OP-ED | Dear Emily’s List, ‘I Told You So’
by Sarah Darer Littman | Jul 20, 2012 10:09am
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
I was talking politics with friends at a bridal shower recently (alas, no rest for the wicked) and we got onto the topic of how annoyed we are with the profusion of “Women for Candidate XYZ” groups on both sides of the political aisle. If we’ve been fighting for equality all these years, why do we need to have a separate women’s group to support a candidate? I either support a candidate or I don’t. I don’t need sorority sisters to guide me. Isn’t that the point of being an intelligent, independent woman?
Almost exactly a year ago, I expressed my incredulity when Emily’s List endorsed Susan Bysiewicz as for Senate.
Since that time, I’ve stopped donating to Emily’s List, because I no longer trust their ability to vet candidates worthy of support. Their endorsement of Bysiewicz made that clear.
As if I hadn’t detailed enough reasons in last year’s piece, this week Ms. Bysiewicz scored a pretty spectacular own goal when she released her first negative ad of the campaign:
After pushing out a TV on a trolley like a strangely be-suited member of the high school AV Club, Bysiewicz replays a 2006 Murphy campaign commercial criticizing Nancy Johnson for accepting pharmaceutical contributions and then attempts to emulate his format:
“He’s taken more hedge fund money than any other Democrat in Congress. I approve this message because you can’t stand up to Wall Street when they’re giving you this much money,” Bysiewicz says in the ad, as a list of Murphy donors scrolls behind her.
(Sound of Screeching Brakes) Wait? What’s that I hear? Bysiewicz got her facts wrong? Well knock me down with a feather!
Dear Emily’s List: I don’t want to say I told you so but…I kind of did, 12 months ago. Wish you’d asked some of us folks on the ground before making your endorsement.
Has Chris Murphy “taken more hedge fund money than any other Democrat in Congress?” Let’s have a look see at those annoying little things called “facts”, shall we?
I know some people are math challenged, but after counting twice, I’ve spotted eleven Democrats (and that’s ignoring the Republicans) who have received more hedge fund contributions that Chris Murphy.
Bysiewicz’ campaign spent most of Thursday defending the ad, but by the end of the day were forced to admit there had been a research error.
In defending their error, the Bysiewicz campaign cites this Open Secrets link, which does, indeed, show Murphy as the Democrat in the House receiving the most money from the Securities and Investment Industry (note: not “hedge funds” as Bysiewicz claimed in the ad.”)
However, like most things in the ad, this is disingenuous because Murphy is now running for Senate. When you run the more relevant “All Senate Candidates” list, Murphy is ninth below several Democrats and Republicans, and notably above Bysiewicz, Chris Shays and Linda McMahon, which is an interesting indicator of where the market thinks this election is going.
Republican Chris Shays was number two on the House list in 2006, taking in over $440,000 from the Securities and Investment industries alone. Shays took in almost $36,000 from hedge funds in the 2008 cycle when he wasn’t even running for office – presumably to help pay down debt after his former campaign manager Michael Sohn embezzled $250,000.
Let’s face it – even before the disastrous Citizens United decision, delegates representing the home districts of those who make their out of sight livings from hedge funds, investment banking etc., were bound to higher up the list.
What’s more, as Murphy campaign spokesman Taylor Lavender pointed out: “If Bysiewicz were really the candidate fighting Wall Street, why hasn’t a single grassroots progressive group in Connecticut stood up and supported her? The answer is simple: AFL-CIO, CCAG, AFSCME, SEIU, the Working Families Party and many others support Chris because he doesn’t just talk about reform, he’s actually fighting for it.”
Murphy’s campaign released a list of the financial sector donations to Bysiewicz’ own campaign, which in a mere two years totaled over $232,000. Pot meet kettle.
Looks like Mrs. Bysiewicz’ ad is a case of “if you can’t beat ‘em, complain about ‘em.”
Sarah Darer Littman is an award-winning columnist and novelist of books for teens. Long before the financial meltdown, she worked as a securities analyst and earned her MBA in Finance from the Stern School at NYU.
Tags: Susan Bysiewicz, Wall Street, Chris Murphy, Hedge Fund, U.S. Senate, Sarah Darer Littman
(6) Comments
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | July 22, 2012 12:10pm
Before the ‘disastrous’ CU decision the tale was set with the equally disastrous “Emily’s List” decision.
The Obama Administration notified Congress in December 2009 that it will not ask the Supreme Court to revive a set of government regulations seeking to curb high-volume campaign spending by non-profit advocacy groups.
As a result of the ruling, non-profit “527″ organizations will be able to spend unlimited amounts of so-called “soft money” to attack or support federal canddidates or parties, can spend freely on voter drives, and can soliciit unrestriced amoutns of money from donors.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/12/no-appeal-in-emilys-list-case/
posted by: Sam Shore | July 22, 2012 6:49pm
” AFL-CIO, CCAG, AFSCME, SEIU, the Working Families Party “
Emmm, how are these grassroots orgs? Seems to me they are all big labor, including CCAG if you look who runs it. YOU might want to do a little fact checking yourself!
posted by: mpalmer | July 23, 2012 8:10am
Sarah, if you got to sit in on one of his informal campaign stops, you would have heard William Tong’s thoughts on Chris Murphy’s “Wall Street” possible conflicts of interest. Probably a lot harsher than anything Susan has said to date. Of course that was then. Mr. Tong is now fully on board.
The interesting thing, if you want to do some digging, is that many of those key party insiders who came out as early Murphy boosters were the same players in 2006 who worked to undercut Lamont and then voted for Joe Lieberman. In other words, there are some in the state party who were willing to give George Bush another vote in the Senate, just because their good buddy was snubbed. Not to say Linda is preferable, but there’s a lot of un-pretty stuff under the rug if you look. But that’s how it works, on both sides of the isle, the only difference is the amount of money involved.
posted by: saramerica | July 23, 2012 10:33am
Oh believe me, I’m under no illusions about politics and politicians being sold to the highest bidder in the United States. Neither party is immune.
