When he discusses his personal finances—specifically the fact that he became a millionaire three years ago—you could almost mistake Bernie Sanders for a pitchman for capitalism. “I wrote a best-selling book. If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too,” Sanders told The New York Times last month.

Of course, Sanders is more embarrassed than proud. His wealth, much of it newfound, has been the source of an increasing level of scrutiny as his democratic socialist brand has gained popularity. The long delayed release of his tax returns earlier this year led some to conclude that Sanders was worried that his money and his houses (there are three) would damage his brand as the number-one enemy of the one percent. “In a strict, bottom-line sense, Sanders has become one of those rich people against which he has so unrelentingly railed,” Politico’s Michael Kruse wrote in an article about Sanders’s finances published on Friday. “The champion of the underclass and castigator of ‘the 1 percent’ has found himself in the socio-economic penthouse of his rhetorical bogeymen.”



Kruse’s article contains some snarky quotes from anti-Sanders Democrats. “He became the very thing he criticized others for becoming and at the same time didn’t fix any of the problems he’s been railing about that got him to this point,” Mary Anne Marsh told Kruse. Her fellow Democratic strategist Bob Shrum added that Sanders “almost at times sounds like he thinks it’s inherently evil to be well-off.” But far from being a hypocrite—or damaging his chances—Sanders’s recent success not only doesn’t hurt the “political revolution” he’s championed, it might even help it. Sanders, after all, isn’t advocating (no matter what Fox Business commentators tell you) to impoverish everyone in the country, but to lift them up.



Kruse’s story is the latest in a wave of investigations into the Vermont senator’s past. There have, over the past few months, been looks into Sanders’s 1988 trip to the Soviet Union, his time as mayor of Burlington, and his (justifiably) dim view of American foreign policy during the Reagan era. These stories are, to a great extent, a recognition of the fact that Sanders is a leading Democratic candidate, someone who has held a firm grip on second place in nearly all of the early presidential polls. They are also, to some extent, corrective.

During the 2016 election, almost no one in the media or politics took Sanders seriously. As a result, much of the coverage of his candidacy was positive, and barely any resources were spent on expensive deep dives into his past. While these stories sometimes have the feel of opposition research, they more accurately reflect the profound change in Sanders’s political evolution. Four years ago, the political independent was perceived as a busy but relatively inconsequential backbencher. Today, he’s one of the most important politicians in the country. With the possible exception of Donald Trump, no one has had more influence over public policy discussions than Sanders.

