WASHINGTON (AP) — In their latest debate, Hillary Clinton glossed over the big-money donors juicing her White House ambitions while Bernie Sanders offered disputed numbers behind his plan for a government-financed health system.

A look at some of the claims in the Democratic presidential debate and how they compare with the facts:

CLINTON: "We have more than 750,000 donors and the vast majority are giving small contributions. ... We both have a lot of small donors."

THE FACTS: Her presidential run is being supported by wealthy donors in ways that Sanders' is not.

Last year's fundraising reports show that Sanders raised fully 72 percent of his campaign money from people who gave $200 or less, while for Clinton those donors accounted for just 16 percent of her funds.

Clinton stretched when putting herself in Sanders' league when it comes to grassroots financing. She said they are both getting small donors and that "sets us apart" from Republican candidates. But her rate of small-dollar contributions isn't that much different than that of some of the GOP contenders.

She also minimized the impact of the super political action committee supporting her effort, saying the group was founded to help President Barack Obama and she has no say over its operations. But no candidate can control the super PACS that are devoted to helping their candidacies, yet they can be vital in White House efforts because they can raise unlimited money and spend heavily on advertising and other help.

Although Priorities USA may have formed to help Obama, it's now steered by her trusted advisers. In fact, Guy Cecil, a former Clinton staffer, was brought in to lead the group last year as a signal to her supporters that they could trust Priorities USA to serve her well.

___

BERNIE SANDERS: "Our Medicare-for-all, single-payer proposal will save the average middle-class family $5,000 a year."

HILLARY CLINTON: "The numbers don't add up."

THE FACTS: More detail and analysis are needed on Sanders' plan for cradle-to-grave government-financed health care for all. But two early assessments suggest that the accounting comes up short.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the tax increases in Sanders' plan would only cover about 75 percent of what Sanders says it will cost, creating a $3 trillion hole in the federal budget over 10 years.

Emory University economist Kenneth Thorpe says the proposal also underestimates the cost of having the government provide doctors' services, hospitalization, long-term care, and vision and dental care — all without premiums, copays or deductibles.

According to Thorpe, the Sanders plan falls short by about $11 trillion over 10 years. He says the income and payroll tax increases required to pay fully for the proposal would mean 71 percent of those who now have private insurance would pay more.

Thorpe served in the administration of Bill Clinton, handling economic estimates of the former president's failed health care overhaul plan. He says he has no involvement with the Hillary Clinton campaign.