First, let’s just lay out the actual fact: in a story dated June 1, 2010, Forbes Magazine listed Scott Brown as the 10th-highest recipient in Congress of campaign contributions from the financial sector, and the 8th-highest Senator. Here’s what the story actually said.
Wall Street’s Favorite Congressmen
Brian Wingfield, 06.01.10, 06:00 AM EDT
A certain truck-driving senator from Massachusetts and two GOP congressmen running for Senate are among the biggest recipients of contributions from the financial sector.WASHINGTON — Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., achieved fame earlier this year when his election threw a wrench into Democrats’ health care plans. But as the recipient of nearly $442,000 in campaign contributions from the financial industry in 2009 and so far this year, he’s also an important player in Wall Street reform. In fact, only nine other members of Congress took in more from the financial community–and most of them hold leadership positions or important seats on the committees writing the bill.
For the record, the other Senators ahead of Brown were, in order, Schumer (D-NY), Gillibrand (D-NY), Reid (D-NV), Shelby (R-AL), Lincoln (D-AR), Bennet (D-CO), and Dodd (D-CT). Those all make sense (except for Bennet, whose presence on the list is a bit of a mystery): Schumer and Gillibrand are Wall Street’s hometown Senators; Reid is the majority leader; Shelby is the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee; Lincoln was behind an amendment to Dodd-Frank that would have required banks to spin off their derivative trading operations; and Dodd was writing the bill.
Anyway, Elizabeth Warren famously said in last night’s debate that Forbes Magazine had declared Brown “Wall Street’s favorite Senator.” It didn’t, so that’s a misstatement on her part, and she should correct it to something like “one of Wall Street’s favorite Senators” – which would be accurate.
The Globe posted a story today pointing out Warren’s error. What the Globe didn’t point out is that David Bernstein at the Phoenix noted this very point over a month ago. In late August, The Hill had posted an item making exactly the same error that Warren made last night – claiming that the Forbes story said something it didn’t say – and Bernstein called them out on it.
It certainly seems possible that the campaign was aware of the Hill story but not Bernstein’s rejoinder (sorry, David), and that the error came about that way. From personal experience, I can say that law professors tend to be very uncomfortable with the idea of making assertions that they cannot back up, so I think it quite unlikely that Warren herself knew that she was misstating what the Forbes story actually said.
According to the Globe, the Warren campaign is working on some sort of response.
sue-kennedy says
stating that she would not be dragging her family out in front of the press on the apology tour.
Most everyone is uncomfortable with making statements they can’t back up, luckily most of us do not have our mistakes in the news. David suggestion that it be corrected by adding “one of” Wall Streets favorite Senators seems simple enough.
So this story would seem to be a bigger embarrassment for Senator Brown as the fact that Scott Brown is receiving so much financial support from Wall St is more egregious than whether he is the worst or one of the worst. Isn’t it to Warren’s advantage to keep the story going?
HeartlandDem says
that Senator Brown thinks it is a good thing to be the sweetheart of Wall St.
And, that it was the majority of Massachusetts voters who opened the door for him to be the latest pol on Wall St.’s payroll.
karenc says
which would make her comment accurate.
I agree with you that the Brown campaign has more reason to want this to drop than she does. It is, of course, embarrassing that her staff did not go to the original source to verify the quote, but the Hill article’s existence shows she did not just make it up. However, the correction still makes Brown look bad to those who think getting lots of Wall Street money is bad.
As to Brown, the original article points out that unlike the others, he is not a party leader or high up on one of the relevant committees. (He is not even on either Banking or Finance.) When the article was written he was the most junior Senator there was.
More embarrassing is the timing of some contributions – after he pushed the change that saved the big banks $19 billion in taxes.
massmarrier says
It’s odd to see Bernstein so bloated about this. The error is a difference of degree, not kind. I saw the Forbes piece and it sure lumps Brown in with the blessed ones of the financial lobbyists and moguls. Yeah, yeah, we can count and it’s might be six instead of one. Sticking with the ideas, she’s in the ballpark with the concept.
This may not quite fall into Emerson’s condemnation of foolish consistency as the hobgoblin of little minds, but it’s on the brink.
HeartlandDem says
the world needs the Davids.
Add to the list that she needs to respond to the challenge to refuse PAC money and/or qualify which PACs she won’t play with.
sue-kennedy says
Bob Massie’s statement at the debate was a bit confusing actually that Elizabeth Warren should model her fundraising after him and Alan Khazei. Bob’s fundraising is inadequate and Alan’s list of high rollers, hedge funds, and investment industry is much more concerning. I feel like I among like minded friends when looking at the donor list for Elizabeth Warren and see small donors and the progressive groups I follow and support.
Kevin L says
That’s what I think as well. Easy for Khazei to “bravely” tell people not to take bundled money from small grassroots donors organized into a PAC when he has a Rolodex full of celebrities & hedge fund managers. These grassroots PACs are clearly distinguishable from the corporate PAC money which makes up 1/10 of Scott Brown’s war chest.
All Khazei is accomplishing is muddying the water and ultimately helping Scott Brown. For an example of why I am no longer a fervent Khazei supporter (like I was in 2009, see Alan Khazei gets four max donations from DFER. As far as I can tell “Democrats for Education Reform” is a hedge fund led group of people who want to replace the public education system with for-profit charter schools (or non-profit ones that they can use for tax breaks).
HeartlandDem says
clarify that I stated,
I did not say she should change, alter, model or do anything other than
.
Bob Neer says
is a win for Warren every point and counter-point of the way in the current climate. The only debate that could be worse for him is whether he did or did not send a letter of congratulations to Casey Anthony when she was acquitted.
judy-meredith says
Correct analysis Bob. Keep it up guys.
johnk says
Globe. I wonder who was making more during that time?
joeltpatterson says
Senator Lincoln was from Arkansas not Louisiana.
She’s gone now, replaced by Senator Boozman, who–we can only hope–lives up to his name.*
*cheap joke. It’s pronounced like the city in Montana.
karenc says
It suggests that he either got a HUGE amount in those early months or that Wall Street gave huge amounts to him when he was running against Coakley – or both.
There are plenty of Senators on the Banking and Finance committees, who did not make this list, but Brown – not on either committee – and in Congress just 5 months did. He is a complete outlier on that list.
sue-kennedy says
Looks like our friends at RMG are reporting Scott Brown is the 6th most favorite Senator of Wall Street based on this Phoenix article.
Let’s demand the truth!!! Is Scott Brown the favorite, 6th favorite or 10th favorite Senator of Wall St..
AmberPaw says
No question! I loved that photo (why not rerun it?) of him with his hand out to the Kochtopus.
SomervilleTom says
I find the video clip more revealing than stills (the fawning behavior is more obvious). Here’s the shot:
The money quote is at the very beginning:
kirth says
the “most liberal Senator.” Who is that supposed to be these days, anyway? In the past, it’s been Edwards, Kerry, and Obama. I notice that it never seems to be Bernie Sanders, the only Socialist in the place …
Kevin L says
It is kind of curious that it tends to be Democratic candidates for president. Is there even any explanation of their criteria?