recently slammed Democratic nominee Susan Wild over her fundraising:
Browning: "One of the things that is most irritating about liberal politicians like Susan Wild is their hypocrisy and double standards. A case in point is Wild's most recent "Saturday with Susan" post on Facebook. In her video, Wild says she believes it is "incredibly important" to reduce the role of "big money" in politics. Wild says she will push for campaign finance reform once she is elected and will work to eliminate the role of PAC's.
"Wild fails to mention in her video that $383,263 or 35% of her donations have come from PAC's and Committees including $249,813 from just one PAC that is based in Washington! Wild also takes a swipe at Marty Nothstein for receiving money from PAC's that may have items that could come before Congress. In doing so, Wild ignores the fact that she has taken money from PACs for Planned Parenthood and the National Education Association. Want to take a guess as to how Wild would vote on continuing funding for Planned Parenthood or on supporting school choice?
"Wild says she wants to increase the role of small donors at the grassroots level. Meanwhile only 31% of the money Wild has raised has come from individual donors who live in Pennsylvania. Actually, Wild has received more money in total from donors in California, Massachusetts and New York than she has from donors in Pennsylvania. That's because Wild's policies are better suited for San Francisco, Boston and New York City than they are for Slatington, Bangor and Nazareth.
"If you don't want another politician in Washington who has a different set of rules for themselves than they do for us and who says one thing while doing another, then you need to vote for Marty Nothstein on November 6th."
Wild responded, not on the merits, but with an ad hominem: "Gee, Dean, maybe you should tell folks about how you called me after the primary and offered me your “opposition research” on Marty (which I declined).".
I would have preferred an answer that actually addresses Browning's argument over a personal attack
I made similar arguments concerning Wild in the primary. This argument, though correct, has no appeal. Wild probably should have ignored Dean.