Bernie Sanders' Campaign is the Wealthiest in the U.S. Presidential Election

Although Bernie Sanders could not surpass his formidable rival in the Democratic primary elections, he managed to outpace Hillary Clinton in fundraising by the end of March (about 20 days ago), effectively making his campaign the wealthiest in the U.S. presidential election. This year, the number of candidates in the Democratic Party was significantly lower than that of the Republicans, allowing the candidates to gather considerably more financial contributions for their campaigns compared to their Republican counterparts. The only Republican who could compete in fundraising with the Democrats was Jeb Bush, who consistently ranked second behind Hillary Clinton in all lists published by the U.S. Election Commission. However, the situation has now completely changed. Although Bernie Sanders initially raised funds at a slower pace than Hillary Clinton, he gradually attracted more public interest, leading to a point where, starting from the beginning of 2016, he was able to secure donations at a higher rate than Clinton each month. Ultimately, as some observers had predicted early in the year, he managed to surpass Clinton in fundraising weeks before the crucial New York primary. According to statistics released by the Election Commission, Sanders raised over $182 million by the end of March, while Hillary Clinton raised $180 million. Clinton, as a seasoned and professional politician in the Democratic Party, was always known for having a complex network for fundraising, and many believed that defeating the 'Clinton fundraising machine' was impossible. (It should be noted that this legendary machine also failed to secure her the Democratic nomination in 2008.) However, there are still many who believe that the nature of the contributions to Sanders and Clinton are fundamentally different, with Sanders' campaign successfully reaching these figures through small donations from ordinary people. The evidence for this claim, which Sanders himself reiterates in interviews, is the average contribution he has received, which, according to Sanders' campaign, has not exceeded $27 per person (on average). In contrast, Clinton's campaign, which is often accused of relying on large donors for its advertising expenses, announced that her contributions have also not exceeded $45 per person (on average). In other words, according to information released by Hillary Clinton's campaign, a large group of ordinary people in America also support her, and a significant portion of her expenses is covered not by wealthy donors but by individuals who contribute $10 and $20 to campaigns. Among Republicans, the figures are significantly lower than those of the Democrats! Currently, the wealthiest campaign in this party belongs to Ted Cruz, who has raised $78 million. Following Cruz, Donald Trump has raised $48 million, and John Kasich has raised $16 million, placing them second and third, respectively. In fact, the leading Republican, Donald Trump, has raised only about one-third of what candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have, and he has even less money to spend than candidates like Marco Rubio ($54 million) and Ben Carson ($63 million), who have dropped out of the race. Among the remaining candidates, at least two candidates from the Green and Libertarian parties have managed to gather contributions that are traceable in the Election Commission's report. Jill Stein, the leading candidate from the Green Party, has raised $360,000 so far, and Gary Johnson from the Libertarian Party has raised $280,000 in financial contributions. However, in the U.S. elections, financial contributions do not only come from ordinary people and NGOs (non-governmental organizations, labor unions, and local associations). In the United States, the increase in financial contributions from wealthy donors to electoral campaigns led to the enactment of strict laws in the 1970s, limiting the amount of contributions by individuals and organizations. However, in 2010, a radical conservative group called 'Citizens United,' which sought to air expensive ads against Hillary Clinton, challenged these restrictions, claiming they violated free speech. The majority of conservative judges in the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of 'Citizens United.' An American citizen can spend as much as they want to promote a candidate or oppose their rivals indirectly and without any connection to the candidate's campaign. The conservative judges argued that the government cannot restrict private organizations and companies from spending their money on advertisements without limiting their freedom of speech. However, the ruling also emphasized that these unlimited contributions should not reach the candidates' campaigns, and previous restrictions on direct contributions to campaigns should still apply. In other words, an American citizen can spend as much as they want to promote a candidate or oppose their rivals indirectly, but if they want to contribute directly to a campaign, they must adhere to the limits. Contributions are made through the formation of a private organization called a Political Action Committee (PAC). There are currently two types of these committees: those associated with candidates' campaigns that raise money in a limited manner for the campaign and independent committees that raise money without limits. The latter type is known as 'super PACs,' which, unlike regular PACs, are not allowed to give the money they raise to candidates' campaigns and must spend it independently. This is the law that candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump vehemently oppose, believing that unlimited contributions from wealthy donors to candidates are undemocratic and corrupting. In the recent elections, super PACs have independently managed to raise significant amounts of money for various candidates. According to statistics from April to now, Hillary Clinton has raised $64 million, Ted Cruz $52 million, and John Kasich $10 million through super PACs. Although they have no control over how this money is spent, these amounts are still spent in their favor. In contrast, Donald Trump has raised $2 million, and Bernie Sanders only $600,000 through super PACs, reflecting both candidates' strong opposition to this form of financial support for political advertising. One reason for the significant financial support from super PACs for Hillary Clinton is Sanders' rejection of this type of funding. In fact, all the groups that traditionally seek the presidency of a Democrat, such as many powerful unions and groups supporting workers, teachers, nurses, alongside other Democratic financial supporters like liberal associations, civil rights and free speech advocacy groups, human rights defenders, minority rights advocates (such as LGBTQ activists and similar groups), and many similar groups, direct their unlimited financial contributions to super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. For example, only labor-related advocacy groups in America have contributed $10 million of the $64 million raised by super PACs supporting Clinton. However, Trump's victory demonstrated that no matter how powerful super PACs are, they still cannot determine the outcome of elections. A politician like Jeb Bush, despite the support of the most powerful super PACs in America totaling $118 million, was quickly eliminated from the race. Similarly, in the opposing party, Bernie Sanders, despite having more money than his rival, ultimately received fewer votes.