Did Bysiewicz Take Aim At The Wrong Murphy? Her Campaign Says No
by Hugh McQuaid | Jul 19, 2012 5:37pm
(18) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012
(Updated) Susan Bysiewicz’s third TV spot for her U.S. Senate campaign, released Thursday, was intended to be a shot at her Democratic primary opponent Chris Murphy, but according to the Murphy campaign she misfired by aiming at the wrong Murphy.
Bysiewicz’s 30-second ad focuses on campaign contributions Murphy has taken from Wall Street donors, a tactic she’s been using during televised debates.
In the ad, the former secretary of the state wheels a television onto the screen and shows a clip of a 2006 Murphy campaign ad for the 5th Congressional District. In the 2006 commercial Murphy criticized his then opponent Nancy Johnson for taking money from pharmaceutical companies.
“Those are all Nancy Johnson’s drug company contributions,” Murphy says as a list of contributions scrolls by. “And it won’t stop unless we change Congress.”
The camera then refocuses on Bysiewicz, who says “The problem is Chris has done exactly the same thing.” A list of contributions and donors to the Murphy campaign then begins scrolling in the same manner as the 2006 commercial. Bysiewicz said Murphy has taken more than $700,000 from Wall Street contributors.
“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.
The Murphy campaign responded with two press releases, one calling Bysiewicz a hypocrite, and another accusing her of mistaking Chris Murphy for former U.S. Rep. Scott Murphy, D-NY. According to OpenSecrets.org, Scott Murphy took more hedge fund contributions than any other Democrat in Congress in 2010.
Bysiewicz’s list of Murphy donors also incorrectly classifies donors like Comcast, and law firm Shipman and Goodwin as Wall Street firms, the press release said.
“This is as embarrassing as it gets for a political candidate,” Murphy spokeswoman Taylor Lavender said. “This ad, on so many levels, is so clearly wrong, and Susan Bysiewicz should take the ad down herself. It’s bad enough that she mixed up Chris with a different Murphy, but didn’t she at least watch the ad before it went on the air to see that she was naming cable companies and law firms as ‘Wall Street’ donors?”
The Bysiewicz ad clearly says Murphy took the most money from “hedge funds”, but the fact check the campaign sent out links back to a list of “Securities and Investment Money.” The Murphy campaign claims when you do a search for hedge fund contributions to Congress in 2012, 2010, or 2008 Chris Murphy doesn’t appear as the top Democrat in any of those years. In 2010, it’s U.S. Rep. Scott Murphy of New York , and in 2012 it’s U.S. Rep. Timothy Bishop of New York , and in 2008 it’s U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York .
Open Secrets is run by the Center for Responsive Politics, which is a nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics.
“The fact remains that Chris Murphy has taken over $700,000 from Wall Street more than any other House Democat,” Bysiewicz’s campaign manager Jonathan Ducote said in a statement. “We did not confuse the Murphys. In 2008 Chris Murphy was the 4th largest recipient of hedge fund contributions.”
“If Chris Murphy thinks being the 4th largest recipient of hedge fund donations in Congress is alright then it clearly shows he has gone Washington,” he added after being confronted with the third-party information.
In 2008, according to Open Secrets, Murphy only received $17,000 in hedge fund contributions landing him 20th on the list of Republicans and Democrats.
The Murphy campaign called on Bysiewicz to pull the ad. However, Ducote said there are no plans to do so. Asked if the ad contained inaccuracies, Ducote said only Murphy had received so much money from hedge funds that he will never be able to hold Wall Street accountable.
Ducote later admitted the “research error” but again declined to take down the ad.
“Wall Street is a place where they are focused on the bottom line. The bottom line in this race is that Chris Murphy has received more contributions from Wall Street than any other House Democrat this cycle according to Open Secrets,” Ducote said. “No matter how Chris Murphy’s PR team might try to spin it he is the top Democratic recipient of campaign cash from Wall Street in the House.”
An earlier Murphy press release said the spot was “dripping with hypocrisy.” Financial sector donations make up a greater percentage of Bysiewicz’s total fundraising than Murphy’s, the campaign statement said and linked to this spreadsheet.
“Bysiewicz has been running misleading campaigns since the 1990s, so her hypocrisy comes as no surprise,” Lavender said. “The truth is that nobody in Connecticut is buying the attack because it’s made up out of thin air.”
Lavender went on to accuse Bysiewicz of continually focusing on the issue for the last 18 months because she thinks it polls well.
“And it’s no secret that Susan is down on Wall Street begging for contributions to her campaign while she runs TV ads and sends out press releases attacking those same people,” she said.
Murphy, on the other hand, has actually been trying to reform Wall Street while in Congress, Lavender said.
The TV spot and the Murphy camp’s response have both sides sticking to familiar narratives. Throughout the primary race Bysiewicz has tried to paint Murphy as someone who is in Wall Street’s pocket, while Murphy has insisted she lacks his congressional experience.
When the two debated in May, moderator Ned Lamont, who once ran for the same Senate seat, said neither tactic was particularly effective.
“You’re trying to turn this guy into the next Gordon Gekko and I just don’t think it’s sticking right now,” he said. “He’s an attorney from Cheshire who’s devoted his life to public service.”
Meanwhile, Lamont criticized Murphy’s attempts to characterize Bysiewicz as inexperienced.
“And Chris, you’re saying she can’t find her way to the ladies room in Capitol Hill or something, she doesn’t have the experience you do,” he said, implying it was just as ridiculous when U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman tried to do that to him in 2006.
The two candidates will debate again Sunday at 2:30 p.m. at Klein Memorial Auditorium in Bridgeport. It will be broadcast on Cablevision and Hearst newspaper websites.
Tags: Susan Bysiewicz, Chris Murphy, hedge fund, Wall Street, U.S. Senate
(18) Comments
posted by: joemustgo | July 19, 2012 6:04pm
So what did we learn today that relates to Ned’s comments from May? We learned that Chris Murphy of Connecticut is NOT “the next Gordon Gecko” and we learned that, to our misfortune, Ms. B DOES have political experience and CAN find her way around Capitol Hill… I place in evidence that she knows enough to Keep Airing Ads After They Are Proven Untrue!! Perhaps come August the voters of Connecticut will, after three decades, be done with her twisting deceipt.
posted by: AndersonScooper | July 19, 2012 7:31pm
What a pathetic, (but fitting), note for Bysiewicz to go out on.
Susie could have bowed out graciously and preserved what respect and goodwill she had left. Now she’s risking becoming a pariah within the party, all for doing the work of Linda McMahon with Democratic money.
Fwiw, it is a given that Murphy is going to annihilate her next month, and the people around Susie should be giving her better advice than this. (Did they ever give her good advice, btw?)
posted by: Reasonable | July 19, 2012 7:54pm
“Susan Bysiewicz caught Chris Murphy’s hand in the Wall Street cookie jar.” Murphy isn’t fighting Wall Street—when he goes goes to bed with them! Pres. Barack Obama isn’t the only one who bought Christopher Murphy. However, Murphy’s campaign ads only way that “he is a good listener,”—but who is he really listening to?
Vote for the class candidate - Chris Shays.
posted by: ALD | July 19, 2012 8:57pm
Throughout the primary race Bysiewicz has tried to paint Murphy as someone who is in Wall Street’s pocket, while Murphy has insisted she lacks his congressional experience.
WOW!! Score one for Susan!!! We need to change Congress!!! This is about as good a place to start as it comes!!
posted by: Jonathan Kantrowitz | July 19, 2012 9:25pm
Ad: ““He’s taken more hedge fund money than any other Democrat in Congress.”
Truth: No he didn’t.
Campaign spokesman’s defense of ad: “In 2008 Chris Murphy was the 4th largest recipient of hedge fund contributions.”
Truth: No he wans’t - he was 20th! (and it was only $17,000 - and if your defense of the claim that he was 1st is that he was 4th 4 years ago, even if true, (which it isn’t) is a pretty weak defense.
So the claim in the ad isn’t true, and the very weak defense isn’t true.
posted by: Sam Shore | July 19, 2012 11:31pm
Mr. Scooper, becoming a pariah within the party would be a badge of honor imho. The party has become nothing more than a vehicle for cash to its elite, which you are likely one of. Either a party official, union leader, or big donor. Murphy is a hack. Has done nothing in congress. Only people backing him are those that have something to gain by his election.
posted by: MGKW | July 20, 2012 8:35am
Note to Sam Shore:
You are mightily misinformed…the only thing I have to gain by him being my representative is a intellectually and articulate individual representing in Congress…Have you ever has a conversation with the man…probably not.
Btw, I did give $ to his campaign and expect nothing back in return except for him to represent me.
posted by: Dan, Lauren, Abby, Connor and Robert Garrett | July 20, 2012 7:04pm
Hamden’s DTC supports Sue, but for sure, most residents of Hamden understand Chris Murphy , will be Linda’s opponent. My family wants Chris Murphy to be Connecticut’s next Senator.
posted by: Reasonable | July 20, 2012 9:10pm
Dan, Lauren, Abby, Connor and Robert Garrett: Your family is wrong. Chris Murphy is a showman who only “rubber-stamped” Pres. Barack Obama’s massive, bankruptcy-driven, deficit spending. Only Chris Shays balanced our federal budget for four years. Murphy doesn’t have a clue! The Chris Murphy big spenders in Congress—MUST GO!
Instead of wasting your family vote, support Chris Shays, our proven accomplishedstatesman, for the U.S. Senate. The Garrett family should vote “Chris Shays—wise!”
Don’t blame Susan Bysiewicz, as she is not owned by Pres. Obama, “like your stated-wasted-vote is.”
posted by: Sam Shore | July 20, 2012 9:18pm
Note to MGKW
I have in fact spoken with him on a number of occasions. Listened to his spiel many more. I am aware of his initiatives in Congress. The big two, Center Aisle Caucus which is nothing more than a campaign tool for its members. Likely to disappear this year. Buy American Program has produced almost no results. I am also aware of some Dem State Central members pressure on local DTC members to support him. And if they don’t they are shunned. Democracy, hardly. Pains me to say this as philosophically I am more aligned with the Dems than anyone. But realistically if your name is not Lloyd Blankfein, Nancy DiNardo, or John Olsen, Murphy is likely to do little for you. He will dance with those who paid for his ticket.
posted by: Reasonable | July 21, 2012 11:39am
Sam Shore I agree with you, as before, as a vote for Chris Murphy. isn’t being entertained by you—as a Democrat. As a Republican, I would not vote for Linda McMahon, either. The only
sensible vote is for Chris Shays—the former Congressman who balanced the budget for four years. As a Pres. Obama “rubber stamp” Murphy only voted for Obama massive deficits—and Linda McMahon doesn’t have a clue on how to balance the federal budget. Pres. Obama doesn’t have a lock on Susan Bysiewicz, but she probably would be forced to vote for more Obama deficit spending, if the President is reelected.
Chris Shays is the only intelligent vote for the U. S.Senate on Election Days.
posted by: Sam Shore | July 21, 2012 10:55pm
Reasonable, while we may disagree on our preferred candidates, we do agree that the presumptive favorites are a choice between two evils. I hope both of our parties vote with cooler heads and prove me wrong in believing they are just the party lemmings I have seen of late.
posted by: Gauthier | July 22, 2012 9:58am
(continued.
Now , anyone but Bisiewicz, but, as said by others, Shays would be best, but he will not get nominated.
Will have to vote for the wrestling Queen I guess.
posted by: Reasonable | July 22, 2012 11:02am
Sam Shore: Why aren’t there more people out there like you, who won’t willingly swallow bad nominees—based on wrong nominees of both political parties? Are people that easily “brainwashed” by their political parties—that they can’t think on their own?
I respect you, Sam Shore, “as you are no political voting robot for a political party, as you are very capable your own political reasoning.”
posted by: ALD | July 22, 2012 5:18pm
MGKW,
Sadly my experiences with Chris Murphy have been the total opposite of yours.
I also have had many conversations with him over the years. I even once contributed, and voted for him.
I soon learned however that his amazing ability to look me in the eyes as he claimed to hear and agree with me, never once translated into any of my concerns being effectively dealt with, or even addressed by him. I admit, after a few years, I finally gave up on him…...But only after he had given up on me.
I’ll agree with you he is articulate, and that is about it. Perhaps there are two Chris Murphy’s?
He once knocked on my door, as no doubt he has thousands of other doors. He introduced himself to me, and told me it was time for a change in Hartford. After inviting him in, and exchanging concerns with him, I allowed myself to be convinced that finally I was talking to a Democrat who actually understood that his party could no longer be allowed to chase jobs out of state. I allowed myself to believe Chris Murphy was different. I was so very wrong.
I don’t blame him alone for the mess he left behind in Hartford as he escaped to Washington, but he was there for 8 years as part of the problem as it only got worse, year after year.
Now he has been in Washington for almost 6 years. His first two years he enjoyed the benefit of the Democrats having control of the House and Senate. The next two years Murphy, Pelosi, a Democratically controlled House, Senate and a socialist President had it all….... They collectively dropped the ball. The last two years a Republican House has at least managed to raise the awareness that a 15+ trillion dollar debt is shall we say, “concerning”.
I won’t lay the blame for the current mess in Washington on Chris Murphy, or any one person, or party. They are all part of the problem. But the last 6 years Murphy has been in Washington have not produced any more positive changes then we saw during his 8 years in Hartford.
Exactly what is it in his past record in Hartford, or Congress, that should give us any hope he would be part of a positive solution for our children’s future in the Senate? You may see something. I have been looking for 14 years and I have never seen anything.
Just how many years do you give any one career politician to deliver on his promise of positive change before the voters need to decide to call it a failed career for that politician? I think 14 years in this case are far more than enough.
I am ready now to once again as I was 14 years ago to try someone new. I don’t see how any Washington outsider, could be any less effective than this particular Washington insider has been.
Frankly, IMO if we continue to allow Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, to represent us in CT I wonder why we even need a CT Congressional delegation in the first place.
posted by: Major Shmuck | July 23, 2012 8:41pm
Susan, you screwed up Connecticut’s last election. Now you are screwing it up for the Dems. Please find some respect and just walk away. You are an embarrassment to Connecticut!
posted by: Reasonable | July 24, 2012 9:57am
Gauthier; in all respect to your personal conclusion—
“don’t count the chicks, until the eggs are hatched!” You won’t have to vote for the “wrestling queen,” who doesn’t belong in Congress—to start with!” Save your vote for Chris Shays—the only Senate contender—who has proved that he belongs in Congress—by his four year record of balancing our federal budget. Chris Murphy has a four-year-record of voting for Pres. Barack Obama’s $3 trillion dollar massive budget deficit spending record, as a voting robot for Obama.
Common sense will prevail—and Chris Shays will be the victor. The Obama White House propaganda machine - can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the time!
To save our country from bankruptcy, our government must balance the federal budget—and CHRIS SHAYS HAS THE PROVEN RECORD OF DOING IT.
Chris Shays separates the “men from the boys and girls!” The only vote for people who care for the future of our nation is for Chris Shays.
posted by: Reasonable | July 24, 2012 4:31pm
Major Schmuck: Don’t let Linda McMahon bother you. Vote for Chris Shays THE MAN WITH WINNING WAYS—who has won 19 elections—and balanced our federal budget for four years, while the Obama-Murphy team has given us a three trillion dollar massive budget deficit for the past four years. You don’t have to be SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER to know that the intelligent vote must go to Chris Shays—or WE ALL LOSE