The Massachusetts 2012 Senate race is shaping up to be an expensive contest, and although I think money is corrupting our political system, it plays a huge factor in our elections. Fortunately, Open Secrets (a project of the Center for Responsive Politics) that analyzes campaign contributions has finally posted its breakdown of our senate race. Most remarkable is the fact that Elizabeth Warren took in slightly more money than Scott Brown, who still has slightly more than a 2 to 1 advantage.
As it stands, Scott Brown has a 2 to 1 advantage in cash on hand with $12,892,256. One third of this sizable chunk of change ($3-4 million) came from his previous race against the ill-fated, ill-equipped candidacy of Martha Coakley. Elizabeth Warren has evidently paid some bills; of the $8.9 million raised, she has $6.8 million on hand. Not surprisingly, the Globe’s article touting the amount of money Warren raised from out-of-staters is both stupid and misleading.
Individual Contributions. It would be nice to say that the decline in the percentage of individual contributions to the Brown campaign reflects him being co-opted by larger interests. But this decline could be attributed to the fact that he is the incumbent in the race. In 2010 individual donations made up 93% of his campaign funds; this time around, they account for 79%. Of the $8.9 million dollars the Warren campaign has raised thus far, individual donations accounted for 98% of the total. I have to wonder whether this percentage will decrease as more money is collected.
Out of State Donations. Elizabeth Warren received more a greater percentage out-of-state donations than Scott Brown did. In 2012, she received 60% of her money ($562,810) from out-of-state and 40% ($375,159) from in state; Brown raised 45% of his funds raised ($1,483,865) from out-of-state. The percentages are different, but in dollars, Brown accepted more than three times as much as Warren. Interestingly, Warren’s percentages are the exactly the same as Scott Brown’s in 2010 when 60% of his campaign contributions from out-of-state donations.
Sectors & Industry. Scott Brown received more donations from every sector, except labor. There’s no question who’s raking in the bucks from the financial sector. For every dollar Elizabeth Warren ($44,200) received in donations, Scott Brown raked in about $32 for a total of $1,574,250.
Labor. Money from labor is not much of a factor at this point. Although Warren ($44,000) has received 4 times as much from labor as Brown ($11,400), the numbers are a small fraction of a percent of the total amount of money Warren raised. Business has contributed far, far more than labor.
All of a sudden they are stupid and misleading, pursuing an agenda, and just out and out wrong in the minds of BMG folks accross a range of issues.
I just want to know why so much of Warren’s money came from CA and NY. Is she going to represent their interests as well as ours? If so much of Brown’s money is “Wall Street” why doesn’t he have more contributions from NY?
To answer your second question first, “Wall Street” in this context is a concept not a physical location. It refers to what Open Secrets calls the “Finance Sector.” This includes primarily those working for insurance companies, securities and investment firms, real estate interests and commercial banks.
Individuals (and PACs) from that sector gave over $1.5 million to Brown’s in 2011 alone. This makes him the #2 Senate recipient of contributions from these “Wall Street” interests. He trails only NY Senator Kristen Gillibrand who is also running for re-election in 2012. It is inarguable that a lot of Brown’s money is from “Wall Street” in this sense.
Moreover, it’s a myth that these ‘Wall Street” interests hire only New York residents or are even only headquarted in New York. These are large multi-national corporations with employees in every state. Some of the top contributors from the “Wall Street”sector are actually from Massachusetts (Bain Capital is #2) and many are actually D.C.-based trade associations (for the Realtors; Bankers & Credit Unions) who are credited with making contributions on behalf of Maryland & Virginia residents and from folks around the country.
That’s why he doesn’t have more contributions from New York.
Finally, yes, Elizabeth Warren is going to represent the interests of people from around the country as well as from Massachusetts. That’s the nature of having a parliamentary system. Elected representatives serve primarily their home states but those interests inevitably overlap with like-minded people (you know, Democrats) in other states.
and “Wall Street” does not have the smear connotation to the average unenrolled voter that it seems to have to you. They do understand NY and CA, though.
So all Finance Sector industries are suspect, including Insusrance?
I wonder what percentage of corporate taxes in MA (both state and federal) are paid by Finance Sector companies. Shouldn’t they have a proportional ear of our representatives?
Yes, even those made by the lovely folks at the insurance companies.
I certainly think it is far to speculate about and analyze the “investments” made by any particular sector of campaign contributors. Meanwhile, everyone – including the Finance Sector companies (and their employees) – have free speech rights and the right to petition their government “redress of grievances” (to complain about and/or seek the assistance government, without punishment or reprisal).
There’s nothing logical inconsistent about respecting those rights and also questioning the motivation for their campaign contributions.
Finally, I see no reason why anyone should be entitled to a greater (or lesser) “proportional ear” than anyone else. By your logic, paying more in taxes (which generally means you are relatively wealthier) gives you more representational rights? The poorer you are (the less you pay in taxes), the less “proportional ear” you should have? I think not.
which is hardly “all of a sudden” for me. The news can be okay and it’s almost all we’ve got, but it has a definite anti-union slant and a particular bias in regards to education. Go through my hundreds of posts over the years, and you’ll find plenty of criticism of the Globe.
Now for the fail in the Globe’s article…
First of all, the innumerate Brian Mooney arbitrarily focuses on third-quarter returns. The entire year’s returns would be more informative for discovering any trends there are to discover, there’s nothing special or significant about the 4th quarter returns. But focusing on the 4th quarter, Brown’s in-state contributions are inflated to 66% of his take when they are only 55% on the year. Percentage-wise, he still has a higher percentage of in state donations than Warren, but that’s an incomplete picture.
The implication of the article is that Scott Brown has a lot of in state support, and Elizabeth Warren is relying on out of state money. While Warren is relying on out of state money, Brown is taking in a hell of a lot in out of state contributions. You write:
Because you don’t have the actual dollar amounts for the year, you don’t know that Scott Brown ($1,483,865) received almost three times as much money from out of state as Elizabeth Warren ($562,810) . After looking at the number of dollars donated, your question makes less sense. Percentages give a general picture, but the actual dollar amounts color in the lines.
Congressman represent the industries in the state in proportion to their siz/employment, etc.
The Financial Sector is large in MA, so it’s only natural that our representives in Congress would have more interest in this area, and get more support.
The MI delegation for years carried water for the automotive industry and the UAW to the detriment of the environment, CAFE standards, etc.
your “Oh come on…” in a complete thought? I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Better yet: go to Open Secrets and read the stuff yourself.