Tulsi Gabbard’s surprise announcement that she will no longer take “PAC/lobbyist $$” comes after she raked in $1.3 million in such money over the course of her short Congressional career, $477,000 or one-third of it in the 2016 cycle after she endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

Among Gabbard’s biggest PAC contributors were the National Auto Dealers Association, Boeing, the National Association of Realtors, and weapons company Lockheed Martin all of whom contributed between $20,000-$30,000 a piece. Labor union PACs were also major donors but she got almost twice as much money from business PACs than from labor PACs — 55% of her 2016 PAC contributions came from business in the 2016 cycle compared to 31% from unions ($260,650 and $146,500, respectively) and 52% of her 2014 PAC contributions came from business compared to $35% from labor in the 2014 cycle ($225,650 compared to $153,000, respectively).

Yes, “we can’t allow our future to be driven and shaped by special interests” but the question Gabbard does not address is how much of her past was driven and shaped by special interests? Did her failure to support single-payer health care for years until her recent flip-flop on the issue have anything to do with the fact that health-related PACs gave her $30,000? Does her failure to support a $15 an hour minimum wage have anything to do with the $17,000 she received from Wal Mart’s PAC? Defense was single biggest business sector to donate to Gabbard in both the 2016 and 2014 cycles — might that have something to do with her votes against successive Progressive Caucus budgets in 2014 and 2015 which contained reductions in defense spending (i.e. less money for Lockheed Martin)?

What Gabbard has not pledged to do is fund her future campaigns the way Bernie Sanders has funded all of his past campaigns — primarily through small dollar individual donations. PAC contributions make up only 1% of his total donations and the vast majority of that PAC money — 70% — came from labor unions. Business PACs account for only 13% of the PAC money he has received since 1989 which amounts to just $311,704, or a little more than what Gabbard got from business PACs in each of the past two election cycles.

Gabbard’s disavowal of PAC money after taking millions of dollars in PAC money while simultaneously not returning any of that money and not pledging to rely on small donors to power her campaign is both an empty gesture and a PR stunt. Most of Gabbard’s campaign funding comes from big dollar donations and PAC money only constitutes 25% of what her campaign receives in funds.