Sanders / Warren, The Intercept, and the idea of not taking corporate cash - Fact Check?

[MH1]

Okay, I've been kinda busy and not posting here much lately. But still involved. Someone forwarded an Intercept article to me and it is clear from the article that they're all in for Sanders/Warren, and despise Biden. To be clear, I like Warren myself; I think Biden might be the best chance we have of beating Trump in the electoral college, but I'm not highly ideological about which one should win, because I most likely will not get a vote in the primary that counts. Point being, this is not an attack on Warren at all, but rather, questioning the attitude that because someone takes "corporate cash" campaign donations, that automatically makes them corrupt or somehow not "progressive".

So, please help me out here - is it not true that the Intercept was founded and is still mainly funded by, a billionaire? Who made his $$$ running a business, aka corporation?

So then wouldn't it be hypocritical to complain of other candidates taking "corporate cash" if the candidate one supports is essentially taking a massive campaign donation in the form of positive media -- funded by a billionaire?

Or do I have my facts wrong?

(and yes this doesn't even touch the question of Greenwald, Russia, and helping to install Trump. Those are separate questions that would just be red herrings in the point I'm trying to discuss.)

Sorry if this has already been discussed ad nauseum here. I wanted to fact check and get the other side of this argument, because I want to have this discussion IRL with the person who forwarded the article. (The article contained some massive stupidity anyway so is not worth posting here, assuming the Intercept is even allowed on DU anymore.)

Disclaimer: although my DU "choice" says "Undecided", I am not. I will vote for the Democratic nominee against Trump, or any other likely Republican nominee. I don't expect to get a vote that counts in the primary so will not get strongly attached to any one candidate. I don't like trashing the candidates, generally, but am fine with trashing bullshit attitudes of any candidate's followers, when those could hurt us in the GE.

[irisblue]

1. From The Intercept website, about section

"EBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar provided the funding to launch The Intercept and continues to support it through First Look Media Works, a nonprofit organization."



From his wiki..." Personal life Edit
Omidyar and his wife, Pamela, own properties in Henderson, Nevada,[37] and Honolulu, Hawaii.[1]

According to Forbes, his net worth was $13.1 billion (US) as of January 2019.[11]

Omidyar is a major donor to Democratic Party candidates and organizations.[38]





I, on occasion read the website.

[MH1]

2. Thanks for the info

I had read that stuff but wanted corroboration.

Also am wondering if others think it's a bit hypocritical to rely heavily on a heavily-biased media source that is funded by a billionaire, then turn around and slag other candidates for taking corporate $. (Some of the critiques I've heard of "corporate cash" don't distinguish between companies whose owners/leaders largely support one party or the other. Some do, so I might exclude those from the charge of hypocrisy.)

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. It is hypocritical. And the Intercept can be counted on to push forward the weaker GE candidates.

Anything or anyone affiliated with Greenwald should be viewed with a heavy dose of skepticism by "Democrats". I'm sure they still contend that Russia didn't interfere in our last election.

[OldRed2450]

4. Exactly!

I don't trust anything the Intercept says! same with Greenwald or especially Greenwald.

[MH1]

6. Thanks. I wanted to highlight the "billionaire funding"

as another point to bring up when someone whines about "corporate cash" for our candidates.

Kinda like in sports, if you don't agree with a rule, you don't have your team "take the high road" at a disadvantage before the rule is changed - you try to get the rule changed. That's what we need to do with campaign finance. The current role of money in political campaigns sucks, er actually it is downright evil. But if we unilaterally disarm, we never win elections to FIX that. And note, the need to install judges who understand that corporations are not people and money is not speech. We need to play the long game, not fall on our swords at the start.

But, I agree with everything else you said about Greenwald and the Intercept.

Weird thing is some socialists I know IRL seem okay with it. Did they miss the point in history when Russia stopped being communist, and became a corrupt oligarchic dictatorship?

[Cha]

5. The intercept sucks.. greenwald, russian interference Denier..

is one of he founders.

Back when Obama was President I remember him calling me and my fellow supporters.. "Obamabots".. greenwald can't say much without insulting anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[MH1]

7. Yep, everything you said. But if an Intercept supporter whines about "corporate cash"

maybe just remind them who is funding one of their fave media outlets.

[Demsrule86]

8. I don't like the Intercept and believe they deliberately sabotage Democrats.