Scott 'Bankers gave me $450k in 6 days' Brown doing their bidding to weaken Wall St reform

[Slimprofits]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/bu...olcker.html?hp

The three main changes under consideration would be a carve-out to exclude asset management and insurance companies outright, an exemption that would allow banks to continue to invest in hedge funds and private equity firms, and a long delay that would give banks up to seven years to enact the changes.

In particular, the provisions, sought by Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, and several other lawmakers, would benefit Boston-based money management giants like Fidelity Investments and State Street Corporation.

But the biggest Wall Street firms would be helped as well. For example, JPMorgan Chase would be able to retain its Highbridge Capital Management unit, and Goldman Sachs could hold on to several large hedge funds, including its flagship Global Alpha franchise. Morgan Stanley could keep FrontPoint Partners and several other smaller hedge funds.


http://www.boston.com/business/artic...rowns_coffers/

In a six-day span just before the US Senate election, Republican Scott Brown collected nearly $450,000 from donors who work at financial companies...

[sishya]

Re: Scott 'Bankers gave me $450k in 6 days' Brown doing their bidding to weaken Wall St reform

He is another stooge of big money. Mass was massively fooled by this conman

[Rajiv]

Re: Scott 'Bankers gave me $450k in 6 days' Brown doing their bidding to weaken Wall St reform

See also this excellent report from the Roosevelt Institute - 1, 2, 3, Many Tea Parties? A Closer Look at the 2010 Massachusetts Senate Race

Abstract

Passage of the health care reform bill has convinced some analysts that the Massachusetts Senate election might be a fluke. In fact, polls taken after the legislation passed show Republicans widening their lead in fall congressional races. This paper takes a closer look at the Massachusetts earthquake. It reviews popular interpretations of the election, especially those highlighting the influence of the “Tea Party” movement, and examines the role political money played in the outcome. Its main contribution, though, is an analysis of voting patterns by towns. Using spatial regression techniques, it shows that unemployment and housing price declines contributed to the Republican swing, along with a proportionately heavier drop in voting turnout in poorer towns that usually provide many votes to Democratic candidates. All these factors are likely to remain important in the November congressional elections.

On the 19th of January, Massachusetts, reputedly the most liberal state in America, fired a shot heard round the world. In an epic political upset, Republican Scott Brown, who had once posed naked for Cosmopolitan magazine and now ardently championed tax cuts, smaller government, and waterboarding, defeated his heavily favored Democratic opponent. He thus succeeded to the Senate seat held in splendor for over forty years by the most famous
of all liberal Democrats, the late Senator Edward Kennedy.

Brown’s stunning triumph meant that the Republicans now controlled 41 votes – the minimum required to dethrone Independent Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman as uncrowned king of the U.S. Senate by giving the GOP just enough votes to block efforts to shut off debate. Senator Brown was thus was not really “41,” as many took quickly to styling him. He was 007, for his triumph handed his party a license to kill by talking bills to death in the upper chamber.2

Even before the polls closed on Election Day, health care stocks were shooting up as giddy investors jumped to the conclusion that President Barack Obama’s signature reform bill was dead in the water.3 But the new Senate math just as certainly appeared to doom the rest of the President’s proposals. Financial reform, labor law, climate change – suddenly none any longer represented change anyone could believe in. Over the next few weeks, American politics came as close as it ever has to a true Zen moment: The One, who had towered over the political landscape since the presidential primaries in 2008, suddenly looked like Nothing.

Not surprisingly, an outpouring of commentary akin to the explosion of a supernova resulted. Unfortunately, the comparison is all too apt. Until the final days, the outcome of the race seemed a foregone conclusion. None of the many news outlets on financial life support ventured to front the expense of conducting exit polls. As a result, election night food for thought was lite even by the standards of American cable news. Arguments about what voters said perforce had to be conducted in a near-perfect vacuum, just as in outer space.

Election analysis in America often amounts to little more than a barely sublimated continuation of politics by other means, as interested parties, with financial and partisan ties that the media do not insist be disclosed to audiences, spin what happened in ways that coincide with their interests.4 In the topsy-turvy world of 2010, where politicians like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee turn into television commentators and news commentators like Lou Dobbs think about running for office, this meant that the social meaning of the election crystallized overnight into a single catch phrase: populist revolt.
.
.
.
.
.