Yesterday, Elizabeth Warren called out Scott Brown on his statements that outside groups should stay out of the race. Brown the beneficiary of an onslaught of attack ads on Elizabeth Warren where Warren spent 1.6 million on ads fending off bogus attacks.
Warren says if Brown really wanted the ads pulled, they would go. She described Rove as Brown’s political “wingman” and said it’s hard to believe he’s really is trying to prevent the ads.
This is a fairly accurate assessment, Brown has of stated often times said that outside groups should stay out of the election but it’s usually in the context of ads against his record. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have not come across a Scott Brown statement condemning Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS ads, just a blanket statement that groups should stay outside the race and referring to ads about his record playing the victim. Brown had done absolutely nothing to stop outside groups in this election other than to use them in a craven attempt at political jockeying.
It will become more difficult for Brown to be believable as more groups enter the fray and start spending money on this race, what’s Scott’s response to the U. S. Chamber of Commerce attack ads?
At this point, this is Brown’s response:
Brown said he’s limited his efforts to public statements.
Wink, wink, thanks Scott for coming out against outside groups.
bigmike says
I love what Elizabeth Warren has to say about Wall Street greed, and I will be happy if she wins the election in November. but I disagree with the perspective of this post. I think it’s going to be easy for Scott Brown to discourage people from voting for Elizabeth Warren on the basis of her fundraising.
Right now, many of us have jumped to the conclusion that Elizabeth Warren’s fundraising methods are different from politics-as-usual, and some people have even championed her as a great “grassroots” fundraiser. But as someone who is determined to get money out of politics, I must admit I feel very uneasy about all this hype.
I find it disappointing that Elizabeth’s campaign website says nothing about campaign finance reform or the Citizens United decision. In that context, one should consider that Elizabeth Warren: 1) has been doing large, fancy Manhattan fundraisers at $1,000 per plate, 2) has accepted donations from corporate lobbyists, 3) has refused to reject lobbyist or PAC money, 4) has done fancy $1,000 and up fundraisers on the West Coast, 5) and perhaps worst of all, she’s raking in tens of thousands of dollars in donations from Democratic-party leaders in the conservative U.S. Senate, including some money that flows right from Wall Street itself!
Of course, the Warren campaign wants to focus on the small donations she has received, but to a large degree she is playing the same game that President Obama played with his 2008 “Change” campaign. To wit: brag about your small donors, and provide minimal information or transparency about the large donors. The corporate media dutifully repeats this well-crafted message, but we all know that statistical averages can be very misleading.
In sum, I love what Elizabeth Warren says about Wall Street greed, but I’ve noticed that there is a strong temptation for us to hold her up as some sort of paragon of political virtue. Hopefully she will take a strong stand against the financial influence that pervades our democracy — for if she does this, it will ultimately make her a stronger candidate in November.
bluewatch says
HeyBigMike,
You are trying to change the subject and confuse the situation:
1. Scott Brown made public statements about opposing outside money (like Karl Rove), but he is admitting that he’s done absolutely nothing besides making the public statements. Conclusion is simple: Scott Brown is a hypocrite.
2. Elizabeth Warren’s average contribution is $64. That is, indeed, a grass roots campaign, and it is, indeed, quite a different political fundraising effort.
bigmike says
I respect your views, but from my perspective:
1) the post claimed that it would be difficult for Brown to be believable on this issue as the race goes on — but I think Elizabeth’s fundraising tactics will make it easier for him to drag her down.
2) A “grassroots” campaign cannot be defined by using a simple statistical average.
centralmassdad says
Who cares?
But it must be noted that median as well as mean would support the grassroots thing more than averaage alone.
If she has 100 donations of $10, and then most of the money came from maxed out donations, the picture is different.
dcsohl says
The median is almost certainly going to be much smaller than the average, assuming that a significant amount of the money came from big donations.
Supposing she had 2 donors who gave $5000 each and then had 198 donors that gave $14.14 each. That would give an average of $64 and a median of $14.14. Which sounds pretty grassroots nonetheless, even though 78% of the money came from big donors.
When trying to determine the “grassroots nature” of a campaign, I think you have to look at overall percentages. What portion of her money came from donors who have given more than $X? ($250? $500? $1K? Maxed out?)
This information should be available through the FEC filings but you have to do some serious number crunching across all the individual donations.
johnk says
Brown was courting the U S Chamber for months and months doing speaking engagements, breakfasts, etc. within the state pretty much as his only method to engage voters. Now the Koch Brothers who fund the U S Chamber is going to start funding attack ads on his behalf. How believable is Brown going to be when he was actively engaging the Chamber for months? No, please, stop the ads, please. Sorry I tried.
Brown’s stance will be challenged, how believable is he going to be? So kudos to Warren from bringing it front and center, he’s been getting a pass while Warren is getting attacked.
Mark L. Bail says
Are you trying to get Warren to stake out a position on campaign reform? Are you rooting for another candidate? Are you just looking to publicize an issue important to you?
I think most of us agree that campaign finance reform is broken. However, it’s not clear what you’re trying to accomplish.
bigmike says
I am not rooting for another candidate. I am voting for Elizabeth Warren.
Here what I want Elizabeth Warren to do — I want her to stake out the boldest, strongest campaign fundraising position of the 2012 campaign season. I want her to say, “I am only accepting donations of $100 or less from actual human beings.”
Yes, I want her to “unilaterally disarm.” It sounds crazy, but she already has a very high profile and a legion of supporters, so therefore, the best thing she could to do is to actually “be” the change. Otherwise, she’s going to come out of this just as dirty as Scott Brown in the eyes of most voters.
There’s a certain power in taking a somewhat pathetic road to justice — MLK understood this, Ghandi understood this, and that’s actually what we need again, right now. I want her to stand above and beyond all of the politics as usual. If she does that, she will do more than win, she will actually set a transformative example for democracy in the 21st Century.
Let’s face it: the people we send to Congress these days have virtually no ability to do anything good — because the system is that broken. Therefore, the best thing she could do is set an example — to conduct her campaign in a way that is beyond reproach.
As it stands, I am afraid she is going down the same road as President Obama: wonderful, amazing rhetoric, but surrounded by inside-players, career politicians, and former lobbyists, etc.
Mark L. Bail says
I don’t agree with you, but I can respect your opinion.
dhammer says
She’d likely lose.
David says
… and you can just stop there. 😉
edgarthearmenian says
for telling it like it is. Some folks here need a reality slap from time to time.
marcus-graly says
If you want candidates who ideologically pure but never never win elections, go join the Green Party. I want the people I support to win sometimes. And yes, that includes $1000 a plate fundraisers and out of state money.
Mark L. Bail says
the Boston Herald. I like that.
I love how Democratic candidates aren’t allowed to be well-off and in favor of higher taxes or take money from individuals from industries they would like to regulate. It’s a black and white world with you guys. You either have to be unreservedly with business or be a hypocrite and phony.
Christopher says
Under the current system a US Senate campaign requires boatloads of money. We can either play holier-than-thou moral witness and lose because we tied our hands, or we can play by the current rules, win, then change the rules.
Mark L. Bail says
facts…
From the Center for Responsive Politics:
Christopher says
Neither of them ran for public office, so they could take the more patient approach to make people realize the moral error of the then-status quo. Warren, on the other hand, has to make this work by November of this year. She can’t afford to raise only $100 at a time (plus even without PACs there is absolutely no reason not to accept up to the full legal amount of $2000+, which is really not that much money) if she has any realistic expectation of winning. Play by the rules, THEN change them.