Sen. Booker: There Are Now More Billionaires Than Black People In 2020 Race | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Sen. Booker: There Are Now More Billionaires Than Black People In 2020 Race | Morning Joe | MSNBC 1


2020 Democratic candidate, Sen. Cory Booker, weighs in on Sen. Kamala Harris suspending her campaign, having more 'billionaires than black people' running in 2020 and the president's NATO trip. Aired on 12/04/19.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

Sen. Booker: There Are Now More Billionaires Than Black People In 2020 Race | Morning Joe | MSNBC

45 Comments on "Sen. Booker: There Are Now More Billionaires Than Black People In 2020 Race | Morning Joe | MSNBC"

  1. No billionaire donors and the media constantly ignoring him, and Bernie isnt having a problem. Maybe people care more about good policy and commitment to Medicare for all. Every candidate who has waffled on medicare has dropped in the polls. Do the math cory.

    • Richard Hammonds | December 4, 2019 at 4:41 PM | Reply


    • @Richard Hammonds “not a smart man”? Sen. Booker is a Rhodes Scholar, whereas you can’t even spell “shows” correctly. And pointing out the reality of lack of diversity on the debate platform doesn’t make him anti-white… get a grip.

    • Christine Colley | December 4, 2019 at 5:58 PM | Reply

      Exactly. This isn’t about misogyny or racism. It’s about what message the candidates are sending.

  2. Also if you want to keep billionaires from buying their way in, put a (reasonable) cap on campaign spending.

    • Generic Name Actually, there are NOT any loopholes that allow unlimited campaign contributions. The provisions that allow unlimited campaign contributions are up front, well known, and are vested in two Supreme Court rulings, Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) which held that the ability to spend money to promote a candidate as being the equivalent of free speech. A loophole implies a little known, esoteric means of doing something. There is nothing esoteric or little known about SCOTUS ruling that no limits can be placed on campaign contributions. There is a $2,800 limit per campaign limit that an individual can contribute directly to a campaign and this limit even applies to a wealthy person contributing to their own campaign. In order to donate the unlimited amounts of money, a candidate has to establish a PAC or Super PAC and it is into those entities that unlimited amounts of money are contributed (even for wealthy candidates). While there are technical differences between a campaign, a PAC, and a Super PAC, these are not esoteric entities (loopholes) hiding in the bushes. Prior to the Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases, the government did have the authority to limit campaign spending whether it be to a campaign, PAC, or Super PAC and it was the government’s placing limits on campaign contributions that brought about a lawsuits by a group called Citizens United that challenged the government’s ability to limit campaign contributions and by McCutcheon (an individual) hi challenged the government’s ability to limit campaign contributions by individuals, with both cases making their way to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS ruling in favor of Citizens United and McCutcheon.

      These two SCOTUS rulings had the combined effect of overturning a 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo which recognized that campaign contributions were protected speech, but also held that campaign contribution limits were constitutional because the government had a compelling interest in preventing “corruption” and the “appearance of corruption”.

      One point to note is that the $2,800 limit on contributions directly to a candidate’s campaign is still in effect, as the SCOTUS rulings did not apply to limits direct campaign contributions. SCOTUS made a distinction between a campaign and PACs/SuoerPACs. So, the SCOTUS rulings gallowed for unlimited contributions to PACs/SuperPACs, which have rules that they have to abide by but are too detailed to go into here.

      So, when a candidate (like Bernie Sanders) says they don’t accept big money contributions from corporations or the wealthy, they are implicitly saying that they don’t have a PAC or SuperPAC, which are the only vehicles that can accept contributions in excess of $2,800 per campaign per donor. Yes, a wealthy individual can cut a $2,800 check to a candidate’s campaign, which is not an insignificant amount of money to the average American, but it is believed that $2,800 is not an amount of money that would buy-off a candidate or cause corruption when other candidates are receiving donations in the millions to their PACs/SuperPACs. $2,800 isn’t likely to have a corrupting influence on a candidate because, if the candidate loses that contribution because they won’t do the bidding of the donor, $2,800 could be relatively easily be made up by, say, 28 donors contributing $100. Whereas, a $1 million contribution isn’t likely to be turned down with the candidate infinitely more likely to accept any strings that are attached to that size of a contribution.

    • Well if the people wanna be bought so be it. their choice their freedom.

    • @romalovi98 I think that’s a great idea, and although it wouldn’t work in the general election the DNC could establish spending rules for the primaries and that would prevent billionaires from simply buying TV ads and effectively buying their way into an election.

  3. Big business has too large a role in our government and that relationship has corrupted our politics. Public financing needs to become an integral part of our system in order to protect the will of the people.

    • Sounds like Andrew Yang’s Democracy Dollars. 🤔

    • @Matty Shack I love that idea from Yang. He’s got a lot of great ideas but not sure about the feasibility of some of them but Democracy dollars is very viable.

    • kelly washington | December 4, 2019 at 3:11 PM | Reply

      Well first we need someone who will give the public back the dollars that have been withheld and diverted away from us so that we can support who WE want.

  4. Nunes on the phone with a guy under criminal indictment phone records show…TREASON!

    • Cory Booker = more intelligent than any words passing through Trumps mouth.

    • @David Andresen proven how? When? Please explain

    • @Glenn Lawson Cory booker= never ever gonna be president

    • Nunes, when asked about those calls explained that he’s a congressman, and congressman talk to a lot of people that they don’t know.

      Total exoneration

    • @colette s when and where? He’s one of the most litigious congressman we have. He’s known for throwing baseless suits to suppress speech.

      You gotta be careful, the GOP are getting arrested for fraud so frequently the last few years. This year they’ve had insider trading, wire fraud, election fraud. They’re liars, and fox business is not news! They look like news, but they don’t have to rely on facts.

  5. That’s the longest amount of time I think I have heard somebody else talk on this show without Joe interrupting… It’s so unusual it’s almost unnerving.


  7. Stanley Dorsey | December 4, 2019 at 1:26 PM | Reply

    When you buy and sale people expect the buying and selling of country. It’s never good to be morally bankrupt. The devil is laughing out loud.

  8. Screw the healing,and finding common ground with GOP ,, It’s time to take care of the people who need medical care for all as a right..

  9. He’s very smart but I’m not sure of his ability to lead

  10. There’s also more millionaires on the news than black people…., or regular people, or anybody else combined lol..

  11. This exact moment was to be feared when Supreme Court ruling, Citizen’s United, gave campaign finance room to expand to…well, infinity, I guess. If corporations want to spend money, sure, simply go nuts…and here we are.

  12. Sir – its not ‘you’ /🇺🇸 we don’t trust, OK?
    It’s Tboy and his covert gang we’ve no interest in pledging the thing called trust with.

  13. Here comes the sun | December 4, 2019 at 3:02 PM | Reply

    Not a time for middle of the road.
    That’s why you’re not winning. We need a pitbull like Bernie who never wavers.

  14. Finally someone got to the end of the declaration of independence , I have been quoting that for ten years ,”pledge to each other our lives fortunes and scared honor” thank you Cory Booker

  15. Bernie 2020🥳

  16. Boyd Gilbreath | December 4, 2019 at 3:49 PM | Reply

    A powerful observation! Three men have their own space programs, several billionaires are running for President, there may be a problem with that but if not how about the fact that the rich and big business don’t pay taxes!

  17. CHUMP is a JOKE around the entire World.

  18. littlewingmyoho | December 4, 2019 at 4:38 PM | Reply

    Cory Booker would make a smart ,compassionate, and steady leader for this country

  19. Legalized bribery has been a thing in the US, since you started allowing corporations and people to donate to campaigns without a cap

  20. Cory Booker, from my objective following, listens to, hears, moves forward, and respects the voice of the people for the people.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.