Showing in a good light? It is called putting lipstick.
Read "Are Warren and Sanders ‘100% grassroots-funded’?" [washingtonpost.com]
"Time magazine reported in December 2015: “Sanders has hosted at least nine medium- to high-dollar, closed-door fundraisers in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere to directly fund his own presidential campaign. Even though Sanders’ efforts sometimes have a proletarian flair — he held one $200-per-ticket fundraiser at a dive bar near a grungy Seattle park — some aspects of the Democratic insurgent’s fundraising are similar to the candidates he condemns.”
"The New York Times reported in October 2015: “Mr. Sanders was cheered at a fancy campaign fund-raiser at the Hollywood home of Syd Leibovitch, a high-end real estate agent, and his wife, Linda, on Wednesday night. Tickets for the event sold for a minimum of $250. Those who spent the maximum, $2,700, or who raised $10,000, were invited to a ‘pre-event reception,’ according to the invitation.”
Sanders spokeswoman Sarah Ford said: “In 2016, we held zero closed-door fundraisers with high-dollar donors and accepted no donations from corporate PACs, corporate lobbyists or super PACs.”"
What's funny is they put Bloomberg in like he's raising money like the rest of them.
How information is displayed can be as importaint as the information displayed. Robograhm(sp) crowing about how Bernie's the only one who can't be bought totally ignores that the only one not actually for sale is Bloomberg - he's the only one not accepting any donations.
I'd rather see a chart showing significant donations, not just anything over $100.
No surprises there. Bernie is the only one who can't be bought...