Listen to the article
Sanders Pays for Netflix Subscription Despite Criticizing Company’s Tax Practices
Federal Election Commission records reveal that Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., used campaign funds to pay for a Netflix subscription during the first quarter of 2023, despite his long history of criticizing the streaming giant for its tax avoidance strategies.
The independent senator’s campaign has been paying $46.79 monthly for a Netflix subscription since January, according to FEC filings. This expenditure stands in stark contrast to Sanders’ public statements condemning the company’s tax practices and pricing policies.
“Corporate greed is Netflix doubling its profit last year to a record $5.3 billion, avoiding over $1 billion in taxes [and] blaming a 10.7% price increase on ‘inflation’ squeezing $1.35 billion from its 75 million subscribers while its CEO became $200 million richer in the pandemic,” Sanders wrote in March 2022.
The Vermont senator has repeatedly criticized Netflix for utilizing corporate tax credits to minimize its federal tax obligations. In 2019, he pointedly stated on social media: “Your $8.99 Netflix subscription is more than the company paid in federal income taxes last year (nothing). We are going to make massive corporations finally pay their fair share.”
The apparent contradiction comes as campaigns have only released financial information through March, leaving open the possibility that the donor-funded subscription continues. Sanders’ campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.
This is not the first time Sanders has faced scrutiny over his campaign spending. In 2023, he transferred $200,000 in donor funds to the Sanders Institute, a nonprofit run by his wife and stepson. Campaign finance records indicate he has continued to regularly fund the family charity from his campaign account.
The arrangement prompted Kendra Arnold, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, to express concerns: “If the nonprofit and its executive director are truly producing work and actually earning the money, it is not illegal, but it is frowned upon. On the other hand, if nothing or very little is being done to legitimately earn the money, then it is highly likely a serious campaign finance violation has taken place.”
Critics have also highlighted Sanders’ use of private jets during his 2025 “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, which cost over $550,000 in campaign funds. Conservative political communications consultant Matt Gorman commented on the apparent contradiction, saying: “You don’t expect a socialist to fly commercial do you? There’s no bigger hypocrite than the liberal who chastises us for eating meat and using gas stoves, yet flies in private jets.”
The Netflix subscription appears unusual in campaign finance circles. FEC records show that only five political committees, including Sanders’, have made payments to Netflix for subscription expenses over the past decade.
Notably, Sanders appeared on Netflix in 2024 when Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates interviewed him for the original series “What’s Next? The Future with Bill Gates.”
The situation highlights the ongoing tension between Sanders’ public criticism of corporate tax practices and his campaign’s operational decisions. While the monthly subscription amount is relatively modest compared to other campaign expenditures, the choice to patronize a company he has explicitly criticized raises questions about consistency in his messaging.
As one of the Senate’s most vocal critics of corporate tax avoidance and wealth inequality, Sanders has made these issues central to his political identity and policy agenda, making the Netflix subscription a potentially awkward inconsistency for a politician known for his principled stances on economic justice.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This sounds like a case of political posturing more than genuine policy disagreement. Politicians often take bold stances in public while quietly engaging in the same practices they condemn.
Indeed. It’s not uncommon for politicians to have a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actual behavior. Consistency is often lacking in the political sphere.
Interesting to see the Sanders campaign using Netflix despite criticizing the company’s tax practices. I wonder if there’s more context or nuance to this situation that’s not being reported.
You raise a fair point. Politicians’ personal actions don’t always align with their public stances. More details could shed light on the reasoning behind this expenditure.
I’m curious to know if Sanders has any justification for this Netflix subscription expense or if it’s simply a case of hypocrisy. Transparency around such expenditures would be helpful to evaluate the situation.
Good point. Without more context, it’s difficult to determine if this is a genuine oversight or an intentional double standard. Clarity from the Sanders campaign would be valuable.
While I appreciate Sanders’ criticism of corporate tax avoidance, this Netflix subscription expense does raise some questions about the consistency of his position. More information would be helpful to understand the rationale behind it.
This news seems to highlight the disconnect that can sometimes exist between a politician’s rhetoric and their personal actions. It would be helpful to get more context from the Sanders campaign on this Netflix subscription expense.
It’s interesting to see this apparent contradiction between Sanders’ public stance and his campaign’s actual spending. I wonder if there’s a reasonable explanation or if it’s simply a case of political hypocrisy.
This seems like a classic case of a politician’s actions not aligning with their public statements. It’s disappointing to see, but not entirely surprising given the nature of politics.