Money bomb for Elizabeth Warren – who’s in?

Comments

1. John Tehan says

   January 16, 2012 at 3:21 pm

   The same diary just made the rec list at dailykos.com – let’s hope we raise a ton of money!

2. bigmike says

   January 16, 2012 at 4:35 pm

   We all appreciate the things Elizabeth Warren has to say about Wall Street greed and financial accountability — but instead of showing her love with our money — I suggest we show her some “tough love” by asking her to set a better example for how you campaign for public office in the year 2012.

   Let’s ask her to make her “grassroots campaign” more than just a polished marketing gimmick that’s been crafted by her team of veteran political handlers.

   Let’s ask her to reject funding from PACs, reject funding from corporations, and reject funding from lobbyists. Let’s ask her not to accept contributions from other politicians in the conservative United States Senate. And let’s ask her to refrain from out-of-state fundraisers. Finally, on this, the anniversary week of Citizens United decision, let’s ask her to take an unequivocal stand in favor of an Amendment to overturn corporate personhood.

   In sum, let’s ask her to be OUR Senator — and let’s ask her to reject all the money that flows from the old-school political channels.

   I want her to win — but more importantly, I want us to achieve actually progressive victories in this country — and to do that, we need to change the game of politics. Like Barack Obama before her, Elizabeth Warren has all the skills to be a transformative leader — but if she continues down the path of big money without setting a better example — I am afraid that even if she does get elected, she will spend her career in a Washington environment where real progress is still impossible.

   • David says

     January 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm

     are you willing to pony up? We all know that it will take money – lots of it – to beat Scott Brown. That’s just reality, and I am not interested in unilateral surrender. So if Warren is to swear off all these sources of cash, regular folks in MA have to be ready to sacrifice – really sacrifice – to make it up. When you’d normally give $50, you have to give $1,000. That’s what I’m talking about.

     Are you in?

     • bigmike says

       January 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm

       First of all, I do not have $1,000 to give to her campaign.

       But I would pledge to do a heck of a lot more volunteer-time if she took some sort of bold stance on the issue of money in politics.

       Like many people out there, I have simply come to the conclusion that until we get money out of politics, it really does not matter who we send to Washington.

       And I don’t automatically accept the idea that it will take lots of money to beat Scott Brown. There comes a time when there is a certain value-added by not linking yourself to a financial transaction. Why did Google become a search-engine sensation? And why did Wikipedia become the most trusted name in information? Sure, some of it had to do with great vision — but a lot of it had to do with the extra value that came from people’s visceral recognition that the products associated with those organizations were unbiased — because they approached the market in an unprecedented fashion.

       Likewise, my contention is that Elizabeth would do more for her campaign, and more for the future of her country, if she similarly refused to take any big donations — campaigning in an unprecedented fashion of her own. Let Scott Brown and Karl Rove run ads against her morning, noon, and night. With all of the intelligent people, all of the Democrats, and many of the Independents fired up and motivated, she could pull it out without money. And if she did, it would set a new standard for our democracy.

       I actually think the money is going to hurt her…I really do. Having said all this , I will do my best not to rain on everyone’s parade — and I won’t keep reiterating this idea for the next nine months (even though I kinda am tempted!) I want her to beat Scott Brown, too, and I really appreciate everyone tolerating this unconventional viewpoint.

       • David says

         January 16, 2012 at 5:46 pm

         is that there’s no evidence for it, as far as I know, and lots of evidence to the contrary. In general, the better-financed candidate wins an enormous amount of the time – 80-85% in the US Senate, in the last couple of cycles. The exception is self-funders, who often lose. So all of that points toward Warren’s current strategy being the right one.

         As far as I know, there is very little evidence that candidates get much benefit from swearing off PAC money, or lobbyist money, or out-of-state money, or any other particular category of money. Nor is there much evidence that doing so changes behavior – Obama did refuse lobbyist and PAC money, for example, but is now routinely accused of selling out to Wall Street and other special interests.

         What I think might really change this race is if Warren and Brown can come to some kind of agreement regarding third-party spending in the race. That could be a game-changer.

         • John Tehan says

           January 16, 2012 at 5:53 pm

           From Politico:

           Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Scott Brown on Monday demanded a cease-fire of the third-party spending that’s certain to play a major role in this state’s pivotal Senate race.

           Senior officials from Brown’s and Warren’s campaigns will soon meet to try to craft an unusual pact to curtail the influence of so-called Super PACs that have grown in power since the Supreme Court’s Citizen United case loosened campaign finance rules in 2010.

           Whether the talk amounts to anything more than public posturing to distance themselves from the millions of dollars in negative attacks launched by the groups remains to be seen. Experts are skeptical that groups will unilaterally disarm knowing that this race could tip the balance of power in the Senate.

           But Brown and Warren — both of whom will have warchests flush with their own campaign cash — are trying to make the case they want outside groups to stay off the airwaves, in a bid to appeal to voters tired of partisan mud-slinging.

           Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71484.html#ixzz1jf16azMT

3. endcorporatecontrol says

   January 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm

   Congress is completely controlled by corporate interests. We need to replace all(or as many as possible) incumbents with candidates that refuse corporate donations. In the past this hasn’t been possible, but with the rising use of social and free media, perhaps the time has come. The site http://beyourgovernment.org launched today, and offers a very real oppurtunity to get people elected who truly represent their constituents, without any corporate money. Well worth looking
   at.
   Their video is very entertaining
   http://youtu.be/lVXnyGYpPsc

   • David says

     January 16, 2012 at 8:38 pm

     As I’m sure you know, corporations can’t donate directly to campaigns, even after Citizens United. So do you mean that candidates should refuse donations from any person who works for a corporation? If so, it’s going to get awfully hard to raise money.