent on healthcare. What they forgot to say when we move towards a national healthcare program, the kind of program that exists on every major country on earth, the cost per capita on healthcare would go significantly down, so yes, taxes would go up, but you would not have to private health insurance as an individual or as a business.” [With All Due Respect, Bloomberg, 9/18/15] Sanders Said That Articles About The Cost Of His Agenda Have Been “Really Unfair And Wrong.” “MAHER: Okay. But now this has been studied. The amount of tax revenue that we would get just from taxing the people who I think your fans think you’re talking about the people who own a yacht does not come close to covering what you want to pay for. SANDERS: Not true, not true. MAHER: Come on, you’re saying by only taxing the top one SANDERS: No, what I’m saying is there have been articles out that that have been really unfair and wrong. For example, what they are suggesting is if we move to a Medicare for all single payer system, which guarantees health care to all people, it would cost a lot of money. That’s true, but what they forget to tell you is that it would be much more cost effective than the dysfunctional system we have right now which is the most expensive per capita on earth.” [Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, 10/16/15] Vermont Single Payer Failure 96 Sanders Supported Allowing States Attempt To Establish Single Payer Health Care Systems. “What we are talking about is a conservative idea. Give states the flexibility to go forward we’re not asking for one penny more of federal money, not one penny more. And why the Congress and the president would not say, OK Vermont you do it, and if it succeeds the rest of the country will learn from you. If it doesn’t succeed, congratulations you’re on your own.” [SoundCloud, Bernie Sanders, Audio Clip: “2013: Let States Do Single Payer,” Accessed 6/9/15] Sanders Hoped That Eventual Popularity Of Single Payer System In Vermont Would Become The Catalyst For Similar Programs Across The Country. “The answer: They didn't. But the state of Vermont will. On May 26, Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont is expected to sign legislation that will create universal coverage in the stateeventually. Vermont will use subsidies from the Affordable Care Act to help create a Canada-style system. And its system, or so the theory goes, will become so popular and cheap that the rest of America will want to copy it. "Many of our Republican colleagues say they don't trust the federal government," said Sanders. They don't want the federal government getting involved in health care issues across the country. And what Jim and I are saying is, OK. Let the states be the laboratories of democracy. Maintaining certain minimal standards, let those states that choose go forward and a different direction. It may well be that Vermont will lead the country. And if the Vermont experience works well, as I believe it will, I think you're going to look at other states, and they're going to say, "Gee, they're covering all their people. They're doing it at lower costs!" It may be the state of Washington, or the state of California. And then eventually you might have a universal health care system across the country.” [Slate, 5/11/11] Sanders Said Vermont Program Could Be A “Model” To The Nation. “Vermont is leading the nation in development of a health care system that would provide better care for more people at less cost. “If Vermont can pass a strong single-payer system and show it works well, it will not only be enormously important to this state, it will be a model,” Sen. Bernie Sanders told Vermont Life. “If we do it and do it well, other states will get in line and follow us … and we will have a national system.” The new magazine article said Sanders has been a leading advocate for a single-payer system since his days at mayor of Burlington in the 1980s.” [Sanders press release, 2/21/13] Sanders Said That If Vermont Can Have A Successful Single Payer System, The Rest Of The Nation Can Have The Same. “It is my hope that the state of Vermont will lead the nation in a very new direction in healthcare. And it’s appropriate that we do it. We’re a small state; we have about 630,000 people. We have a bunch of very good hospitals; we have a lot of good medical personnel. And to answer [the caller’s] question, this is what I believe. I think if Vermont can show that a single payer system, which guarantees health care to all people, which takes the burden off of business, which gives people freedom of choice with regards to doctors and hospitals, etc. And which is cost effective. If we can prove it in Vermont, I have not the slightest doubt that other states would be saying that they want to do the same thing.” [Senator Bernie Sanders on Government Shutdown, 9/27/13, 24:30] Vermont Shelved Its Plan To Create A Single-Payer Health Care System Due To Cost. “Just a few years ago, lawmakers in this left-leaning state viewed President Obama’s Affordable Care Act as little more than a pit stop on the road to a far more ambitious goal: single-payer, universal health care for all residents. Then things unraveled. The online insurance marketplace that Vermont built to enroll people in private coverage under the law had extensive technical failures. The problems soured public and legislative enthusiasm for sweeping health care changes just as Gov. Peter Shumlin needed to build support for his complex single-payer plan. Finally, Mr. Shumlin, a Democrat, shelved the plan in December, citing the high cost to taxpayers. He called the decision ‘the greatest disappointment of my political life.’” [New York Times, 6/9/15] Sanders On Single Payer In Vermont: ““It's Not That It Hasn't Worked Out, It Hasn't Been Implemented.” “Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) says that single-payer healthcare did not fail in Vermont and could be revived, amid speculation that flailing efforts in that regard could hurt his 2016 presidential hopes. […] “It's not that it hasn't worked out, it hasn't been implemented,” he said. “So I think that in Vermont, many of us, including the governor, are planning about how we go forward.” Sanders added that the debate is “certainly not finished,” but declined to elaborate further. His office did not respond to a request to expand on his comments.” [The Hill, 2/16/15] In Order To Implement Single Payer System, Vermont Needed To Add A 11.5 Percent Business Tax And A Personal Income Tax Hike Of Up To 9.5 Percent. “When Shumlin signed a bill to set the single-payer process in motion in 2011, it was seen as a nascent success story for advocates of the system. […]Instead, the plan has fizzled. The 2011 bill did not set out the details of how to pay for the plan. In December of last year, facing the need 97 for an 11.5 percent tax on all Vermont businesses, and personal income tax hikes of up to 9.5 percent in order to pay for the plan, Shumlin called it off.” [The Hill, 2/16/15] Even With Tax Increases, Program Was Expected To Run Deficits. “And even those tax increases might not have been enough. The governor’s office estimated the Green Mountain Care program would run deficits of $82 million by 2020 and $146 million in 2021. Shumlin said he feared the tax increases would harm businesses and the economy.” [Boston Globe, 1/25/15] Shumlin Said Increased Taxes “Might Hurt Our Economy.” ““It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”” [Politico, 12/20/14] Governor Shumlin Said That “Economic Shock” Was Too Much For Him To “Responsibly Support” Passage Of Single Payer. “In December of last year, facing the need for an 11.5 percent tax on all Vermont businesses, and personal income tax hikes of up to 9.5 percent in order to pay for the plan, Shumlin called it off. “The risk of economic shock is too high at this time to offer a plan I can responsibly support for passage in the legislature,” Shumlin said in announcing his decision.” [The Hill, 2/16/15] Single Payer Program Would Have Doubled The Size Of Vermont’s Budget In The First Year. “But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.” [Boston Globe, 1/25/15] Shumlin’s Framework For Single Payer Exempted Multi-State Businesses, And It Was “Unclear” How Federal Health Care Programs Would Be Integrated Into The State Plan. “Vermont’s public failure is especially frustrating to single-payer advocates because, they note, the Shumlin framework, which had gotten approval of the state legislature minus that key financing element, wasn’t really a true single-payer plan. Notably, large businesses that operate in multiple states would have been exempt. And it was unclear whether or how enrollees in federal plans like Medicare and TRICARE could be integrated into the state’s plan.” [Politico, 12/20/14] Exemptions Cut Funding While Adding Administrative Complexity, Eliminating The Potentially CostSaving Simplicity Of A Single Payer Program. “Those exemptions cut into the funding base while adding administrative complexity, eliminating one of the potential cost-saving elements of single-payer: simplicity. “There are some practical problems in the idea of state-based policy,” Coates said, acknowledging the huge federal role in financing and regulating health care.” [Politico, 12/20/14] 98 IDEOLOGY OVER HELPING PEOPLE AND SMALL BUSINESSES Middle Class Taxes SANDERS ADMITTED THE TOP ONE PERCENT ALONE COULD NOT PAY FOR ALL OF HIS PROPOSALS October 13: Sanders Said Billionaires Would Pay “A Hell Of A Lot More In Taxes” Under His Administration. “BASH: Sanders, you've mentioned a couple of times you do have a plan to make public colleges free for everyone. Secretary Clinton has criticized that in saying she's not in favor of making a college free for Donald Trump's kids. Do you think taxpayers should pick up the tab for wealthy children? SANDERS: Well, let me tell you, Donald Trump and his billionaire friends under my policies are going to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes today -- taxes in the future than they're paying today.” [Democratic Primary Presidential Debate, CNN, 10/13/15] October 16: Sanders Said He Believed His Agenda Could Be Paid For By Taxes For The Wealthy, Said “We May Have To Go Down A Little Bit Lower Than” Taxing Only The Top One Percent “But Not Much Lower.” “MAHER: So you’re saying we can pay for all this without raising taxes on anybody but the 1 percent? SANDERS: We may have to go down a little bit lower than that, but not much lower. And what people have to understand is right now people can’t afford to send their kids to college, and people are graduating school deeply in debt. Do I think we should join Germany and many other countries and encourage young people to get the education that they need, making our country stronger? I sure do. I sure do.” [Real Time with Bill Maher, HBO, 10/16/15] October 18: Sanders Said It Was Not True That He Would Have To Go Much Further Than Tax Hikes For The Top One Percent To Pay For His Agenda. “STEPHANOPOULOS: But to pay for all of your programs, you're going to have to do more than tax the top 1 percent. How far below the top 1 percent are you going to go with tax hikes? SANDERS: It is not true that we have to go much further. I just indicated to you some of the proposals that we have.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] Sanders Said He Did Not Say There Would Be No Tax Hikes Below The Top One Percent, And Used As An Example That He Would Pay For Paid Leave Through A Small Increase In The Payroll Tax “STEPHANOPOULOS: No tax hikes below the top 1 percent? SANDERS: I didn't say that. I think if you're looking about guaranteeing paid family and medical leave, which virtually every other major country has, so that when a mom gives birth, she doesn't have to go back to work in two weeks, or there's an illness in a family, dad or mom can stay home with the kids. That will require a small increase in the payroll tax (INAUDIBLE) Senator Gillibrand's legislation and we can accomplish that with a -- just a small increase in the payroll tax.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] Sanders Acknowledged That An Increase In The Payroll Tax Would Hit Everyone. “Senator Gillibrand's legislation and we can accomplish that with a -- just a small increase in the payroll tax. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that will... (CROSSTALK) SANDERS: -- idea. STEPHANOPOULOS: That's going to hit everybody. SANDERS: That would hit every -- yes, it would. But it would mean that we would join the rest of the industrialized world and make sure that when a mom has a baby, she can, in fact, stay home with that baby for three months rather than go back to work at one -- at the end of one week. We are the only major -- only country -- only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical leave.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] Sanders Did Not Give A Specific Top Tax Rate, But Said It Would “Be A Damned Lot Higher Than It Is Right Now.” “SANDERS: Yes, we are going to ask Trump and his billionaire friends to pay more in taxes... STEPHANOPOULOS: What rate? SANDERS: -- yes, we are going to end these -- we'll come up with that rate. But it will be a damned lot higher than it is right now. When you see the rich getting much, much richer, and in their effective tax rates, as Warren Buffet often reminds us, is lower than the effective tax rates of truck drivers and nurses, yes, the wealthy have got to pay more and corporations […] STEPHANOPOULOS: You said a damned bit more. Previously, you'd been asked if a 90 percent marginal rate is certainly too high and you said no. So how high are you willing to go on that top marginal rate? Are 99 we talking 50 percent? Sixty percent? SANDERS: Well, we're working -- George, what we -- this is what we are working on right now.” [This Week with George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, 10/18/15] SANDERS REPEATEDLY OPPOSED A PAYROLL TAX CUT Sanders Voted Against Two Year Extension Of The Bush Tax Cuts. On December 15, 2010, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #276. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with a further Reid and McConnell, R-Ky., substitute amendment no. 4753 that would extend the 2001- and 2003-enacted tax cuts for all taxpayers for two years, as well as revive the lapsed estate tax at a 35 percent rate on estates worth more than $5 million. It also would continue expended unemployment insurance benefits for 13 months. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #276, 12/15/2010] Package Included Two Percentage Point Reduction In The Payroll Tax. “The $858 billion package prevents taxes from rising on New Year's Day for virtually every American household. The measure also will guarantee unemployed workers in hard-hit states up to 99 weeks of jobless benefits through the end of next year. And it will create major new incentives for business and consumer spending in 2011, including a twopercentage-point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that would let workers keep as much as $2,136.” [Washington Post, 12/17/10] Sanders Opposed Motion To Extend Payroll Tax Rates For Individuals Through 2012. On December 8, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #225. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend current payroll tax rates for individuals through 2012. It would be offset by requiring increased Medicare payments from higher-income earners. It also would extend the current pay freeze for federal workers for three years and reduce the federal civilian work force through attrition. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #225, 12/8/2011] Sanders Opposed Payroll Tax Rate Of 3.1 Percent For Workers In 2012. On December 8, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #224. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend and expand a reduction in payroll tax rates for employees. It would set the payroll tax to 3.1 percent for workers in 2012. It would be offset in part with a 1.9 percent surtax on annual incomes over $1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #224, 12/8/2011] Sanders Opposed Extending Payroll Tax Rates For Individuals Through 2012. On December 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #220. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend current payroll tax rates for individuals through 2012. It would be offset by requiring increased Medicare payments from higher-income earners. It also would extend the current pay freeze for federal workers for three years and reduce the federal civilian work force through attrition. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #220, 12/1/2011] Sanders Opposed Motion To Extend Payroll Tax Rates For Employees And Employers. On December 1, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #219. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D-Nev., motion to proceed to the bill that would extend and expand a reduction in payroll tax rates for employees and employers. It would set the payroll tax to 3.1 percent in 2012, and cut the employer share to 3.1 percent from 6.2 percent next year for the first $5 million of a company's wage costs. It would be offset with a 3.25 percent surtax on annual incomes over $1 million. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #219, 12/1/2011] Sanders Said Extending Payroll Tax Cut For Two Years Would Make It “Harder To Break That Habit In The Third Year.” “Bipartisan concerns that extending the payroll-tax cut would weaken Social Security are spilling into the open, complicating the effort to allow the tax break for workers to continue into 2012. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), a leading liberal voice, last week voted against a Democratic bill to extend the tax cut. That put him in line with Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican, and Sen. Jerry Moran (R., Kan.), a member of the tea-party caucus. ‘If you do it for two years, you know what it's probably going to be harder to break that habit in the third year,’ Mr. Sanders said, adding, ‘in which case you've got a permanent process by which you've cut the payroll tax and diverted huge sums of money.’” [Wall Street Journal, 12/8/11] Sanders Opposed Extending 4.2 Percent Employee Payroll Tax Rate Through February 2012. On December 17, 2011, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #232. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Reid, D100 Nev., substitute amendment no. 1465 that would extend the 4.2 percent employee payroll tax rate through February 2012. It also would provide for an extension of Medicare payments rates to doctors through February 2012, delaying a reduction scheduled to occur in 2012. The substitute also would extend workers' eligibility for certain expanded unemployment benefits through February 2012. It would be offset through an increase in loan fees levied by government-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for guaranteeing loans purchased in the secondary mortgage market. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #232, 12/17/2011] 2011: Sanders Voted Against Payroll Tax Cut Extension Because It Diverted Billions From Social Security. “The Senate-passed package of spending and tax provisions would extend for two months a Social Security payroll tax cut. ‘Middle-class working families need tax relief to help them survive in this terrible economy," Sanders said, "but diverting billions of dollars from Social Security to provide that tax relief is wrong. This continues a dangerous process that began last year. I strongly believe tax relief should be done in a different way.’” [Sanders press release, 12/17/11] Sanders Opposed Extending 4.2 Percent Employee Payroll Tax Rate Through 2012. On February 17, 2012, Bernie Sanders voted no on Senate Vote #22. Congressional Quarterly reported the vote as: Adoption of the conference report on the bill that would extend the 4.2 percent employee payroll tax rate through 2012. It also would renew long-term unemployment benefits into January 2013, with three stages of reductions. The current Medicare reimbursement rate for physicians would be preserved through 2012, preventing a scheduled 27.4 percent payment cut. The cost of the legislation would be partially offset by requiring larger pension payments from newly hired federal employees and from lawmakers, by auctioning blocks of electromagnetic spectrum used by television broadcasters and by reducing funds for certain programs tied to the 2010 health care overhaul. [CQ Floor Votes; Senate Vote #22, 2/17/2012] 2012: Sanders Voted Against Extension Of Payroll Tax Holiday Because It Diverted Money From Social Security. "Congress today passed a $150 billion package extending a cut in the Social Security payroll tax and continuing benefits for the long-term unemployed. The House vote was 293-132. The Senate voted 60 to 36. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted no and issued the following statement: "I very strongly believe the middle class needs a tax break and clearly we must extend unemployment benefits. However, as I have stated over and over again, I am very concerned about once again diverting substantial sums of money from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is of such enormous importance to the American people."" [Sanders press release, 2/17/12] Sanders Opposed Payroll Tax Cut Because It Diverted Huge Amounts Of Money From Social Security Trust Fund. “Another issue that I know the listeners are interested in is the issue of the payroll tax. Literally I just came from voting on that a few minutes ago, and I didn't even know the final result on that, we'll know it in a minute. I suspect it will pass. I voted no. And I voted no, not because I don't understand that the middle class needs a tax break, we absolutely need a tax break to help the hardpressed middle class so they can get that money, go out and spend it, and create some jobs, it's significant. But I thought it important to continue raising the issue of the danger of diverting, in total, hundreds of billions of dollars from the Social Security trust fund. So when you lower the pay roll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, all you are doing at the moment is diverting huge amounts of money into the Social Security trust fund.” [Brunch with Bernie, 2/7/12, 3:50] Export-Import Bank SANDERS OPPOSES THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK… Sanders Voted Against Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank. “Senators voted to revive the Export-Import Bank on Monday, setting themselves on a crash course with their House counterparts. Lawmakers voted 64-29 on attaching a reauthorization of the bank's charter, which expired last month, to a long-term highway bill. The amendment, from Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill), reauthorizes the bank's charter through the fall of 2019. [...] Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, also voted against reauthorizing the bank's charter.” [The Hill, 7/27/15; S Amdt 2327 to S Admt 2266 to HR 22, Vote #256, 7/27/15] June 10, 2015: Sanders Was The Only Member Of The Senate Democratic Caucus To Vote Against Reauthorizing The Export-Import Bank. “Ex-Im Bank Supporters of the Export-Import Bank showed on Wednesday that they have the support in the Senate needed to break a filibuster against its renewal. The Senate 101 voted 65-31 against tabling an amendment to reauthorize the bank. Sen. Sanders joined 30 Republicans in voting against the bank, reported The Hill, Bloomberg, and The Dallas Morning News.” [Press Release, Office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] Sanders Tweeted That He Opposed The Export-Import Bank As “Corporate Welfare.” “We shouldn't be providing corporate welfare to multi-national corporations through the Export-Import Bank.” [Twitter, Bernie Sanders, 6/11/15] In 2002, Sanders Called The Bank “Corporate Welfare At Its Worst.” “Ralph Nader has said that the left and right must come together to end the Ex-Im Bank. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called it ‘corporate welfare at its worst’ in 2002.” [State News Service, 12/15/14] Sanders Sponsored Bill To Require Ex-Im Bank To Prioritize Firms Committed To Creating Jobs In The United States. “Amends the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 to direct the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank to prescribe and implement procedures to ensure that, in selecting from among firms to which to provide financial assistance, preference is given to any firm that has shown a commitment to reinvestment and job creation in the United States.” [HR 2069, introduced 6/25/97] …THAT HELPS THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES AND JEOPARDIZES AMERICAN JOBS Roughly 3,000 Small Businesses Rely On Ex-Im To Be Able To Export. “Already, credit insurance policies are starting to run out for a number of the roughly 3,000 small businesses that rely on them to be able to export. Still, some U.S. companies are continuing to compete for overseas bids that will ultimately require Ex-Im backing, in the hopes that the agency will be renewed before the deals fall through, National Association of Manufacturers Vice President Linda Dempsey said in an interview.” [Politico, 7/30/15] Allowing Ex-Im To Expire Caused Some Companies To Consider Moving Operations Abroad. “Some big companies may choose not to wait. Boeing Chairman Jim McNerney said during an appearance Wednesday that the giant plane manufacturer and defense contractor is considering moving parts of its operations to other countries, where they could take advantage of those nations’ equivalents to Ex-Im to continue selling products overseas. “We’re actively considering now moving key pieces of our company to other countries, and we would’ve never considered that before this craziness on Ex-Im,” McNerney said.” [Politico, 7/30/15] 102 CAN’T WORK WITH PEOPLE TO GET THINGS DONE No Accomplishments SANDERS ONLY SPONSORED ONE SUBSTANTIVE BILL THAT BECAME LAW During His Time In Congress, Sanders Has Been The Primary Sponsor Of Only One Substantive Bill That Became Law. According to Congress.gov, Sanders was the primary sponsor of only one substantive bill that became law, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013, 22 years after joining Congress. Sanders also sponsored two bills to rename post offices in Vermont that became law, totaling three sponsored bills to become law over almost 25 years in Congress. [congress.gov, accessed 11/2/15] Mother Jones: Sanders “Isn't Known In The Senate As A Legislative Wonk Who Passes A Large Volume Liberal Legislation.” “For all his fiery rhetoric, Sanders isn't known in the Senate as a legislative wonk who passes a large volume liberal legislation. The lack of clarity around his bill to break up the banks is likely why it has not yet attracted any cosponsors in the Senate.” [Mother Jones, 9/17/15] SANDERS’S AMENDMENTS Over Almost 25 Years, Sanders Passed 45 Amendments Into Law While In Congress. Sanders had 23 amendments become law while in the House, and 22 become law while in the Senate. [Internal Analysis] None Of Sanders House Amendments Had Co-Sponsors. Zero of Sanders’s 90 proposed House amendments had co-sponsors. 116 of Sanders’s 328 proposed Senate amendments had cosponsors. [Internal Analysis] All Of Sanders House Amendments That Became Law Were Part Of Spending Bills. “Of the 23 amendments that became law when Bernie was in the House, all were attached to spending bills; 6 were about trade/commerce, 3 were about defense/intelligence, 3 were about health, 2 were about education, 2 were about energy/environment, 2 were about banking, 1 was about agriculture/rural, 1 was about government operations, 1 was about nutrition, 1 was about pharmaceuticals, and 1 was about veterans. And in fact, those spending bills averaged 35 successful amendments as well.” [Internal Analysis] 17 Of Sanders’s 22 Senate Amendments That Became Law Were Part Of Spending Bills. “Of the 22 amendments that became law when Bernie was in the Senate, 17 were attached to spending bills; 7 were about veterans, 3 were about agriculture/rural, 3 were about government operations, 2 were about energy/environment, 2 were about economic, 2 were about defense/intelligence, 1 was about childcare, and 1 was about campaign finance. And in fact, those spending bills averaged 30 successful amendments as well.” [Internal Analysis] SANDERS’S PROPOSALS HAVE NO COSPONSORS Reporter Noted That Sanders’ Universal Health Care Bill And His Free Tuition Bill Had No Cosponsors. “The more important point is that right now you have an United States Congress that to a very significant degree is controlled by big money interests. And Richard is, is right in that much of the legislation that I would be bring forth would be opposed by Republicans. TOM ASHBROOK: Even Democrats. I mean, you had zero cosponsors on your universal healthcare bill on your pre-college bill.” [On Point with Tom Ashbrook, WBUR, 10/1/15] Asked Why So Many Of His Bills Lacked Even A Single Co-Sponsor, Sanders Said He Worked Well With Republicans In Congress To Pass VA Bill. “TODD: But let me ask you this, you sponsored -- you have launched 58 bills this year, 35 of them don't have a single co- sponsor. And I guess my question is this, if you are president, if you can't convince colleagues in the Senate now to support some of your legislation, how are you going to work with Congress as president? SANDERS: Well, I think if you check my record you will find that in the last session of congress, as chairman of the U.S. Senate veterans committee I worked extremely well with Republican leadership 103 in the House, Congressman Jeff Miller with John McCain and others, and passed in terms of the veteran's bill, one of the more comprehensive pieces of legislation passed in that session.” [Meet The Press, NBC, 9/14/15] Sanders Does Not Work with Other Lawmakers SANDERS A LEADER AMONG SENATORS THAT WERE “LEAST COOPERATIVE” Sanders Was Among 10 Senators Graded “Least Cooperative” With Other Party And “Most Partisan.” “Those three lawmakers were among the 10 senators graded least cooperative with the other party. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats and is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, was treated as a member of that party. Cruz and Paul are Republicans. Both of them ranked among the most partisan members of Congress on the Lugar-McCourt index, in which the higher the score, the more partisan the member.” [Bloomberg, 5/20/15] New York Times: Senate Democrats Were Often Frustrated By His Uncompromising Views. “When Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, a moderate Democratic member of the Gang of Six working for the budget deal, was asked if Mr. Sanders understood the give-and-take of legislating, he smiled and said, “You always know where he stands,” before disappearing into a Senate elevator. Democrats often left their weekly caucus lunch fuming over Mr. Sanders’s latest immovable stance.” [New York Times, 8/14/15] Former Sen. Tom Coburn Said That Sanders’ Negotiating Style Was “My Way Or The Highway.” “Tom Coburn, the former Republican senator from Oklahoma, who was also a part of those budget negotiations as a member of the bipartisan Gang of Six, said that Mr. Sanders had a “my way or the highway” approach to legislating. He recalled the time he held up one of Mr. Sanders’s bills in the Senate. “He said, ‘If you’re going to hold my bill, I’m not going to negotiate with you.’ And I said: ‘That’s fine, I’m holding your bill then. If you want to adjust your bill and meet some of our concerns, then I’ll be happy to work with you,’ ” Mr. Coburn said. “But he never once did want to do that.”” [New York Times, 8/14/15] Sanders Said That His Role In Congress Was To Be A Progressive Voice Rather Than A Compromiser. ““Stay with me on this one because this is important,” Mr. Sanders said as he sat in an armchair under Excalibur. Passing legislation is “real,” he said, but so is influencing opinion over the long term by speaking out early and often. “I am a voice,” he said. “Everybody talks about income inequality. Well, check it out. Find out who was talking about it 20 years ago.”” [New York Times, 8/14/15] SENATE LEADERS DID NOT CHOOSE SANDERS FOR BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS DESPITE BEING THE RANKING MEMBER ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE Sanders Said Compromising With Republicans Before Compromise Was Necessary Was Not His Style. ““I know there are other people who are kind of resentful of that, who sit down with Republicans and make a whole lot of concessions before the debate begins,” Mr. Sanders said. “That’s not my style.”” [New York Times, 8/14/15] New York Times: Senate Democratic Leadership Would Not Allow Sanders To Be Their Lead Negotiator On The Budget, Despite Sanders’ Seat As Ranking Member Of The Budget Committee. “Mr. Sanders is now the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, and as such would generally be expected to lead the tense and consequential budget negotiations this fall. But according to congressional aides familiar with the Senate Democratic leadership’s thinking, they have no intention of letting someone so averse to compromise lead the talks.” [New York Times, 8/14/15] SANDERS’S ABRASIVE STYLE ALIENATES HIS NATURAL ALLIES Seven Days: “Occasionally, When [Sanders’] Signature Monologues Are Disrupted, Anger Gets The Best Of Him.” “Sanders' bristly nature is no secret to the public. Unlike most politicians — and practically all presidential candidates — he avoids personal interactions with voters whenever possible, preferring to make his points behind a podium. Occasionally, when his signature monologues are disrupted, anger gets the best of him.” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Sanders: “I Can Be Abrasive… But It Hurts Me Not To Speak Out On Things. ““I can be abrasive,” [Sanders] says, tugging reflectively at the open collar of his work shit. “But it hurts me not to speak out on things.”” [Associated Press, 9/15/81] 104 Rep. Barney Frank: Sanders “Alienates His Natural Allies.” “Such statements about the Congress have cost Sanders valuable friends. "Bernie alienates his natural allies," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). "His holier-thanthou attitude--saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else --really undercuts his effectiveness."” [Los Angeles Times, 9/8/91] Not A Good Boss Anonymous Sources Who Claimed To Have Previously Worked For Sanders Said That, As An Employer, He Often Mistreated His Employees. “According to some who have worked closely with Sanders over the years, "grumpy grandpa" doesn't even begin to describe it. They characterize the senator as rude, short-tempered and, occasionally, downright hostile. Though Sanders has spent much of his life fighting for working Vermonters, they say he mistreats the people working for him.” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Anonymous Former Campaign Staffer For Sanders: “As A Supervisor, He Was Unbelievably [Verbally] Abusive […] You Can't Treat Employees That Way.” ““As a supervisor, he was unbelievably abusive," says one former campaign staffer, who claims to have endured frequent verbal assaults. The double standard was clear: "He did things that, if he found out that another supervisor was doing in a workplace, he would go after them. You can't treat employees that way."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Anonymous Democratic Insider: “Bernie Was An Asshole. Just Unnecessarily An Asshole.” “"Bernie was an asshole," says a Democratic insider who worked with Sanders on the campaign trail. "Just unnecessarily an asshole."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Anonymous Former Senate Staffer For Sanders: “I Think He's Got A Ton Of Conviction […] I Don't Think He's A Very Nice Man.” “"He yelled in meetings all the time," says one of Sanders' former Senate staffers. "He'd yell, 'I don't want to hear excuses! I want to get it done!'" Victims of his management style aren't entirely negative about their former boss. "I think he's got a ton of conviction," the same former Senate staffer says. "I just think he's kind of harsh to a fault. He's so focused on his issues that he doesn't have a softer side. I don't think he's a very nice man."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Journalist And Former Sanders Press Secretary Steve Rosenfeld, Who Wrote A Book About Sanders’ 1990 Campaign, Said “At His Worst […] [Sanders] Exudes A Contempt For Those He Derides, Including His Staff.” “Criticism of Sanders' leadership abilities is nothing new. Steve Rosenfeld, a former Vermont journalist who served as Sanders' press secretary during his 1990 House campaign, wrote a book about his first successful statewide bid. In Making History in Vermont, Rosenfeld levels a tough assessment at his former boss, who passed him over for a congressional job at the campaign's end. "At his best, Sanders is a skilled reader and manipulator of people and events," Rosenfeld wrote. "At his worst, he falls prey to his own emotions, is unable to practice what he preaches (though he would believe otherwise) and exudes a contempt for those he derides, including his staff."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Sanders Acknowledged That He Could Be Difficult To Work With. “Rosenfeld quotes Sanders himself in the book as saying, "Some people say I am very hard to work with. They say I can be a real son of a bitch. They say I can be nasty, I don't know how to get along with people. Well, maybe there's some truth to it."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Seven Days: In Vermont, Sanders Was Well Known To Be A “Serious Micromanager.” “Even outside his staff, Sanders is well known in Vermont as a serious micromanager. Stories are legion of his calls to campaign aides en route to events to harangue them about the number of hot dogs and buns they'd bought. "He is his own chief of staff," remarks one Democratic official who has worked with Sanders' office. "He's his own cook and bottle washer." "It just never struck me as a hierarchy," adds Luke Albee, a former chief of staff to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "It just struck me as being very linear, with him being the driving force on stuff." According to Sanders' former Senate staffer, his tendency to micromanage often hobbled the office's work. "Everything was done at the last second," that person said. "He made all the decisions."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] George Thabault, Former Sanders Mayoral Staffer, Said That Sanders Sometimes Forgot That People Would Be Upset About Scheduling Meetings Close To Holidays. “George Thabault, who worked for Sanders when he was mayor of Burlington, sees that as a virtue, comparing it to "what you would expect from a CEO." "He was a good boss and a demanding boss, in a way," says Thabault, now an auditor for the state Department of 105 Vermont Health Access. "Sometimes you had to remind him that tomorrow's a holiday, so that 4:30 meeting — maybe the team won't be in the best mood."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Sanders Dismissed Reports That He Was An Abusive Boss. “EDITORIAL BOARD: Can you talk about hiring? Your reputation as a fighter for workers rights contrasts with some comments people have made who have worked for you and say you are a tough boss. Maybe even an, an angry and abusive boss at times, and how do you respond to that? Especially why would anyone want to work for you? SANDERS: Okay, now where did you get that information from? You got it from one article written by one person? EDITORIAL BOARD: Well, it’s for— SANDERS: Who quoted for anonymous people? And I take offense, not to your question, but we have people in the state of Vermont who spend their lives doing these things. I have had, since I have been a mayor, a congressman, a candidate, probably hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of people who have worked for me. And you should have seen the comments that that article got. Four anonymous people. I’ve been in politics for 30 years, hundreds and hundreds of people have worked for me. Four anonymous people were upset.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Claimed That The Reporting Primarily Used Anonymous Sources And One Person Who Did Not Support Him. “So I don’t agree with that. That was one article written by one person who is not my strongest supporter. And had to dig up four anonymous sources. Do you think we can get four anonymous sources to say that you may not the best employer in the world? EDITORIAL BOARD: I think they had some named people in there too? SANDERS: What? No, I don’t believe so. I think it was all anonymous.” [Bernie Sanders Remarks, Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Seven Days Editor Defended The Critical Story. “Paul Heintz, the Seven Days political editor who wrote the story, defended the piece. "Seven Days stands by the story, which was deeply sourced and informed by years of reporting on Sen. Sanders," he said. "Our news team's job is to cover all aspects of Sanders' presidential candidacy — from his decades-long record in Vermont to the massive rallies he's holding these days — and we'll continue doing that."” [Des Moines Register, 9/3/15] Sanders Spokesperson Defended Sanders From Accusations That He Was “An Asshole”, Called The Accusations Gossip. “"Bernie was an asshole," says a Democratic insider who worked with Sanders on the campaign trail. "Just unnecessarily an asshole." […] In a statement provided to Seven Days, Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs defended his boss. "Sen. Sanders has had very positive relations with people who have worked with him, many of them for decades," Briggs wrote. "Some people who were part of his team when he was the mayor of Burlington went on to his House and Senate staffs." Briggs added that Sanders finds it "unfortunate that too many journalists and publications do not focus on the major issues of our time." Instead, he wrote, "Too many writers and publications look at politics as a soap opera and engage in gossip and personal attacks."” [Seven Days, 8/26/15] Abrasive Leadership In Vermont 1972: The Bennington Banner Said Bernie Sanders’ “Unlikable” And “Abrasive Personality” Stood In The Way Of Him Getting More Votes. “Bernard Sanders, Liberty Union candidate for the Senate, will pick up fewer votes because of his abrasive personality. Unlikable though he is, Sanders cannot be ignored, and the basic penetrating questions he has raised will be debated for a long time because they are valid and unanswered. His candidacy has served a most useful purpose.” [Editorial, Bennington Banner, 1/6/72] Sanders’s Opponents Said His Style Was “Abrasive And Confrontational.” “Complaints about Sanders have centered on his style, which opponents say is abrasive and confrontational.” [Newsday, 3/2/83] Sanders Balked At Aldermen Resolution That “Instructs” Rather Than “Requests” The Mayor To Protest A Health Care Rate Increase, Because He “Rebel[s] Against Authority. “About preparation for the hearing: Was it semantics, an argument over language? Or was it an important point? A resolution, before aldermen said the board "instructs" Sanders to protest an 18 percent Blue Cross/Blue Shield rate increase. Sanders balked at the wording. How about "requests?" he asked. Trying to be helpful, Alderman Richard "Chip" Wadhams, a Republican, suggested "respectfully requests. […] But the board eventually accepted the word “requests.” “I rebel against authority,” Sanders said.’” [Burlington Free Press, 10/5/81] Burlington Alderman: Sander Is “Used To Dealing With Government In A Confrontational Style. Once He Was Elected He Didn’t Know When To Stop”. “’My biggest problem is the mayor’s style,’ added Niquette. ‘He’s 106 used to dealing with government in a confrontational style. Once he was elected he didn’t know when to stop’”. [Burlington Free Press, 2/19/82] Burlington Alderman: “Every Time We’ve Made A Sincere Effort To Cooperate, [Sanders] Turns Around And Kicks Us In The Teeth.” “Alderman Maurice Mahoney Jr., D-Ward 1, took a less conciliatory approach. “We’re rather leery of Mr. Sanders. Every time we’ve made a sincere effort to cooperate, he turns around and kicks us in the teeth.”” [Burlington Free Press, 9/16/86] His First Year In Office, Sanders And The Board Of Aldermen Fought So Intensely That It Attracted Crowds From 30 Miles Away. For a year, the mayor and the board fought. The best show in town, people called it. Word had it that folks from St. Albans, which is 30 miles north, would travel to attend the board meetings rather than go to the movies. The mayor would shout at the board. The board members would shout at the mayor. Meetings would drag on three, four or five hours, in a crowded auditorium in City Hall.” [Lexington Herald-Leader, 8/1/82] Sanders Accused Aldermen Of Exacerbating Conflict By Refusing To Give Him A Chance To Govern. “Nevertheless, Sanders accused aldermen of exacerbating the conflict by refusing to give him a chance to govern, citing the fact that board rejected six of his appointees without reviewing their qualifications”. [Burlington Free Press, 2/19/82] Burlington Alderman: Sander Is “Used To Dealing With Government In A Confrontational Style. Once He Was Elected He Didn’t Know When To Stop.” “’My biggest problem is the mayor’s style,’ added Niquette. ‘He’s used to dealing with government in a confrontational style. Once he was elected he didn’t know when to stop’”. [Burlington Free Press, 2/19/82] Free Press: Democratic Burlington Alderman Said “Sanders Could Have Avoided Conflict By Discussing Matters With The Board Before Acting.” “Niquette said Sanders could have avoided conflict by discussing matters with the board before acting. The board fired Sanders’ first appointee – personal secretary Linda Niedweske – for example, because the mayor ignored a hiring freeze brought on by the defeat of a tax vote, Niquette said”. [Burlington Free Press, 2/19/82] Free Press Editorial: “Sanders Reminds Us Of The Kid Who Starts A Fight And Then Screams When He Gets Hit Back.” “Burlington Mayor Bernard Sanders reminds us of the kid who starts a fight and then screams when he gets hit back. Sanders threw the first punch at the Board of Aldermen a long time ago when he stepped across the fine line that separates the executive and legislative branches of government by abusing his privilege of participating in the board’s meeting” [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 4/23/83] Free Press Editorial: “Sanders Now Appears To Have Altered His Political Vision To Fit The Shape Of The Pragmatic.” “Sanders now appears to have altered his political vision to fit the shape of the pragmatic, recognizing that he can accomplish more for the city by trying to work with the aldermen than by treating them as enemies”. [Editorial, Burlington Free Press, 3/20/83] Progressive Critic: “Bernie Sanders Functions Like A Black Hole; All That Energy Which Existed On The Base Level…Has Now Been Absorbed Into City Hall And Would Have Otherwise Gone Into The Development Of Genuine Popular Groups.” “Still another [progressive critic] charged that Sanders’ style works against democracy: ‘The most fundamental thing that’s wrong with the administration is that we have personal paternalism here—we don’t have municipal democracy. I’m, not saying that he’s built a machine like Daley, … [but] he is the center of government in Burlington. His identification of his destiny with the political future of the city—its economic future—in fact the whole socialist future of Vermont (he might be the first Jewish president of the U.S.) … has led to a degree of personal paternalism that vitiates democracy. Bernie Sanders functions like a black hole; all that energy which existed on the base level, which hopefully could have been coordinated through a movement that encouraged it, has now been absorbed into city hall and would have otherwise gone into the development of genuine popular groups.’” [The Socialist Mayor, 1991, p. 115] Sanders And Aldermanic President Allen Gear Argued Over The Seating Arrangement At Board Meetings. “Gear said he still believed Sanders should sit behind aldermen, to show that there is a distinction between the legislative and executive branches of city government […] At last week’s meetings, Gear wanted Sanders moved behind aldermen, Sanders refused. ‘I’m content,’ Sanders said after Gear’s decision Monday. ‘I’m glad he decided not to push it.’ Sanders stuck to his earlier positon, that there is no language in the city charter that gives aldermen 107 that power to tell the mayor where he must sit at meetings. Gear said he took his initial position because he was concerned that Sanders ‘interacts with the board like a 14th alderman’”. [“Sanders Will Sit Up Front, 4/19/83] Sanders Got So Frustrated At An Aldermen’s Meeting That He “Stomped Out” And His Supporters On The Board Called A Press Conference The Next Day To Denounce The Aldermanic President. “At last Wednesday’s meeting, Sanders became so incensed he stomped out. The next day, his supporters on the board called a press conference to denounce Gear. The press conference became chaotic when a shouting match erupted…” [Burlington Free Press, 4/26/83] Sanders Accused Aldermen Of Exacerbating Conflict By Refusing To Give Him A Chance To Govern. “Nevertheless, Sanders accused aldermen of exacerbating the conflict by refusing to give him a chance to govern, citing the fact that board rejected six of his appointees without reviewing their qualifications”. [Burlington Free Press, 2/19/82] “The Aldermanic Chambers Have Become Arenas Of Confrontation Between Mayor Bernard Sanders’ Allies On The Board And Members Of The City’s Traditional Political Parties. “All too often in recent years, the aldermanic chambers have become arenas of confrontation between Mayor Bernard Sanders’ allies on the board and members of the city’s traditional political parties”. [“New Aldermen Express Intent To Cooperate For Sake Of City”, 4/3/84] 108