Our Revolution — grifting away

Per a piece a week ago, if you think the Sanders Institute is dicey, what about Our Revolution? Both got some coverage in the same VT Digger piece.

In May, Politico noted that it, the much larger organization, seems to have the same, or more, disarray.

It has other problems, per Politico. As a 501(c)4, it can't directly promote candidates. So, it formed a separate PAC. Both that PAC, and the fact that the parent org, as a (c)4, can take dark money, seem to backfire on Sanders' image of his 2016 campaign. But, given the history of Vermont nepotism, this was probably deliberate. As a (c)4, not only do donors not have to be disclosed, but generally, expenditures don't have to be itemized. Plus, as VT Digger notes in a critique specific to Our Revolution, other political (c)4 orgs have not been explicitly connected to elected officials, creating other problems.

And, as I've noted before, like the Sanders Institute, Our Revolution has a firm nepotism basis. If nothing else, since it is an IRS-official nonprofit, it's an easy way for Bernie to pay Jane a nice salary while getting a nice tax deduction in return.

Bottom line? Don't be sheepdogged by Bernie.

That's not to say that Our Revolution locals aren't doing what they should in terms of political activism.

The Harris County local refused to endorse Beto O'Rourke for Senate, as well as refusing to endorse Lupe Valdez and Mike Collier for guv and lite guv.