today's news on the Small One

[MBS]

1. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/15/browns_opposition_dims_chances_for_campaign_finance_overhaul/

Senator Scott Brown said yesterday he would oppose a new campaign finance overhaul that would require further disclosures of campaign contributions, dimming prospects for the bill’s passage.

. . .The measure is a response to the ground-shifting Supreme Court ruling in January that lifted most restrictions on corporate and union funding of political advertisements.

. .

“Rather than reform our campaign finance laws and provide increased transparency, the Disclose Act advances the political agenda of the majority party and special interests in an effort to gain a tactical and political advantage little more than 100 days before an election,’’ Brown wrote in a letter to organizations that had lobbied him to support the bill.

. . .

Brown’s decision was denounced by supporters of the bill.

“It is very disappointing that Senator Brown is repeating the same old Washington excuses after just a few months in office,’’ Elisabeth MacNamara, national president of the League of Women Voters, said in a statement. “He says the legislation is partisan. This is the oldest dodge in Washington. As a nonpartisan group, we in the League of Women Voters say that this bill is not partisan and requires disclosure fairly from all.’’

Marcia Hirshberg, president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, also criticized Brown.

“His leaders in Washington are opposed to transparency, but he campaigned with the people of Massachusetts as a different kind of politician,’’ she said. “He can’t represent both the old ways of Washington and the new spirit of government responsibility and transparency.’’

— Matt Viser

2.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/15/browns_war_chest_is_up_to_65m/

Senator Scott P. Brown raised more than $1 million in the last three months and has more than $6.5 million cash on hand, two years ahead of his reelection cycle.

. . .

It is a huge sum for a new senator. By contrast, the state’s senior senator, Democrat John F. Kerry, had $3.09 million in his account at the start of the second quarter.

In the stretch run to his victory on Jan. 19, about 70 percent of Brown’s contributors were from outside Massachusetts, a Globe analysis showed. For the most recent quarter, however, the Globe reviewed a large sample of his contributions and more than 60 percent were from Bay State residents.

The PACs represent a range of business interests. .

. . . as senator, Brown lobbied on behalf of changes in the financial services reform bill now pending before Congress that would allow some of the largest companies in Massachusetts to continue some of their investment practices.
. . .

[Inuca]

1. Woderful subject line :-) n/t

[Blaukraut]

2. So he's playing Lucy to the Dems' football again?

Sometimes I wonder if I don't prefer the nutbag conservatives like McConnell, Kyl, et al over the Snowe/Collins/brown types. At least with the former group you know what you get: No. The latter will tell you 'Maybe, if you make me like it just a little more' and then when the bill is watered down to make it palatable to them, they move the goal posts.

Brown's reelection cash is worrisome. Especially the fact that now the majority comes from MA donors. I really hope people will have rediscovered their brains by '12.

[Luftmensch067]

3. I really hope

MA Dems will have found a candidate by then... I was getting all snippy that the Brown reelection fund was such a headline on local NPR news this am (without mention of the business PACS, btw!) but then they reported on JK's SFRC hearing, so I had to forgive them. :-)

p.s. The Lucy and the football image is PERFECT, that's exactly what those noncommittal Repubs do!

[karynnj]

7. Put the $6 million in context

All Senator's funds rise as their re-election year approaches. He has a lot of leftover money from when his was the ONLY race out there and polls began to show that he could win "Kennedy's" seat. Far more than is usually the case, that money had NOTHING to do with anything about Brown - except that he could win. I do think that he will get plenty of money for 2012, partially for the same reason.

The real question is how much he would need to run a competitive race in MA. I would expect the Democrats at some point to create a fund for the eventual winner - long before he/she is known.

[karynnj]

4. Brown's excuse does not hold water

If he really was JUST concerned that it did not apply to all groups, the obvious solution would be to find a Democrat clearly for transparency (not hard to find - even sticking to his state's delegation) to offer an amendment that applies the DISCLOSE rules to EVERY entity that funds an ad. He could then, in good conscious, say that he will vote for the bill if it passes. That would actually strengthen the bill. (I know this would upset some Democrats - and I know that was part of a compromise in the House. )This could make them rethink this. I personally think that tagging a union backed ad as being a union backed ad is more likely to make it more effective - not less. As to the NRA, if they are ONLY putting out ads dealing with gun policy, I doubt their tag would be a problem. This suggests to me that they intend to target opponents with ads that have nothing to do with their gun policy.

As to the relative fund raising amounts, they could have pointed out that in 2006, 2 years before JK's election he had something like $14 million - after giving millions to the DNC, DSCC and DCCC. ( remember Hey, John?) He has had many appeals to raise money for hundreds of 2005 - 2010 races for other Democrats, without a major effort to raise money for himself. Another way to put Brown's number in context is that (from memory) JK spent $9 million in 2008. I have no doubt that Brown's funds will continue to increase well beyond their current amounts. Although it is presumptuous of me as someone not from MA to speak on his chances in this group where others know far more about MA politics, I think he will have a harder time than the MSM seems to think. At any rate, he will need far more than the rather frugal 2008 Kerry campaign spent.

In 2012, Brown is very unlikely to get an opponent as lame as Beatty was - and given the need to cross the line, he likely could get a tea party candidate primary challenge that would be more serious than EOR ever was. In the general election, there are many seemly excellent Democratic Opponents. The Boston Globe editorialized about Elizabeth Warren. Over at Blue Mass, some seemed to think that Tim Murray might be a great choice to oppose him if Patrick wins. MA people obviously have seen far more of him, but at least in the one event I remember (that had online video)- a vet event with Kerry and Cleeland in Worchester, he had all the same charm as Brown, without the stupidity and phoniness. Being a LT Governor also could help vs having a DC job. The articles about Kerry/Weld all spoke of how, until the Senate recessed, Kerry was at a major disadvantage because he was not in MA. If he hasn't already, Patrick when reelected could give Murray roles that would help him gain name recognition - while helping the state. The Blue Mass people pointed out that Murray could cut into Brown's totals from the Worcester area.

With Murray, many of the Congressmen, or someone like Elizabeth Warren as possible opponents, Brown's race is not at all like what Kerry faced in 2008. Some Brown positions - like voting against extending unemployment - seem to be getting negative comments even in the Boston Herald. Kerry's over all positions were (and are) majority positions in MA and, RW snark to the contrary, he was seen as a very competent, honest, senior Senator - getting even the Boston Herald's endorsement. (Kind of like Brown getting the endorsement of the Phoenix). Even now, the only one of those attributes of those Brown would get is honest.

In addition, Brown is not Kerry. In 2008, what was clear is that the approval rating did not capture Kerry's true strength. In the same polls where his approval rating was near 50, he beat any Democrat or Republican by more than 20 points. My conjecture is the opposite is true of Brown. There have - to my knowledge - not been any head to head polls for Brown. It is well known among pollsters that one source of bias is that many people try to answer the way they think the pollster wants. As the message has been that Brown is cool and a rock star, many with no strong feelings would be inclined to say "approve" - and many liberals and moderates, given that Brown had just crossed to vote yes, might have said "approve" to appear fair minded. In Kerry's case, even though in the same poll they picked him over popular people, when asked approve/disapprove, they appeared to remember something (such as losing in 2004) or remember it's not cool to like him.

Not to mention there is the turn out issue. In 2008, Brown only got slightly more votes than McCain got in 2008. In a Presidential election year with a more engaging opponent than Coakley, Brown would likely need about 35% more votes - and they would have to come from people who voted for Obama and Kerry in 2008 who did not vote in 2010. (Proof: there were approximately 3 million voters in 2008 of which Kerry got nearly 2/3rds - Brown won with about 1.1 million votes - getting 52% of the vote. If there were 3 million voters, he would need over 1.5) Not to mention, in 2008, both the Presidential race or the Senate race were clearly going to be landslides. What I am estimating here is the likely increase in votes Brown will need to get 50% or more of the vote - which means a close Senate race. This could mean that the number of voters could be even higher. As Brown likely energized the Republicans as much as they could be energized, the untapped voters are more likely to be those who lean to the Democrats.

The only things that I can see that could help Brown is if he continues to get the endless positive coverage and if people cynically think that as the man in the middle he can get more for MA than a freshman Democrat could.

[Luftmensch067]

5. Thanks for this!

I hadn't heard that Murray's name was being mentioned. I do get a sense that he's liked, and it would be interesting to have someone who could pull in the outside-Boston vote. I am also partial to Capuano and wonder if he'll try again. I hadn't heard anything about Elizabeth Warren! Is she being mentioned at BMG as well? She could be a very intriguing candidate! Your analysis of the likely reasons for poll results is smart and plausible, in my view.

[karynnj]

6. I have sporatically followed Blue Mass

(more than Blue Jersey which is pathetic on my part). I have not really seen Warren mentioned - all though I bet the BG op-ed might have been posted.

Here are three Blue MA comments in a thread this week:

Tim Murray
is IMHO the strongest candidate to take on Brown in 2012, unless Rachel Maddow or someone like that parachutes in. If Deval and Tim win in 2010, look for Murray to set up an exploratory committee in reasonably short order.

As for the other Senators, I don't think Kirk is going to win. The scandal over his "misstatements" about his military record has been hugely embarrassing, and although the Dem isn't the greatest candidate either, I think he'll pull it out. A Crist win would be fascinating, but also far from a sure thing.

Finally -- 20-30% of registered Republicans in MA? Where'd you get those numbers? The most recent party registration numbers I could find (2008) show the GOP at 12%, Dems at 37%, and Unenrolled at 51%. The state GOP would be absolutely drooling to hit your 20-30% number, but it's not happening any time soon.
by: David


I mean I think you are right to give him credit for being incredibly politically smart and you are not underestimating him like others on this site, but essentially I am deftly afraid that Brown could eek out a win. He already has a huge financial advantage that will likely only continue to grow and I can't think of a single Congressmen (past or present) who we could put up against him and win. Brown appeals to Perot voters, socially moderate (or frankly non-interested), fiscally conservative, and hawkish on defense and immigration. That's the Perot mantra in a nutshell. To counter that we need a Democrat who gets progressives excited, can talk with, not down to, working class voters, and has some cash and statewide name recognition. Murray seems like the obvious choice (presuming Deval wins, if he loses Murray will run for Gov in 14'). He can be competitive out West and in Worchester County where Brown crushed Coakley, competitive in the North and South Shore, and I see him bringing over blue collar white males who deserted the party for Brown. He is also a bona fide progressive on all the issues we care about from health care to gay rights. He is the only one who can bring in Coakely, Khazei, and Capuano voters together in the primary while also reaching out to independents. Markey, Meehan, McGovern, Tierney, and Cappy are all too tainted by being in Washington too long and being non-entities outside their districts. A dark horse like Jamie Eldridge, Councilor Ross, Flaherty, Tolman, could possibly fit the bill as well. But I see Murray as holding the edge.
by: jconway @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 15:38:15 PM EDT




Murray
He is also incredibly witty and great on the stump. I loved Capuano, but he was way too angry, nuanced, and frazzled on the stump. People don't want an attack dog for Senator. As a Pelosi lieutenant his best bet is to wait for her retirement and possibly become Speaker, or run for Governor if Deval loses. Other than that this guy won't make it to the Senate, sad to say.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/20269/back-to-triple-a-scottie

(I disgree that Brown is incredibly smart politically - or any other way. His Face the Nation appearance showed that he was completely unprepared to speak intelligently or even correctly site the talking points. His idiotic comments on earmarks in the BG interview actually undercut his one real trump card - he can get special deals because he is a swing vote. Kerry likely gets more real funding for the state by quietly adding MA programs into Commerce - especially in the area of communications and technology which are important to MA and which his sub committee oversees) and small business committee bills. But, a new Democrat would not have Kerry's power or Brown's position as a swing vote.

One potential Brown liability with Independents is if he flirts with Republicans enough to make them think he intends to run for higher office. Given that entering his FIFTH term, some questioned Kerry's commitment to Massachusetts, I would guess that this could be an issue for Brown as well. The fact that Kerry will be 70 in 2014 when he will likely run for re-election and even in 2012, there might be fear he could leave for SoS, this might be a big negative for Brown as MA may see a future where they might have two extremely low seniority Senators for a very long stretch.

I don't see Rachel Maddow as a serious possibility - but I likely would have said the same with Franken.

[Inuca]

8. The small one is getting some more good press

:puke: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/16/the-new-mccain.html I must confess that I only read the article diagonally. And it was enough.

[karynnj]

9. I'm glad I don't have diabetes - that could have been deadly!