Signed, Sealed, Delivered-- Wall Street Knows They Don't Have To Worry About Scott Brown's Loyalties

Wall Street has many favorites in Congress-- and the banksters are careful to buy a piece of rising politicians on both sides of the aisle. If there's one thing banksters understand, it's hedging bets. Wall Street banksters made huge bets on Rahm Emanuel-- who wound up as head of the DCCC (where he was able to recruit Wall Street-friendly conservatives for Congress) and then Chief of Staff-- and Harold Ford, Jr and they help finance the entire Blue Dog caucus which works diligently to water down every bill that would regulate bankster criminals. As for he GOP... they now own the entire party, lock, stock and barrel.

Right now they're certainly grooming Paul Ryan to run for higher office. They've pumped $2,722,122 into his career and he's served their interests much to the detriment to his own constituents back in Wisconsin. Their dream is to see Ryan as a senator or, God forbid, in the White House. So far in the current election cycle there are only 7 Members of Congress, 5 senators and 2 congressmen, who Wall Street is funding above the million dollar level:


Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is running for reelection as a senator... with virtually no opposition. Wall Street sees her as a presidential contender for 2016 and, along with Chuck Schumer, she literally represents Wall Street in the Senate. She's gotten the most money from the banksters this cycle. #2 is John Boehner, the Speaker of the House and #3 is a freshman senator from Massachusets, Scott Brown. Why Brown? He's been one of Wall Street's biggest advocates on Capitol Hill. And... he's not Elizabeth Warren, the political figure Wall Street fears most in the whole country. Brown wants it both ways-- and routinely talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to Wall Street:

Facing a potential electoral challenge from consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren next year, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) appears to be trying to portray himself as a stronger Wall Street reformer than she, telling NECN this month that he “worked very hard” to ensure the passage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law:

BROWN: I worked very hard to make sure that banks didn’t act like casinos with our money. So the bill that she was apparently working on, I mean was able to work through as a result of [Warren's] position, you know, I worked on it, I voted on it, I pushed it through. [...] So, who doesn’t want to protect the Middle class? But there’s a big difference between talking and actually doing it.

As the Boston Globe’s Alex Katz notes today of the comments, “By painting himself as a strong supporter of Wall Street reform, Brown appears to be trying to neutralize Warren,” who was a leading advocate of Dodd-Frank and went on to help establish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which the law created.

Contrary to “push[ing] it through,” Brown dragged his feet on supporting Dodd-Frank and only did so after his demands to water down the bill were met. After his upset election in January 2010, he became the key vote on the bill and leveraged that position to extract big concessions favored by banks, who had given generously to his campaign. First, Brown forced Democrats to strip from the bill a $19 billion bank tax. He also successfully pushed to water down a key reform-- the so-called “Volcker rule”-- that was aimed at preventing banks from making risky trades with dollars backed by the government. The carve out helped large mutual funds in his state.

In fact, Brown initially opposed the entire Wall Street reform bill and threatened to join the Republican filibuster of the legislation, which would have prevented it from even getting an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, as “Brown and his Senate staff were working both publicly and behind the scenes to scuttle” these reforms, the senator took in $140,000 from financial firms-- 400 percent more than the average received by other GOP senators over the same time period-- according to the Boston Globe. A ThinkProgress analysis revealed that during his campaign, banks and their allies gave Brown’s campaign huge 11th hour contributions and helped with a significant get-out-the-vote effort. He was also supported by outside groups friendly to Wall Street like the Club for Growth. Overall, the financial industry is Brown’s second largest contributor.

Right wingers are noticing the game and seem grumpy that Brown uses Democratic Party talking points against Wall Street, even though their big donors are aware he doesn't mean a thing he says and they're keeping the money spigots wide open.

Brown bragged today that he is responsible for the Senate’s passage of the controversial Dodd-Frank bill that was opposed by his Republican colleagues.

“I was the supporter. I worked on that,” he said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday, referring to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

“It never would have passed if it wasn’t for me. I was tired of having banks and Wall Street act like casinos with our money. But [without] me being involved, that never would have passed.”

The bill introduced by Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, imposing new regulations on the financial services industry, passed the Senate in July 2010 by a margin of 60-39. It was opposed by all but three Republicans, and without Brown’s vote, the bill would have been subject to a Republican filibuster.

Republicans have warned that Dodd-Frank with its onerous regulations will have a devastating effect on the economy, and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it if he is elected, calling the bill an “848-page behemoth.”

...Brown told Morning Joe that he is proud to be a moderate Republican-- a “bipartisan senator,” he said-- during his appearance on Morning Joe.

He touted the fact that he has voted along with his fellow Republicans in the Senate only 54 percent of the time, becoming one of President Barack Obama’s strongest allies in the GOP caucus.

“The only parts of the jobs packages of the president that have passed [are] the ones I was involved in,” he said.

“I was in the White House two weeks ago [for the signing of] the insider trading bill. And then the jobs bill. And you throw in the three percent withholding, the Arlington Cemetery bill, the 1099 fix. I could go on and on. The only reason we are getting things done is because I’m there and we’re working hard across the aisle.

Brown also raised the ire of conservatives when he backed the president by voting in favor of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) reducing American and Russian nuclear arsenals, which was ratified in December 2010.

Right-wingers don't like that and Democrats aren't buying into Brown's two-faced approach to his job. If his hopes for retaining his seat are pinned on the idea that he somehow acts independently of the rest of the Republicans in Washington, ProgressMass and yesterday's Boston Globe opened up a big hole in his armor as he scrambles to show how "bipartisan" he is.

ProgressMass identified 53 bills that had the support of at least 50 senators but lacked the 60 needed to break Republican filibusters and bring the measures to up-or-down votes.

On these bills, the study found, Brown sided with his party 76 percent of the time [like he did when it came to voting on the Buffett Rule, which he opposed].

“On the votes where he could have displayed true bipartisan leadership, Republican Scott Brown overwhelmingly supported his right-wing Republican colleagues, choosing partisan obstruction over getting something accomplished for the American people,” ProgressMass spokesman Mathew Helman said in a statement.

Blue America has only endorsed 3 candidates for the Senate-- Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. We have tough standards. Elizabeth has noted that Brown received “an award from Forbes magazine for being one of Wall Street’s favorite senators. I don’t even think I get nominated for that one." And Elizabeth wants to make Democrats and independents in Massachusetts understand the game Brown is playing. "All I can do is look at how he voted,” she said. “He has voted to protect the richest and most powerful among us, and he has voted against working families... “We had a quarter of a million people unemployed here in Massachusetts last fall-- he voted against three jobs bills in a row, he voted against extensions in unemployment. Me, I’ve been out there all this time, I mean this is all I’ve ever done is fighting to try to give working families, middle-class families, a real shot. And you just keep watching year after year it’s getting tougher for them, and if we don’t make changes, we’ve got a real problem.”

This is the single most important Senate race in the country-- at least if you define it as a campaign for real leadership on behalf of progressive solutions to the problems facing ordinary working families in this country. That's how Elizabeth Warren ended up on this page; I hope you will too.