A moment of compassion for Scott Brown, once the Cosmopolitan Sexiest Man in America, who has a $10.5 million bank account to $3 million for Elizabeth Warren at last count and a Tea Party army of 258,528 Facebook supporters to Warren’s 85,279 (not to mention Twitter expert Eric “CrazyKhazei” Fehrnstrom as a top lieutenant), but finds the difficulty of managing his vast wealth and power much greater than most people acknowledge. As he told the Herald’s Hillary Chabot today, “I just think that if you’re going to find out where people stand, you gotta ask them tough questions like you guys ask me every single day. Every single day of my existence I get tough questions from you guys.”
“She’s going to have every advantage,” he lamented to Chabot, before lighting a cigar with a $100 bill.
Perhaps the questions were not so tough at Brown’s recent $1,000 Washington, D.C. fund-raiser for Wall Street lobbyists. Brown is closing in on $3 million in campaign contributions to date from the financial industry: almost as much as Warren has raised in total. The Public Campaign Action Fund reports, citing Politico, that the hosts for Brown’s Dom Perignon champagne fundraiser hosted by luxury liquor giant Diageo (producers of Dom and Moet) included:
- Mary Pat Lawrence, who represents Morgan Stanley, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and Allstate Insurance;
- Les Brorsen, a lobbyist for accounting giant Ernst & Young;
- Missy Edwards, who monitors the implementation of Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation for Clark & Weinstock, a firm that represents several financial industry clients including JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, and Goldman Sachs
- Dave Lugar, who represents bank holding companies Ally Financial and CIT Group; and
- Rich White, a lobbyist for the Alpine Group, who represents insurance company, Prudential PLC. The Alpine Group also represents the US Commodity Funds, a financial securities firm.
Warren, meanwhile, is currently collecting signatures for her Call for Wall Street Accountability. If only everyone understood how easy that little project was, comparatively speaking.
kirth says
“Rich White, a lobbyist for the Alpine Group…”
fever says
Talk about a smear campaign. Scott Brown has raised $10.5 million and you single out a few supporters who represent less than 1% of his contributions. You fail to mention the people behind the remaining 99% his contributions because they consist of everyday people.
Assume for a moment you’re right and Scott Brown is being influenced by those five people, why would Brown be one of the few Republicans to vote yes for Dodd-Frank? Before you answer, keep in mind, most of those five people are employed by/via Wall Street financial firms.
Look all candidates have faults but it should not be deemed a fault to raise more money then another candidate. It’s a sign of more committed support and the ability to raise money should reflect positively on the candidate. Stated differently, when Obama was successful in raising money, where was your outrage?
David says
Nobody’s saying it is. But it should be seen as utterly absurd for Brown to play this whiny underdog “why’s everybody always pickin’ on me” game when he is, in fact, sitting on ten million bucks. It’s pretty pathetic.
methuenprogressive says
…who were the hosts of a Washington D.C. $1,000.00 Dom Perignon champagne fundraiser. And you claim it’s “not fair” to single these people out?
“Assume for a moment you’re right and Scott Brown is being influenced by those five people,”
OK, I will. Not a problem.
fever says
Whether or not Brown is being “whiney” is debatable, but it’s definitely true that this post is a cheap smear.
Regarding what you describe as “whiney”, I would characterize it as honest depiction of what Scott Brown must defeat in order to be reelected. Despite his money lead, Scott Brown must overcome a huge liberal/Democratic bias with a willing and dedicated media. If given the option of the money lead or being able to dictate what is said about Warren or him in the Globe, I imagine Brown would choose the latter.
hesterprynne says
…if you look at the Federal Election Commission records. Check out Scott Brown’s page.
Over 1000 PAC’s have donated to him, typically in amounts of four figures or more. To answer the point in your earlier comment about Wall Street donors, here are some notable examples from another industry – energy:
The Koch Brothers have given $10,000
Murray Energy Corporation has given $10,000
Exxon/Mobil has given $7,000
And those numbers are just from 2011. Imagine what we’ll see in 2012, an election year.
Individual contributions to Brown outnumber PAC contributions, as they do for all candidates. But not by anything like the 99-to-1 ratio you’re suggesting, more like 18-to-1. Add in the fact that the individual contributions are in smaller amounts. The result? This post is not a smear tactic, and it’s anything but cheap.
Bob Neer says
Over $2.6 million as of October compared to just over $3 million total for Warren to date.
Scott Brown is driving a $10 million Wall Street powered steamroller while simultaneously claiming to be a victim. His sounds just like the bankers who reap millions while telling the public they are doing “God’s work”, persecuted and misunderstood.
fever says
I’m amazed at both the stupidity and hypocrisy of this dialogue.
Stupidity – I have no doubt the powerful Massachusetts Democratic Party, with the help of an obedient media; will do whatever they can to damage the reputation Scott Brown. However, by voting for Dodd-Frank, he has shown no love for Wall Street making this “pro-Wall Street” tag nothing but a unsubstantiated smear. I mean, even if 100% of his donations came from Wall Street, one would have thought he would have opposed Dodd-Frank. If anything, this proves Scott Brown is a free thinker, immune from the influence of lobbyists and money.
Hypocrisy – Whatever money Scott Brown accepted, that you can somehow trace back to “Wall Street”, occurs amongst Democratic candidates all the time. Its ironic when that same money supports a Democrat, you don’t seem to raise a fuss. For example, when the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) raises $40 million from “Wall Street” and contributes portions of that same money to the Warren campaign, it goes unreported.
An intelligent conversation, free of hypocrisy, would be to discuss the erroneous assumption that Wall Street is evil.
Mark L. Bail says
Brown voted for Dodd-Frank after holding it hostage and watering it down.
He even threatened to filibuster it. Here’s a better link, but doesn’t mention filibustering.
As far as donations go, it’s common practice for opposing candidates to receive donations from the same source. It’s the amount going in each direction that is telling. Hence this post. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s reality. For a better take on hypocrisy, you might check out the Business Insider.: “Senator Who Voted For Dodd-Frank Sends Out Email About How Anti-Regulation He Is.”
A little google goes a long way.
kbusch says
might begin with you like actually reading some of the critiques from the Left of how Wall Street’s current practices are dangerous. This stuff is not an “assumption” and only a not-so-intelligent commentator would smear liberals by suggesting we make stuff up.
There’s a strong conservative tendency to divide the world into evil-doers (to use a word from the Bush Administration) and good people. No doubt conservatives expect to find their mirror image in liberals, i.e., they expect to find liberals who divide the world into good and evil, only differently. Perhaps, that is what fever expects.
And the populists on the Left who contrast the evil 1% against the innocent 99% must satisfy that expectation.
But there are also a whole lot of wonky, policy-oriented liberals who form a good percentage of the commentators here. Our critique of banking and finance is pretty solid and it is not just a collection of random prejudices.
merrimackguy says
On BMG Brown is always wrong and potrayed negatively.
Nothing you can say will dissuade anyone here from that point of view.
Warren has been out in CA raising money from the limo liberal/hollywood crowd http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywood-dems-Elizabeth-Warren-politics-254285 and we know they have more money that most of Wall Street. I’m sure there was plenty of Dom at the Lears’ $1,000-$5,000 event.
Once the unions weigh in with their big bags of money, Ms. Warren will pass Brown up in the fundraising department.
hesterprynne says
I don’t think Brown is always wrong. (I called his office to thank him for criticizing the House Republicans who were blocking the payroll tax cut and UI extensions earlier this month and for his votes in favor of both those items.)
But I wish you’d come up with a better argument than — the people behind the remaining 99% of Brown’s contributions consist of everyday people. That’s demonstrably not true.
Mark L. Bail says
I’ll go on record saying Scott Brown is good-looking. I’m not attracted to him personally, but I want to show that he isn’t always portrayed negatively here.
fever says
That’s an interesting choice of words in saying Brown held Dodd-Frank “hostage” versus the actual quote from the article which stated Brown “expressed reservations”. Trying persuade rather than inform, I suspect. In light of the fact the bill was over thousand pages long with thousands more of yet to be written rules, I’m glad someone in Washington read it and thought about its implications. I’m also glad someone in Washington dealt with the cost of the bill in a manor that would not increase the tax/fee and spend nature of the way things are usually done in Washington. In Brown’s words, we should be “cutting unnecessary federal spending”, well said!
“It’s the amount going in each direction that is telling.”
I couldn’t agree more with that statement. This is why such a large portion of Warren’s campaign donations can be directly attributed to Wall Street, whereas Brown’s come from everyday people.
“For a better take on hypocrisy, you might check out the Business Insider.: Senator Who Voted For Dodd-Frank Sends Out Email About How Anti-Regulation He Is.”
I would love to see how Brown weasel’s out of that remark. Thankfully for Brown, there is no chance Warren will attack him for supporting Dodd-Frank.
Mark L. Bail says
I like your assumption that Brown read the entire bill. Do you really think that’s how it works? Not just for Brown, but most in Congress? He didn’t need to read the bill. If the GOP people drafting the bill don’t alert their caucus to objectionable parts, the lobbyists will do that. That’s what they get paid for.
Brown’s donations come from everyday people? How do you know? This is where sourcing is helpful. I don’t think quarterly reports are due until December 31. Unsurprisingly, your statement “a large portion of Warren’s campaign donations can be directly attributed to Wall Street, whereas Brown’s come from everyday people.” You could actually look this up at OpenSecrets.org. At the end of September, Brown had colletected $1,271,575 from the Securities & Investment industry; Warren had collected $43,950. And while Brown has collected more money in individual contributions (78%), Warren has collected a higher percentage of money from them (99%).
I have to ask, do you get this stuff from somewhere or do you make it up from whole cloth?
karenc says
repeating the spin that he reads the entire bill for every bill.
The fact is that where other Senators can speak at length and with specificity on details of bills in Senate hearings, Senate speeches, town halls and to the media – Brown rarely, if ever does.
The only interview where I saw him go into detail was a Face the Nation done shortly after becoming Senator – and he misstated things he spoke of. (Including a major error in citing a Mass Life estimate of the people they lost since the fall of the economy in 2008 to 2010 when Brown was speaking as an estimate of the people that would lose jobs in their company with Dodd/Frank. )
Imagine a LIVE interview where he is asked to explain aspects of bills he recently voted on. It is not at all clear that he will be able to do so with the fluency of the average Senator (or Elizabeth Warren. ) It also is likely why he has done NO town halls in nearly two years, while the far busier Kerry had 5 this year – and at all of them answered unvetted questions in detail.
One might have to question whether he really reads the bills or if he simply can not understand or remember what he read. It almost might be better if people thought the former was true.
Christopher says
So yes, Warren has to raise a lot of money, that’s politics these days. Yes, some may come indirectly from people on Wall Street, but she’s not catering to them. Yes, she’s finding sources of large sums to compete, like Hollywood and unions, which I for one much prefer. However, unions can only dream of matching Wall Street with their contribution ability.
merrimackguy says
Warren has her mannerisms as well, and one could put a negative spin on them (she is sooo earnest…..)
We’ll see at the end of the campaign who contributes the most. Unions contribute 95-99% to Dems, while WS spreads the money around (see exhibit 1- Pres. Obama). Brown is just part of their general disbursement of cash. Of course she’s not catering to them. She’s not in office yet.
Hollywood vs. Wall Street. Interesting match up though.
Mark L. Bail says
Hollywood needed a $700 billion bailout?
bigmike says
My number one issue is campaign fundraising. As a former Democrat (and now a proud, unenrolled Independent), I love what Elizabeth Warren has to say about Wall Street greed, but I am troubled by her lack of clarity on the issue of campaign finance. A quick search of the mainstream record will reveal that Elizabeth is 1) accepting money from lobbyists, 2) accepting money from PACs, 3) doing out-of-state fundraisers, 4) doing fancy, $1,000-and-up a plate fundraisers, and worst of all, 5) accepting large sums of money from conservative Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate. At a time when many dedicated progressives have concluded that money in politics is the fundamental issue of our time, it is disappointing to note that Elizabeth’s campaign webpage does not mention a single word about position on campaign financing.
Mark L. Bail says
It’s important in that it is the root of much evil in our system, but neither the Republicans nor the Supreme Court takes it seriously.
Why should Warren bring it up? So Brown can call her a hypocrite?
bigmike says
If Elizabeth Warren’s goal is simply to win the election and serve in the United States Senate, then I agree it makes no sense for her to make an “issue” out of campaign finance. She can play it safe, hope to win the election, and then go on to be another fine transactional leader from Massachusetts — someone who does the best she can to cut deals within a framework that is not questioned or challenged.
However, if she were to set a positive example for financing a campaign in the 21st century — suppose, for example, she limited herself to contributions no greater than $100 from human individuals only — she would be setting herself up to be a truly transformational leader — someone who redefines the entire framework of our democratic system.
Mark L. Bail says
I could have phrased my comment more nicely.
bigmike says
seemed like a good comment to me!
merrimackguy says
Maybe you find Scott Brown attractive, but I would say 90% of the comments on BMG about his looks are negative. Pretty boy, etc.
Hollywood is supported by government activities.
In addition to state subsidies for film production (including here in MA), they get favorable tax treatment and a host of other benefits.
Maybe not a $700B bailout, but that’s the issue these days- business and government are too closely linked.
Mark L. Bail says
Scott Brown being attractive. I mean I’m sure he is, but it’s really neither here nor there. Personally, I think the guy isn’t too bright.
More seriously though, do you really expect to find nice things being said about Scott Brown? Why or how would that happen here?
First, people here would have to agree with what Brown does. They don’t. Second, he would have to be good at something political. I don’t know what that would be.
Third, he or his handlers would have to stop doing dumb things like filibustering his own bill,creating fake Twitter accounts for minor Democratic candidates, or being overheard wondering aloud how Elizabeth Warren could be even with him when she just entered the race. I forgot to mention him literally running away from protesters in Amherst; the local papers tried to soft-pedal that one, but it wasn’t easy.
Fourth, it would have to be not fun. The misinformed participation of Brown apologists like Fever just makes it more fun.
There’s reasonable, intelligent discussion here but we are still partisans.
SomervilleTom says
We can only imagine what the Republican right “family values” crowd would say if the Democrats put forward a female candidate for national office who had posed nude in a soft-core porn magazine. The community here didn’t make the decision for Scott Brown to trade on his appearance — the “pretty boy” meme was created by Mr. Brown himself. This is the same man who disgusted and embarrassed his family, Massachusetts, and any caring father with his shameful attempt at “humor” in his first national press conference. Apparently Mr. Brown graduated with honors from the Newt Gingrich school of morality.
Similarly, the community here didn’t choose the attempt to portray Mr. Brown as the “every man” candidate victimized by those awful liberals. The “liberal media” meme hasn’t been true since the Reagan era and has been repeatedly demolished by anyone who bothers to actually look. It takes about fifteen minutes of pretty much any Fox News programming to put that canard to rest. Talk to us about those awful unions when we see the role of the Koch brother’s empire in this campaign.
Our junior senator has made his own bed — his whining about being forced to lie in it typifies the many behaviors that, thankfully, make the GOP an endangered species in Massachusetts.
Mark L. Bail says
published, but I remember my students in Saturday Morning Detention bringing in copies of Maxim. Actually, I googled it. It’s still available. This would be sort of equivalent to Cosmo.