Since starting his campaign for president, Bernie Sanders has bragged that he gets over 90% of his campaign contributions from small donors (those giving $200 or less). That is true, but it is also true of Hillary Clinton. But Sanders has gone further, and claimed that he gets no help from super-PAC spending on his behalf (while Clinton does benefit from that). That is no longer true.
Note this from the non-partisan Sunlight Foundation (which does an excellent job of keeping up with politician's finances of both parties):
National Nurses United endorsed Sanders on Aug. 11, and to date the group's affiliated super PAC has spent a little more than $569,000 in support of him. The spending ranges from print and online ads to printing materials, with significant buys in key states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. As of the last super PAC filing on June 30, the group had about $250,000 cash on hand.
National Nurses United for Patient Protection is a super PAC whose primary donor is National Nurses United, a union of more than 185,000 registered nurses across all 50 states. The super PAC also has another donor from its filing earlier this year, a 527 group called Progressive Kick, which runs donor-matching programs for progressive causes.
When this was revealed, Jeff Weaver (Sanders' campaign manager) was quick to say:
“We have not started a super PAC, are not coordinating with a super PAC, and have not fundraised for a super PAC."
I have no doubt that what he says is true -- but it is also true for Hillary Clinton and other candidates. It is still illegal for any candidate to start a super-PAC, coordinate with a super-PAC, or fundraise for a super-PAC.
That does not change the fact that he has benefitted from super-PAC spending -- to the tune of more than half a million dollars. And there will likely be more in the future.