Tags: Elizabeth Warren

The Better Homes and Gardens of Populist Democrats, Part Four


Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat of Massachusetts who touts herself as the intellectual godmother of the Occupy Movement, is getting some very cushy coverage of her book rollout, touting her humble upbringing:

MUIR: In fact, a new study shows the rich in this country getting richer since the recession. The top 1 percent taking in 22 percent of income in this country. Warren knows those families slipping, because growing up in Oklahoma, hers was one of them.

(On camera) You write that “my mother usually picked me up from school in our bronze-toned station wagon.”

(Voice over) Instead, she writes that “one day she showed up driving the old off-white Studebaker that dad had been driving back and forth to work. As she climbed into the car, she asked where the station wagon was.

(On camera) And she said?

WARREN: And she said, it’s gone. And I just didn’t understand. I said, gone where? And she said it’s gone. And I remember her hands on the steering wheel getting tighter and tighter.

With soft-focus profile evening-news pieces like this, it’s easy to forget Warren is the 23rd-wealthiest U.S. senator. Based on congressional financial-disclosure forms and calculations made available by, Warren’s net worth as of 2012 was estimated between $3.8 million and $10.1 million.

Warren and her husband live in gorgeous three-story, 3,700-square-foot home, assessed at $1,815,700 by the city of Cambridge. (Because her financial-disclosure form identifies the value of the home between $1 million and $5 million, others have incorrectly reported she “lives in a $5 million house.”)

(The location of the senator’s home is available through public records, but don’t be a jerk and go onto her property or bother her or her family. The above photo is from the web site of the Cambridge, Mass., property-tax assessor.)

In 2009, she earned more than $980,000; during her 2012 Senate campaign, she received some grief when her tax returns revealed she chose to not pay a higher rate under Massachusetts tax laws. Jeff Jacoby:

For Warren, who demands higher taxes on the wealthy and blasts the tax code for “giving tax breaks to the already-rich,” voluntarily paying a slightly higher income tax rate on her Massachusetts return should have been a no-brainer. Since 2002, the Bay State has given taxpayers the option of paying 5.85 percent, rather than the usual 5.3 percent — a perfect opportunity for an affluent progressive like Warren, who is passionate about the “social contract” that obliges the rich to “pay forward” more of their wealth in taxes, to live up to the values she espouses.

Instead she kept the money for herself. “I paid my taxes,” Warren says, “and I did not make a charitable contribution to the state.” That was her right. But shouldn’t someone so vocal on the subject of tax fairness choose to lead by example instead?

Perhaps no other Democrat spends more time touting herself as a fighter and representative of the “middle class” than Warren, or spends more time denouncing others she deems greedy. Her accumulated fortune, of course, doesn’t strike her as a reflection or symbol of runaway American greed; only other people’s fortunes are part of the problem. If she agrees with President Obama that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” apparently she hasn’t reached it yet.

Tags: Elizabeth Warren

First Massachusetts Exit Polls: Brown, Warren ‘Dead Even’


A Massachusetts media source sends along this look at the early exits in the Senate race up there:

We’re hearing the race (between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren) is dead even. Turnout in Boston wards not quite as high as expected (good for Brown) but higher in Lowell and Lawrence (bad for Brown). 

Two years ago midway through Election Day we heard turnout in Democrat areas was way down, leading to panic among the Democrats (in the U.S. House races). They got their act in gear and pulled their voters out by 8 p.m. — so don’t count on anything holding up yet.

But Brown is hanging in there.

Tags: Elizabeth Warren , Scott Brown

Bloomberg: I’m Giving Cash to Candidates, but Won’t Reveal Which Ones


A reader had asked for more congressional-race coverage here on Campaign Spot, and so I will attempt to oblige, but note that there has been some excellent coverage of House and Senate races around NRO lately.

Today Charles C. W. Cooke examines Republican Andy Barr’s effort to unseat Democratic incumbent Ben Chandler in Kentucky’s sixth district, a rematch of one of the closest finishes in the 2010 midterms.

Betsy Woodruff looked at the Massachusetts Senate race and Elizabeth Warren’s legal work, earning big bucks defending a corporation against the claims of asbestos victims.

And in today’s Jolt, I took a quick look at New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to spend $10 million to $15 million to help out his favorite candidates, focusing most on those who strongly support gun control, a.k.a., gutting the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Mike Bloomberg’s Secret List of Favorite Candidates

New York City Mike Bloomberg likes the idea that he can send millions to the candidates he prefers and not tell anyone until he’s legally required to by the Federal Election Commission.

Now, lefties and righties may disagree pretty strongly on whether there ought to be limits on what individuals, corporations, unions, etc. can spend in advocating their causes — the Right tends to believe that if you limit the amount of money that can be used on political speech, you’re limiting speech itself — but there once had been something of a bipartisan consensus in favor of disclosure. Let everybody know who’s giving to whom, as quickly and easily as possible, and let the public draw their own conclusions about the candidates and their donors.

Instead, Mike Bloomberg likes the idea of announcing he’s spending millions, and he’ll tell you who he’s going to try to help later — after the checks have cleared.

Today Mayor Bloomberg aptly dismissed as “gibberish” the presidential candidates’ attempts to explain why American civilians have access to AK-47s. Now Bloomberg is backing up his words with his wallet. The mayor will be spending roughly $10 to $15 million to back between six and twelve candidates in U.S. senatorial, congressional, and local races — with gun-law reform Bloomberg’s main priority…

The recipients of the new Bloomberg boost will be a mix of incumbents and challengers, Republicans, Democrats, and independents.To increase the tactical edge — and to avoid turning his favorites into targets for opponents — Bloomberg won’t identify the candidates he’s planning to bolster, though the beneficiaries should become obvious as the money starts to flow. Some will get help because they’re in agreement with the mayor’s views on public education, gay marriage, or bipartisanship. The biggest issue, though, will be tightening access to illegal guns.

My buddy Cam quips, “Bloomberg’s gun control proposals are so popular he’s refusing to identify the candidates he’s giving millions.”

Tags: Andy Barr , Ben Chandler , Elizabeth Warren , Mike Bloomberg

Elizabeth Warren, Unlicensed Lawyer?


Over at Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson has a bombshell: considerable evidence that Democrat Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren practiced law in Massachusetts without a license.

I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.  I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status.  In the first conversation the person indicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check.  I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.

You don’t need a law license to teach law, but you need one if your duty includes “the examination of statutes, judicial decisions, and departmental rulings, for the purpose of advising upon a question of law … and the rendering to a client of an opinion thereon.”

Among her cases in recent years: “As reported earlier by Globe reporter Noah Bierman, Travelers hired Warren to represent the insurance company in its fight to gain permanent immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits; in exchange for that immunity, the insurance company said it would establish a $500 million trust for current and future victims of asbestos poisoning. Warren succeeded in that mission, successfully arguing Travelers case before the U.S. Supreme Court. She was paid $212,000 by Travelers from 2008 to 2010.”

He concludes, “I detail above the facts and law which lead me to the conclusion that Warren has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license in violation of Massachusetts law for well over a decade. I expect Warren will disagree, and I welcome a discussion of the facts and the law.”

Will this interest the Massachusetts media at all?

UPDATE: One of my readers, a lawyer, writes in:

The post indicates that this is a federal case.  You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else.  Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them.  It’s that whole supremacy clause thing.  Constitution 101 and all that. 

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state.  You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals.  I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.  It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio. 

The blurb also mentions taking the case to the US Supreme Court.  I have submitted an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on a case that originated in West Virginia state courts even though I am not licensed to practice there.  I was not practicing law without a license when I did so because I was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another veteran lawyer writes in to Campaign Spot:

I have practiced law for 30 years.  Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court.  The practice is called “pro hac vice,” which is Latin for “for this occasion.”  Here are the pro hac vice requirements for the District Court of Mass, which would be the relevant court in this case.

However, this does not conclude the issue.  There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted pro hac vice for the case at hand.  Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client.  If Ms. Warren simply filed pleadings without first being admitted to the court pro hac vice, she would be implicitly representing to the court that she was, in fact, licensed to practice in Mass., and if she was not so licensed, she would have violated the court’s rules, and, in effect, have committed a fraud upon the court.

Tags: Elizabeth Warren , Scott Brown

Brown on Warren: ‘She’s Obsessed With Raising Taxes.’


The final Morning Jolt of the week features a lot of discussion about “you can’t change Washington from the inside,” but also an update on last night’s debate between Republican senator Scott Brown and Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Warren! Brown! The Brawl in Boston!

Last night, Republican Sen. Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren held their first debate.

Ira Stoll saw a preview of the themes we’re likely to see in this fall’s presidential debates:

Professor Warren sought to depict Senator Brown as a friend of billionaires and big oil companies, asking “whose side do you stand on?” She said she favored a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction — one of President Obama’s favorite euphemisms for tax increases.

Senator Brown sought to depict Professor Warren as a tax-increaser, and he genially deflected her attacks. “Her criticism of me is that I’m not gonna raise taxes, and that’s an accurate criticism,” he said. At another point, he said, “The criticism you’re hearing . . . I don’t want to raise taxes. Guilty as charged.” He said of Professor Warren, “she’s obsessed with raising taxes. . . . The first thing, every single time, is to raise taxes.”

Responding to Professor Warren’s criticism of him for a vote she described as cutting oil subsidies, Senator Brown noted that gas prices are $4 a gallon, and said, “I’m no friend of big oil. I’m a friend of the motorist.” Professor Warren retorted that what she called the “big five” oil companies made $137 billion in profits last year.

Senator Brown also rejected Professor Warren’s attempt to divide Americans into the top 3% versus everyone else, or billionaires and oil companies versus everyone else. “Fingerpointing, us versus them, the haves and have-nots,” he said.

William Jacobson was watching, and while he thinks Brown did himself some good.

Very strong opening for Brown on fake Cherokee issue.  He didn’t handle it the way I would have, but he picked an issue — the release of her employment records — and stuck to it.  (added) In hindsight, focusing on releasing records was brilliant, because Warren has a major problem, she likely made or participated in causing Harvard to make false federal filings as to her Native American status using standard Harvard and EEOC definitions.

Warren probably got the better, in liberal Massachusetts, on social issues using the War on Women theme.  Brown deflected it, but it probably stirred up the base.

Warren didn’t land many blows, but Brown hit her very hard at the end on two points. When Warren brought up the high cost of college, Brown hammered her on her lavish salary and perks.

When Warren tried to say that Brown sided with big companies, Brown lowered the boom on something most viewers probably didn’t know, that Warren represented Travelers Insurance Co. and was paid $225,000 to defeat asbestos claims.  Brown harped on it, and because most viewers probably didn’t know, I think it hurt.

Brown also gave multiple shout outs to union members, including on the Keystone Pipeline.  Remember, the unions supported Coakley in 2010, but the members voted with Brown.

I imagine supporters will still support each, but even putting aside my disdain for Warren and trying to be as neutral as I can, I think Brown helped himself tonight.  It wasn’t a knockout, but he won easily on points because Warren needed to demonize him, and he came across as he always comes across, as a regular guy the people can relate to.

I’m always a little wary of these flash polls, but for what it’s worth: “Fifty percent (50%) of voters who watched tonight’s U.S. Senate debate between Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren said the Senator won, with 40% saying that Warren won the debate (6% thought it was a tie and 4% were undecided) according to a Kimball Political Consulting survey of ‘likely voters’ in Massachusetts.”

ADDENDA: A Leno joke, transmitted by Andrew Malcolm: “Leno: MSNBC reports the economy has bottomed out. There’s an Obama slogan: ‘It Can’t Get Any Worse Than This.’”

Tags: Elizabeth Warren , Scott Brown

Those Perennially-Crumbling Roads and Bridges


Just about a year ago, I observed that no matter how much the federal government spends on “infrastructure,” we still get predictable cries that “we need to do something about our crumbling infrastructure.” The need to fix “crumbling roads and bridges” a perennial rallying cry in President Obama’s speeches, even though he touts the stimulus as “the largest new investment in our nation’s infrastructure since Eisenhower.” The government spends enormous sums of money, but there’s never any sign of it having an impact, at least in the rhetoric of those who want to spend more.

From the Congressional Budget Office last month: “From 2008 to 2011, total government spending on surface transportation infrastructure—highways, mass transit, and passenger rail—surpassed $200 billion a year. The federal government spent more than $50 billion a year—mostly in the form of grants to state and local entities, which then determined what projects to fund—and state and local governments spent more than $150 billion a year of their own funds. The private sector also invested in such infrastructure.”

Now in a new television ad, Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren asks, “Why aren’t we rebuilding America?”

The U.S. Department of Transportation had a budget of $72 billion last year. Looking through the DOT budget, I see $441 million for “administrative expenses” in the Federal Highway Administration, $25 million in “administrative expenses” for the Federal Highway Traffic Safety Grants. According to, as of July 20, $765.2 billion in stimulus funding has been paid out — meaning $74.8 billion is still not paid out, three years later. (The stimulus is scored at $840 billion under the CBO’s new figures, not the previously-discussed $787 billion figure.)

Is the problem really that America isn’t spending enough on its infrastructure, or that it doesn’t spend its already-gargantuan sums well enough?

Tags: Barack Obama , Elizabeth Warren

The Fancy Hotels & Luxurious Headboards of Elizabeth Warren’s Campaign


Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren may tout herself as the candidate of the poorest 99 percent, but someone on her campaign likes staying at hotels worthy of the richest1 percent.

A review of the Warren for Senate campaign’s filings with the Federal Election Commission shows that someone on her campaign stayed at the Starwood Hotel’s luxurious “W” chain three times — once in December in Washington, and twice in New York City, in February and March. The Washington stay cost the campaign $1,099; the February stay cost the campaign $1,058, and the March stay cost $2,124.

According to the Starwood Hotels web site, a room at the W in Washington runs a minimum of $375 per night and goes up to $619; a stay at the one in New York’s Union Square runs at minimum $479 per night and goes all the way up to $4,000. (Hotels may change their price depending on the season and night of the week.) The lowest-cost “wonderful room” at the W features an “ergonomic workspace” and a bathroom with “Bliss Lemon + Sage Sinkside Six.” At the Union Square venue, “pillow-top mattress is layered with a featherbed and down duvet, and accented by plump down pillows and a headboard that winks at the electrifying contrasts of the surrounding neighborhood.”

The Warren campaign likes to emphasize that many of their donors are not wealthy; they said 81 percent of their donations in the most recent quarter were for $50 or less. And now those small donors can rest easy, knowing that Warren or her staffers aren’t forced to make do with one of those mundane, non-winking headboards.

Just to clarify, this is the Elizabeth Warren whose net worth is about $14.5 million, who emphasized in television interviews that she isn’t one of those “wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios.”

Campaign records through March 31 show Warren’s campaign also spent $18,210 on catering, $18,000 to purchase the e-mail list of, $10,351 to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign to purchase their e-mail list; $7,666 on office supplies, $1,610 on parking, $1,427 on 17 separate charges for flowers from Winston Flowers in Boston, $885 on photocopies, and $414 to “Nestle Pure Life” for “water.”

Tags: Elizabeth Warren

Gov. Patrick Protects Warren, Jumps in Front of Oncoming Question


At a press conference for Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick leaps in front of an oncoming question about her claims of Native American heritage:




Gov. Patrick replied, “On behalf of the people of the Commonwealth, we don’t care about that subject.”

Got that? The governor of Massachusetts believes his authority extends to deciding what the people of his state care about and don’t care about.

Tags: Deval Patrick , Elizabeth Warren

Warren Trails Brown by One; Most in Mass. Think She’s Native American


The Suffolk Poll released its results at 11 p.m. last night:

Republican incumbent Scott Brown (48 percent) clings to a one-point lead over Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren (47 percent) in the Massachusetts race for the U.S. Senate, according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH-Boston) poll of likely general-election voters in Massachusetts.

The poll result is well within the margin of error. Five percent of voters were undecided in a race that has drawn interest from across the country, even though the primaries are months away. The race has closed since a February Suffolk University/7NEWS poll showed Brown leading Warren 49 percent to 40 percent, with 11 percent either undecided or choosing someone else.

“In both the February and May polls, Brown has fallen short of the coveted 50 percent mark for an incumbent, while Elizabeth Warren has converted some undecided voters since February,” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “This leaves both campaigns no choice but to spend tens of millions of dollars in an all-out war to woo the five percent of voters who will decide this election.”

Warren’s heritage

Seventy-two percent of likely voters were aware of the recent controversy concerning Elizabeth Warren’s heritage. Of those, 49 percent said Warren was telling the truth about being part Native American; 28 percent said she was not telling the truth; and 23 percent weren’t sure. Meanwhile, 41 percent said they believed that Elizabeth Warren benefited by listing herself as a minority, while 45 percent said she did not benefit. Sixty-nine percent of likely voters said that Warren’s Native American heritage listing is not a significant story, while 27 percent said that it is.

That is a pretty good result for Elizabeth Warren. What’s really surprising is that somehow she’s coming through the “high cheekbones, like all Native Americans” brouhaha more likeable to the Bay State’s voters, if this poll is accurate:

Brown’s popularity (58 percent favorable) moved up six points from February (52 percent favorable), while his unfavorable rating remained the same at 28 percent. Warren gained 8 points on her favorable rating (43 percent) since February, when it was 35 percent, but she also tacked 5 points onto her unfavorable rating, which is now 33 percent unfavorable, as opposed to 28 percent in February.

Tags: Elizabeth Warren , Scott Brown

Hooray! No Talk of Replacing Warren in Massachusetts!


Great news for Scott Brown in Massachusetts: “‘This is a race that is a dead heat,’ said state Democratic Party chairman John Walsh, citing a recent poll and insisting the flap has had no effect on Warren’s standing as the party’s front-runner. He said no one is talking about replacing her. ‘It’s not a sentiment that is out there at all.’”

I suppose if you offered Warren a clear path to the nomination, like a gift, and then decided you wanted to take it back, it would make you an… eh, never mind, too easy.

But as Bob Torricelli taught us, it is never too late for Democrats to switch out a doomed, scandal-plagued candidate for a more electable replacement.

Tags: Elizabeth Warren , Scott Brown

Elizabeth Warren, a.k.a. Martha Coakley 2.0


The Massachusetts state GOP puts out a web video on Elizabeth Warren, sudden self-proclaimed Native American, entitled “Fraudster.”

I expect to see the footage of Warren claiming, “A picture of my grandfather . . . had high cheekbones, like all of the Indians do” over and over again this year.

To refresh, Warren was identified as a minority at University of Pennsylvania and Harvard Law School, and by the Association of American Law Schools from 1986 to 1995. She claims she listed herself as a Native American merely to get an invitation to a “luncheon,” even though the Native American Association at Harvard there is no record of her ever participating in their events.

Somewhere Martha Coakley is watching all of this and exclaiming, “Wow, what an awful politician.”

Tags: Elizabeth Warren

Harvard: We’re Not Saying Who Our Native American Professor Is


Harvard University tries to help Elizabeth Warren, and only hurts themselves in the process:

Harvard Law School lists one lone Native American faculty member on its latest diversity census report — but school officials and campaign aides for Elizabeth Warren refused to say yesterday whether it refers to the Democratic Senate candidate.

Warren — who has been dogged by questions about whether she used her claims of Cherokee lineage to further her career — has insisted she never authorized Harvard Law to count her as a Native American in the mid-1990s, when the school was under fire for not having enough minority professors.

Here’s the current faculty directory. Anyone else stand out as a potential Native American? (Although I suppose that the example of Warren demonstrates that someone who does not look like a Native American, have a Native American name, or have any known work on Native American issues could still be considered a Native American under university criteria.)

(Note that Harvard University has a Native American Program but faculty of this program are separate from the law school.)

Tags: Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren, Native American?


I doubt this will move many votes in the Massachusetts Senate race, but it does illustrate how pursuit of “diversity” in higher education can drive institutions to make rather implausible claims:

Elizabeth Warren’s avowed Native American heritage — which the candidate rarely if ever discusses on the campaign trail — was once touted by embattled Harvard Law School officials who cited her claim as proof of their faculty’s diversity.

Warren’s claim, which surfaced yesterday after a Herald inquiry, put the candidate in an awkward position as campaign aides last night scrambled but failed to produce documents proving her family lineage. Aides said the tales of Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware tribe ancestors have been passed down through family lore.

. . . Fried said he learned about Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware background later when he found a picture of Warren’s mother and asked her about it. Both Warren’s grandparents on her mother’s side had Native American lineage, her campaign said yesterday.

(Warren’s birth surname is Herring, which is an Anglo-Saxon name.)

Thankfully, it appears that some recognize the ludicrousness of claiming minority status based upon the identity of one’s great-grandparents:

Sarah Marston, the current spokeswoman at Harvard Law School, said the school has had a change of heart when it comes to discussing Warren’s heritiage.

“The Law School’s current policy is to refrain from publicly commenting about the race or ethnicity of individual faculty members,” Marston said in a statement.

Back in 2005, NR’s John J. Miller took a look at the phenomenon of “fake Indians” after Ward Churchill grabbed the public spotlight:

Between 1960 and 2000, the number of Americans claiming Indian ancestry on their census forms jumped by a factor of six. Neither birthrates nor counting methodologies can account for this explosive growth. Instead, the phenomenon arises in large part from the increasingly idealistic place Indians occupy in the popular imagination. Much of it is based on harmless sentiment mixed into a hash of unverifiable family legends and wishful thinking among folks who hang dreamcatchers from their rearview mirrors. But for a distinct subset, it’s all about personal profit. They’re professional imposters who have built entire careers by putting the sham into shaman.

Of course, there’s nothing new about white political figures attempting to spotlight a distant tie to a Native American ancestor. Native American author Sherman Alexie shared this anecdote:

When President Clinton was still in the White House in 1998, he invited Alexie and a small group of others to take part in a televised “Dialogue on Race” forum. “He said, ‘Sherman, before I was president, the only thing I knew about Indians was that my grandmother was part Cherokee.’”

“Later on, I was asked if Indians were part of the national dialogue on race. I said ‘No, the only time white folks talk to me about Indians is when they tell me their grandmothers were part Cherokee.’ As the show wore on, I thought ‘Oh, my God, I gave the president s*** — the president!’ Afterwards I was scared and tried to hide — and he came across to me and grabbed me by the shoulder and leaned in close to me and said, ‘Sherman, you’re f***ing funny!’”

Tags: Elizabeth Warren

American Crossroads Spotlights Warren-Defending DSCC’s Wall Street Cash


American Crossroads aims to complicate matters for Elizabeth Warren, arguing that you can’t bash Wall Street and then turn around
 and take millions of dollars of donations on your behalf from the industry you have identified as the locus of all that is wrong with modern America.

Well, you can, but you shouldn’t, unless you’re a massive hypocrite whose words mean nothing. Hey, you know what? Carry on, Ms. Warren.

Now that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) – which has deep ties to Wall Street – is raising cash to support self-styled Wall Street reformer Professor Elizabeth Warren, American Crossroads president Steven Law is calling on Warren to:

1.       Return any and all funds she has received from the Wall Street-backed DSCC;

2.       Refuse to accept any future DSCC contributions, coordinated expenditures or ads on her behalf; and

3.       Immediately call on the DSCC to stop using her name for fundraising purposes.

The DSCC, which helped recruit Warren to run for Senate in Massachusetts and is now raising money to use for Warren’s campaign, has raised more money from Wall Street than from any other industry.  Since 2005, the DSCC has collected more than $40 million in contributions from Wall Street, the banking and financial services industries.  Just today, DSCC executive director Guy Cecil pledged to “protect” Warren with a DSCC “Emergency Media Campaign.”

“Far left professor Elizabeth Warren should get a PhD in hypocrisy for trying to launder Wall Street political cash through the DSCC’s war chest while simultaneously leading the Occupy Wall Street movement,” said American Crossroads president Steven Law. “Professor Warren ought to put the DSCC’s Wall Street money where her mouth is: and just say no to DSCC support.”

The Financial Services Industry has given more money to the DSCC than any other industry, including trial lawyers or labor unions.

The DSCC’s Wall Street Endowment for Elizabeth Warren

Since 2005 The DSCC Has Taken $40,555,590 From Wall Street, More Than Any Other Industry. (Center For Responsive Politics,, Accessed 12/13/11)

·         In The 2012 Election Cycle, The DSCC Took $1,547,805 From Wall Street (The Securities And Investments Industry, Commercial Banks, And Misc Finance).  (Center For Responsive Politics,, Accessed 12/13/11)

·         In The 2010 Election Cycle, The DSCC Took $7,274,205 From Wall Street (The Securities And Investments Industry, Commercial Banks, And Misc Finance).  (Center For Responsive Politics,, Accessed 12/13/11)

·         In The 2008 Election Cycle, The DSCC Took $19,098,584 From Wall Street (The Securities And Investments Industry, Commercial Banks, And Misc Finance).  (Center For Responsive Politics,, Accessed 12/13/11)

·          In The 2006 Election Cycle, The DSCC Took $12,634,996 From Wall Street (The Securities And Investments Industry, Commercial Banks, And Misc Finance).  (Center For Responsive Politics,, Accessed 12/13/11)

The Second Most Generous Industry To The DSCC Is Lawyers/Law Firms, Which Have Given $33,916,522 Since 2005.(Center For Responsive Politics,, Accessed 12/13/11)

Elizabeth Warren, as you may recall, took credit for creating the “much of the intellectual foundation” of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. I know, I know, you dispute the notion that the Occupy Wall Street protesters have any intellectual foundation at all.

For some reason I’m reminded of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

Tags: Elizabeth Warren

Who Is the ‘Matriarch of Mayhem’?


The Massachusetts Republican party is calling Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren the “Matriarch of Mayhem.”

Somewhere, Stan Lee is thinking, “Why didn’t I think of that name?”

Tags: Elizabeth Warren , Massachusetts , Occupy Wall Street

Obama Supports the Flat Tax! Well, Technically.


President Obama, yesterday:

Now, the Republicans, when I talked about this earlier in the week, they said, well, this is class warfare. You know what, if asking a billionaire to pay their fair share of taxes, to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare, then you know what, I’m a warrior for the middle class. (Applause.) I’m happy to fight for the middle class.

“Pay the same rate” — so now Obama supports a flat tax?

Take a look at the tax brackets. Plumbers or teachers who make between $34,901 and $84,500 pay a top federal tax rate of $4,750 plus 25 percent of the amount over $34,500.

Billionaires pay a top income tax rate of $110,016.50 plus 35 percent on all income they make above $379,150.

[These numbers are for single filers; the numbers are slightly different but roughly proportional for married filing jointly.]

In the world view of Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and their ilk, the current top tax rate of 35 percent represents absolute unfairness and is the root of all of our debt and economic problems. But the Clinton-era tax rate of 39.6 percent represents absolute fairness.

Who knew the distance between today’s injustice and economic nirvana was 4.6 percent?

Tags: Barack Obama , Elizabeth Warren , Taxes

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review