Bernie is the best answer for those who want a true progressive honest politician in the White House but is the country ready to elect an avowed socialist president?
9
If you are going to campaign against rich donors, you should expect to be covered by the media when you take money from rich donors. The good news is democrats won't care if she changes her position. They only find this unacceptable when republicans do it.
One standard for me and another for thee.
8
You folks aren’t reading the article… It says that she was funded by special interests up until 2018 and will most likely accept big money during the general election. BUT… and here’s the important part…there’s a whole year and half (the primary season) in which she is only accepting small dollar donations! Did you hear that? At least a year. If you do the math, that means by the time she gets into the White House, she will be SLIGHTLY less bought and paid for than the typical neoliberal president-elect. Now, I can’t say exactly how much less at this point, but in all likelihood you’ll be able to detect a subtle difference.
5
@CommonSense33
Sorry, Trump leads in small donor donations. In fact, he's set a GOP record.
3
I like Warren but she doesn't have the political courage of Sanders and I expect she will cave to Power. She's already kissing the ring of Status Quo.
Kind of like in 2016 when she didn't endorse Bernie but instead endorsed the super pro-fracker and Establishment Queen, HRC.
WIll this be Hope&Change v2.0, and Citicorp will be back to choose a Warren Admin top positions?
8
C'mon, there is a vast ethical difference between accepting larger donations from wealthier individuals versus corporations. As many, I believe that income inequality is out of control. But not all wealthier people are evil, and many want a better life for those less fortunate. Making a false equivalence between accepting huge sums from special interests such as the as the insurance, financial, and gas industries to individuals who can afford to make larger donations is shoddy irresponsible journalism.
10
I have no problem with Elizabeth Warren eschewing large donations during the primaries.
But I have an enormous problem with her funding her presidential campaign with larger donations during 2018, only to criticize others for doing so in 2019.
I generally admire Warren, but on this occasion must agree with the venerable Ed Rendell: “Can you spell hypocrite?”
Points to Bernie Sanders for consistently relying on small donations. It seems clear that Warren is doing so very temporarily, in order to compete more effectively with Sanders.
9
Yet another front page hit piece on Warren from the Times. Last one was August 15, concern trolling about how Democrats 'worry about her electability'. Now the Times is coming out and calling her a hypocrite.
Contrast that with the latest puff piece over the weekend on Biden, which lauded his victory in stopping Robert Bork from being confirmed.
By now it's blindingly clear where the Times' preference lies. And they should leave that to the editorial page, and stop packaging it as 'news'.
7
Actually, I was surprised about the measured piece on Biden. The Times has run a long string of negative pieces on Biden, including a recent article asking why he was running.
While I agree that this piece and the recent “can she reach centrist voters?” article are not favorable to Warren, the Times has generally covered her favorably.
Perhaps the Times is trying to hedge its bets with the new pro-Biden/anti-Warren piece.
2
@Simon Frick
Unfortunately for Warren and her devotes, she is a hypocrite here.
Acceptance, or not, she is not running aboveboard.
As some of us have been saying along.
I myself give credit to the NYT for calling a spade a spade.
7
NYT proves that it can slander any Democrat they feel will threaten the rich and the almost rich.
6
a statement is slander is only if it is false. which part of this article do you contend is untrue?
5
@GMooG
"Truth" has a liberal bias -- that is, it's only truth if a liberal feels the same way.
2
Corporate lawyer for Dow Chemicals & Fairchild Aircraft - until she wasn't ...
Republican until she wasn't ...
Requisites: some skepticism, and a lot less gullibility.
6
Just another hypocritical politician who says one thing and does another.
8
In 2016, I would have preferred Warren. Now she has gone too far left to win back the middle. I fear that if she or another overly progressive candidate is the nominee, we’ll lose to Trump again.
I’d prefer Klobuchar. Pragmatic progressive. Reaches across the aisle. Acts like an adult. No name calling. I wish we could have sticker of her and/or Sherrod Brown. They could win the rust belt and the independents who went with Trump. They would govern wisely.
2
@Franco51 Remind me how that went in 2016?
Bernie Sanders won the rust belt. Bernie Sanders has triple the donations from anyone running, Trump included, from those counties that switched from Obama to Trump. Bernie beats Trump and has since 2016. Why? Because he is authentic, has always supported the working/middle classes and his policies actually help them. The younger generations who now outnumber Boomers love him.
Klobuchar is polling at 2% and loses against Trump. Klobuchar does not excite the base. It would seem you really don’t care if Trump wins again.
3
The most disturbing thing about Warren is her stance on healthcare. What's her health plan? I know she said "I'm with Bernie" (a "convenient" answer). Can't truly imagine why anyone would outsource an important issue & say "we have the same plan as theirs". Everyone has now their own "plans". Has she uttered one word to counter the lies about Medicare forll All ? Whenever asked she comes up with this vague "we should multiple paths to get to Medicare for All which is our ultimate goal for universal healthcare". It's been > 250 days since Warren entered the race – she's been running longer than anyone! – and still not one real mention of her healthcare plan on her website, issues page, or substantive clarification of what policy she's running on.
I doubt if she can face a thorough scrutiny of any of her positions.
7
@Har It's possible that healthcare is not really as complicated as it's made out to be. there is a simple solution, and, just maybe, Bernie Sanders has stumbled upon it.
5
It's not that she's taken big donor money in the past that's concerning. It's that she plans on taking it in the future, during the General. It shows that her eschewing big money is just a tactic to try and beat Sanders, not something she truly believes in.
11
I have been wanting to cancel my subscription to the NYT since the 2016 elections when the NYT was relentless about Hillary’s emails in the name of “balance” reporting. Warren is by far one of the best candidates the Dems party has. I don’t fall for the purity test among liberals. If Warren decides to have big donors so be it. We to defeat the real enemy of democracy- Trump and the Republicans!
6
Yes, of course. Why should you have to pay for a newspaper that doesn't tell you what you want and need to hear?
8
@Ana Rodriguez
If republican readers aren't cancelling, you have no reason to.
2
What I am basically reading is that she knew she was going to run for President, squeezed some rich elites , took the money and ran. While it may seem disingenuous I can see this is a way to make the haves work for the have not's by supporting someone who they thought was on their side.
5
She used the “dirty” money to set herself up and to beat the others. Now she hates those that gave her the money. Simple solution. Give that “dirty” money back ASAP. Then go ahead and continue the hating of a system that brought many up out of poverty.
5
She's Smart! Happy that she tricked mega-donors, and now runs against their agenda.
5
Why are you so sure that it's the big donors being tricked, and not you?
8
@Sam She said she will most likely seek out mega-donors again in the general election. What does that mean? Is she really running against their agenda? Sounds like a temporary grassroots charade to woo progressive voters. As soon as she has the nomination, she can do whatever she wants because she knows that at the end of the day most democrats are sheep and will pull the lever for anything other than Trump.
4
Instead of attacking Elizabeth Warren how about writing about something that actually effects 1 in 6 Americans daily. Hedge funds like Blackstone who based their business model on surprise medical bills when they bought up physician staffing groups.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-deep-pocket-push-to-preserve-surprise-medical-billing?ref=home
6
I read this article and immediately made my regular $10 contribution to Elizabeth Warren.
The headline and article have such a needlessly negative slant, but the guts of the article point to why I like Warren - she is rejecting mega-donors during her campaign for the nomination and then hopefully will return to fund-raising as the Democratic nominee.
Senator Warren has proven herself by her actions establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If election finance reform is ever to come about, it will be with the leadership of a president like Elizabeth Warren.
10
Major candidates raise massive sums of money. If they don't spend quite all of the contributions, as was Warren's case, does it then belong to the candidate to spend however she wishes, with no controls or restrictions?
Does it become the candidates personal money?
Major candidates raise massive sums of money. If they don't spend quite all of the contributions, as was Warren's case, does it then belong to the candidate to spend however she wishes, with no controls or restrictions? does it become the candidates personal money?
They were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers in 2018 and still are today.
Warren decided to go with small donators now and kept her war chest. Fair game.
If mega donors still wan to help them, they can start PAC's to sollicitate electors to make small donation and/or join Warren's campaign! Oh wait, they would not have any influence on her... So they still are bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers! So lets spin against Warren, since they could not have influence on her...
If Warren become president, what a bad surprise will theses bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers will have.
It will be fun! I prepare my popcorn already.
1
@Tristan Roy Or they could just wait to influence her in the general (if she wins.)
2
An immaculate US President would have to win by word of mouth alone.
5
Yang is the adult in the room, isn’t he?
5
Like it or not [Citizens United], once a candidate is chosen, then they and the DNC will need to raise at least a billion dollars.
That's going to be a hard sell for exclusively "small" donors.
6
"Rendell said he had recruited donors to attend an intimate fund-raising dinner for Ms. Warren last year at Barclay Prime, a Philadelphia steakhouse where the famed cheesesteak goes for $120. (The dish includes Wagyu rib-eye, foie gras, truffled cheese whiz and a half-bottle of champagne.) He said he received a “glowing thank-you letter” from Ms. Warren afterward."
Apparently this is Elizabeth Warren's progressive dual plan for health care and global warming: eat more beef, promote foie gras and then ask taxpayers to pay for all of it while accomplishing nothing.
3
This is a transactional politician. Warren has waltzed thru the door Sanders fought decades to open... she knows the words, though her word-salad backtracking on M4A and free public higher ed is frustrating. She could possibly win the nom, and that would get ugly. Her disingenuous DNA test reacting to a mad 5:00AM Tweeter tells us that trump will spin her around at will in debate. However, it would be interesting if she and Sanders were the last two standing... a strong, farmer-labor FDR style Green New Dealer vs. a regulated free marketer and “socially concerned” capitalist would be a proper Lefty debate.
7
What would prefer, that she not denounce big money? This is ridiculous.
5
Yes, big money is actually needed for a presidential bid. (It was Republicans who took off any caps on campaign finance, making small donor campaigns virtually impossible). But Ms. Warren has indeed championed to cause of the socially and financially downtrodden in American, and stood up to Wall Street. While offering any criticism, stay focused on the good that she does and would do as president.
And don't forget -- in every breadth -- to contrast her to the current occupant of the WH.
5
If only it were easy to win the Presidency with nothing but the common people's $1 to $10 donations. Yeah, all those tiny sums that cost more to process than they help will definitely stop the Rightwing behemoth that doesn't care a bit about where their money comes from as long as there are mountains of it. Magical thinking.
4
It's long overdue that we have publicly financed campaigns. As for today, I am sending Liz another contribution. Vote blue!
5
Hmmm.. Taking big money doesn't seem to have disqualified anyone else. I see a big problem here with double standards.
4
Once upon a time, everyone took "Big Money". Then, some crazy old man from Vermont started shouting, "get your Big Money off of my lawn" and it started catching on. And now, more and more candidates are cleaning up their own front yards. That is pretty much the only story I see.
1
Unfortunately, big money is for the game is played now. Citizens United and the ridiculous conservatives on the SCOTUS are largely to blame. I remember when superpacs and dark money become a mover in politics. To their credit, the Dems cried foul and generally fought against embracing the new normal. That could only last so long. Some individual candidates like Bernie are the exception to the rule. Then again he (and others) takes advantage of the Dem's infrastructure and political presence without bothering to support the party in fundraising, so he's a bit of a hypocrite.
4
“Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore.”
So, according to the author of the story Liz Warren never claimed she hadn’t taken money from big donors in the past. She publicly announced she wasn’t going to continue doing that going forward into the presidential primaries. So,where’s the story? Is it the author’s conjecture that a lot of Warren supporters and undecideds didn’t understand she had a war chest from an earlier campaign? Is there some data supporting that? Should we hold Warren responsible because some voters are too incurious to investigate how she financed earlier campaigns? Honestly, I didn’t know, and now that I do I still don’t think there’s a story there. Meh.
7
This discussion helps Warren : get everything in the sunshine that could possibly be used later by the GOP to tar her (just as they and some Dems did to Clinton). By understanding now, we take away their weapons.
We got this -- thanks NYT.
7
Reading these comments tells me that the left is still quite eager to eat their own. They are turning on Elizabeth Warren for goodness sake!!!
You can’t appease them. You give them everything they ask for and they will complain you didn’t come clean their room so they are staying home and pouting.
Elections are actually won from the center in this country.
34
@Will.
Really? Did Trump run as a 'centrist'? He ran as a bomb-thrower and won as a bomb-thrower. At the risk of mixing metaphors, Warren is the antibiotic we're taking to rid ourselves of the disease of Trumpism. If Trump the con man can win with 'Drain the Swamp', Warren can certainly try with 'Dream Big, Fight Hard'. The irony is Warren is MUCH more likely to fulfill Trump's slogan than he ever intended to.
11
@Will.
Really? Did Trump run as a 'centrist'? He ran as a bomb-thrower and won as a bomb-thrower. At the risk of mixing metaphors, Warren is the antibiotic we're taking to rid ourselves of the disease of Trumpism. If Trump the con man can win with 'Drain the Swamp', Warren can certainly try with 'Dream Big, Fight Hard'. The irony is Warren is MUCH more likely to fulfill Trump's slogan than he ever intended to.
@Will. No, this article just points out what a lying, two-faced phony Warren is.
11
Contrary to popular myth, the great majority of top individual and organizational donors sponsor Democrats. It's not even close.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?id=
2
Has Warren become the new target of attack by the NYTimes? She accepted one-quarter of her 2018 money from big donors--not necessarily big corporations. She gave a fair share to support other candidates. I was a little concerned when I read the headline but it seems the NYTimes is determined that only old white men have a chance to be the president of the US.
8
What better way to spend big-donor money than on a campaign that proposes taxing and regulating the untaxed and unregulated? Sounds like a good plan to me.
8
She’s a good, and realistic planner, unlike a few I could name.
"Mr. Yang went on: 'But you can’t begrudge something that someone has done at an earlier point if they decide to move in a direction that I personally think is very positive.'” A good summation...
5
Bernie is purer than Elizabeth.
All successful politicians are leaders of popular thought, which is not their most impressive role. Being a parent is a more important role and that is why I admire Hillary and Bill Clinton and not Trump and his several wives.
2
With all due respects, this article is disingenuous at best, particularly the header.
Ms. Warren said she will forego big donors for her presidential campaign and she has done that since. This is someone who has done what all candidates do even now, before she was convinced that that is not the way to go. Her position took not only guts, but also clearly put her values front and square. That is the story here, not the suggestion that it is not a 100% true because she moved money from earlier contributions. And it is not $10M either, only a portion of it is from big donors.
In the big scheme of things that is peanuts and if it helped her to change the funding tactic for better, I am not going to begrudge her that.
Knowing what she did with CFPB, I am convinced of her values and I really appreciate her plans to make the structural adjustments we need to cure ourselves of crony capitalism and big money lobbying power.
Yes, Warren for President!
10
What is the intent of the NYT with this article - to make it appear that Senator Warren is being hypocritical because in her past Senatorial campaigns, she sought money from donors with deep pockets?
Let's face reality: Given the impact the Citizens United case has had on political campaigns in this country since 2010, allowing copious amounts of money to be spent on campaigns (without requiring an accounting for how much money was spent and by whom), anyone seeking public office today needs to raise LOTS OF MONEY to be a competitive candidate. Until Citizens United can be overturned, this will not change.
I'm a firm supporter of Senator Warren's presidential campaign. I have no problem with her using any of the money she had raised from her previous Senatorial campaigns in her present campaign --- along with the money she has received from individual donors like myself.
There is no hypocrisy in this matter. Senator Warren is the real deal. Her previous career in law and academia and her record as a Senator amply demonstrates her commitment to serving the public interest, and not the interests of corporate power (which has been helped more than enough, courtesy of that egregious tax law which was signed off in December 2017 by the then Republican controlled Congress and the present occupant of the Oval Office).
6
The operative word is “anymore.” She is not taking money from big donors “anymore.” Even if she was, the Citizens United decision requires that obscene amounts of money be raised. Journalists seem to feel their jobs require them to look under every bed in search of controversy. Should concerns about what Elizabeth MIGHT do on behalf of large donors be front page news? How does this compare to what Trump has ACTUALLY done? He’s trashing the environment on behalf of big donors, which will ultimately help him. I cannot put Elizabeth’s behavior in the same category as Trump’s - it’s not even close and never will be.
5
Oh I see, progressives should pass some sort of absurd purity test regarding funding their elections that no conservative has ever been asked to pass or even think about, as they wallow in money from billionaire sources for decades. NOBODY in America can get elected without piles of money, thanks to the conservative-funded so-called 'citizens united' decision. (More like billionaires united.) And women and candidates of color in particular need to get support where and how they can, or they are erased, as per usual. We don't have time to keep being erased. So just stop.
6
I'm not surprised. Anyone who wants to work within the system has to.
Andrew Yang is the testing this premise by relying mostly on small donors like myself, and he has raised peanuts compared with the frontrunners. Media, including NYT, is boosting this reliance by treating fundraising amount as metrics on how successful a campaign is.
It is not the candidate who is hypocritical; it's our so called democracy.
3
Warren is my fourth choice. She trails Sanders, Sanders and Sanders. But I would vote for her if she were to win the nomination.
Still, stories like this trouble me a great deal. Just like her not taking big money in the primaries (we now know why), but refusing to say she would not accept such donations in the general.
Add that to the reporting of her playing footsie with Fraud Street and I have a very uneasy feeling about her.
The other side of the coin? I vividly remember the NYT and its all out assault on Sanders in 2016. The Times was in the bag for Clinton. Is it in the bag for Biden now? I also have an uneasy feeling about the NYT.
6
Elizabeth Warren will be an excellent POTUS. She was a staunch "conservative" who converted after decades of deeply held fiscal political beliefs betrayed her humane, compassionate and democratic side. We all know what they say about the fervor and devotion of converts, don't we? Warren is also brilliant, and will fill her cabinet with brilliant, dedicated, honest, TRUE Americans. She has my vote. We must DRAIN the SWAMP of this filth, and this extremely QUALIFIED woman is the right person for the job!
6
She sounds like she knows how to manage her resources. Good for her!
8
Pronouncing herself to be a '100 percent grass-roots funded' candidate is certainly disingenuous. That's one of the reasons I chided her via Facebook over a post that was a barely veiled swipe at Biden for attending a corporate fundraiser. But, unlike too many liberal/progressive voters, I don't require candidates to pass a purity test. The fact is, politics is a dirty business. And, although you may find success without being corrupt, you will most certainly have to compromise at some point. How else can you get enough of the voting populace in the right areas to vote for you? Running a national campaign takes money, lots of money. Relying solely on individual donors may be one of the reasons Bernie Sanders hasn't been able to grow his base. He, along with his supporters, is a perfect example of seeking purity in politics while failing to accept that all of his wonderful plans will never be implemented unless he agrees to bend a little. Pragmatism counts. At the end of the day, voters should support candidates who espouse most of what they believe in who also have at least some hope of getting things done.
38
@Rhonda some would say it is good not much ever gets done in Washington. I disagree. Many storms are building because both parties could care less about any sort of fiscal policy that can help our nation long term. We need a reality check. Government needs to stop growing. Rein in costs, come up with local solutions to long term problems.
2
@Rhonda
"The fact is, politics is a dirty business. And, although you may find success without being corrupt, you will most certainly have to compromise at some point."
If you don't mind, may I disagree? Compromise, negotiation, pragmatism, and horse trading are integral parts of our own particular flavor of democracy. That's how it's supposed to work. It doesn't make our politics "a dirty business." So long as it takes place under the implied agreements that the wellbeing of our democracy and nation come first, and we are willing to assist or make sacrifices for each and every other citizen. As you say, mulish purity is anathema to our system. Mulish purity among the Sanders supporters in 2016 contributed to the 2016 fiasco. White nationalist mulish purity is how Trump is doing irreparable damage to our nation and its democracy.
3
@Rhonda Sanders bended a lot when he wrote Obamacare and also worked with Republicans on a number of other bills. At the end of the day, Sanders will fight for the best he can get for the people. He'll take what he can get to start, and in the meantime, he'll build the grassroots revolution necessary to effect real change -- like he's already done with raising the minimum wage to $15/hr in a number of states. That wouldn't have happened without him. Real change throughout history hasn't been achieved through inside deals and compromises, only when people stand up, organize and protest. But you need the right leaders (so called purists) to lead. Those who are taking big money and just working inside Washington, making compromises for peanuts, don't have much hope of getting things done -- We'll just continue to see empty plans and band-aid solutions while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the earth goes to pot in ten years.
8
Early Money Is Like Yeast - it makes the dough rise..
Thus EMILY,s List.
Purity is passé - voters will not be distracted.
Go Liz!
1
Democrats are very capable of cutting slack as long as it's for one of their own, it has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
1
Warren has a serious authenticity problem. She claims to reject corporate money, but then flatly says she will accept it during the general if she wins. Because Trump will accept it, she says, therefore, it's ok for her to accept it--how does that not render her earlier rejection of corporate money null? What, you can't bribe her during the primary but you can during the general? What is the point of rejecting corporate money during the primary then? It means your promises can (and probably will) be broken. With her argument, why doesn't she just accept corporate money during the primary since nearly all her opponents are taking corporate money?? This is fraudulent behavior on her part. The ONLY reason she is rejecting corporate money is because of Bernie. If Bernie wasn't in the race, she would have no incentive to reject corrupt corporate money. Her dishonest imitation of Bernie is a serious alarm bell. Like I said, she has an authenticity problem. We first saw it when we learned that she falsely claimed to be Native American to advance her career. Can you imagine if Bernie, a white man, pretended to be a minority? He would have been raked over the coals and ejected from the race. But she, a white woman, gets off scot-free--just as she does with her corporate-money duplicity. Remember, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican for most of her life, all the way up until the 90s. She was a Republican during the Reagan years for cryin' out loud! She has a serious authenticity problem.
6
It is what it is. Gotta pay to play.
2
Bernie is protected by his honesty. Biden is protected by having been so dishonest for so long that no one cares anymore. Trump is so blatant about his dishonesty that it seems that he is honest about his dishonesty. Warren is vulnerable. I believe, without having proof to back this up, that we are more critical, as a society, of perceived dishonesty in women than men.
4
So, to sum up, Sen. Warren did nothing wrong or even unusual in a prior campaign, and everything has been done publicly (hat tip Shane, its not a secret - open or otherwise - if there are FEC reporting requirements and the information is available on-line.)
More serious issue with this article, however, is the effort to take this weak story and turn it into something closing in on slander. Front loading quotes from political opponents and insinuations* before burying pertinent information deep into the article is unprofessional and presents a deeply false impression. Articles about campaign financing are needed and valuable, but this is not what this piece achieved. Instead it took us back to the very worst of this paper's coverage of the 2016 presidential election.
To be blunt, besides James Comey, the times' reporting on Hillary was probably most responsible for the election of Trump outside of his voters. Try to remember this before launching more of your innuendo first, facts later (if at all) reporting. Children in cages will thank you for it.
*Seriously, what did the $120 cheese steak have to with anything? Maybe if she ate one of them, but only because those sandwiches are an abomination.
66
Sure. Because putting on blinders, and ignoring the obvious moral and ethical deficiencies of your candidate,even though everybody else can see them, worked out so well for the Democrats in 2016.
8
I hate it when articles seem to give fuel to Republicans to attack good candidates. Yes, we should welcome information, but good god.
5
It takes big money to win elections. She is not responsible for Citizens United. Until, if and when, we ever have publicly funded campaigns, candidates will need big money.
3
Yes, and Joe Biden had a massive fundraiser with oil interests last Thursday night after last week's climate debate on CNN:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/04/joe-biden-goes-to-wall-street-for-fundraisers-after-climate-town-hall.html
Warren is a candidate who actually has taken on business and corporate interests by establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, when she was a private citizen.
She actually wants to fix our broken system.
20
“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Mr. Rendell said. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”
I'm not saying Ms. Warren's actions are good or bad.
I rather applaud her notion of using her surplus of funds from 2018 for her current run for president.
I see her actions as being smart and financially prudent rather than greedy because instead of running one fund raiser after another, constantly stock piling cash for "down the road," she put a halt to the "big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore."
I didn't see her as criticizing other politicians for doing what she herself had done, she just decided to go another route.
Also, Ms. Warren never claimed that all of the money she has in her war chest was 100% grass-root funded, and yet, in quotes, under one of the photos, that message is loud and clear based on "some donors [who] are chafing at her campaign’s claims of being" just that.
I am extremely disappointed at how this headline and subsequent by lines in this article are attempting to indicate a completely different scenario than what actually occurred.
This kind of misleading reporting is stuff i would expect to find in the Fox News world of "reporting".
12
Proving her political pedigree will not be as easy as a DNA test was for her genetic.
3
She does not elicit trust. She has a mechanistic plan for everything.
5
The conundrum for Democrats is that Raising money is necessary due to the Corrupt system promoted by Republicans making raising money essential to elections.
It seems pretty obvious that Democrats have been pushing to get money out of politics, while Republicans want more money involved.
Why? Because lots of money can fool people into voting against their own best interests as well as what is best for the country.
It’s called corruption. Republicans depend on it.
Rather than pointing out how Democrats are using fundraising, how about focusing on the reason that they need to;
Republican corruption.
Ask Elizabeth Warren if she is willing to give up the corrupting power of money in politics.
Then ask Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, and virtually all Republicans, and it’s obvious where the real stench is coming from.
This is a horribly disingenuous column meant to mislead readers.
Disgusting.
7
All right let me just wrap my head around this for a second.
She takes big money and stockpiles it. Then during this party nomination campaign she becomes "woke" and says taking big money is bad and she is not going to do it any longer. Yea! But, if she gets the party nomination, she is going to go back to taking big money.
So worst case she's a phony and a liar and best case she's just a complete hypocrite?
And I just love the people who say she's just being smart. Did you not get a preview of those words on your screen before you hit the send button or are you just as surprised as the rest of us that's what came out?
17
Like clockwork....Warren rises enough in the polls, so now it's time for the media to start trying to tear her down.
6
Congratulations to Mr. Goldmacher's well researched article on Ms. Warren's quiet campaign in 2018 to vacuum up the well-to-do donor dollars while planning her 2020 presidential run at the same time citizens focused on electing more Democrats to Congress. Thus, stockpiling millions in the bank while she considered a presidential run in 2020 then renouncing big donor money and criticizing her fellow candidates for accepting it now.
Wow! Now she gets to play the role of the hero at the same time Ms. Warren's supporters look at their shoe laces.
And if that doesn't get your attention, Warren's Communications Director's statement should, for it reads like the doublespeak of Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. But I forgot, Ms. Warren and Ms. Clinton speak quite often as reported by Politico's Jonathan Allen's September 7 article.
The fog of hypocrisy is so thick Mr, Biden should drive a semi-truck through it to dissipate it. I promise you sunshine appears on the other side.
5
Elizabeth Warren is a phony. She is not Native American and really does like big donors.
But being a phony is not all bad.
It means that she doesn’t actually believe or intend to implement all of the crazy liberal ideas that she is currently spouting. Once she gains the Democratic nomination (and she will), she will dump the far left like a chest of tea into Boston Harbor.
She will run in the general election on more pragmatic ideas. And if she wins, which she might, she will become just another Corporate Democrat.
7
@John
Yes. That occurred to me as well. along with many of the other "Progressives" who, if they win the nomination will move to the proverbial "middle."
My question is: Who is going to believe any of them? Why should I trust someone who says one thing out of one side of their mouth and then in the next breath says something diametrically opposed to the original?
Not sure I can just swallow this and hold my nose and vote.
3
So what? Her beliefs evolved. You are trying to make something out of nothing.
3
OK, so she got her start-up money from big donors to her 2018 Senate campaign. So what? Is there any reason to believe that she promissed to do favors for them then or now? Rich people may, but may not alwaays, try to buy influence. In hat way there just like us poor folk who give small donations. We – like myself - give because she'll work for all of us, rich or poor.
And I don't think she's to blame for the $120.000 cheesecake at Barclay's restaurant. She may not even ate any.
By the way, how much monry did Joe Biden collect within 24 hours of the moment he jumped into the Democratic race? I think it was about $26 million, and it's lots more than that now, and those big donors certainly expect to profit from their investments. Also, a big reason those big donors are bank-rolling Joe is to stop Liz Warren. Mr. Goldmacher knows this as well as the rest of us but doesn't ssay so. I think he should have.
3
I accept the fact that Warren has moved away from large donors and their fund raising gatherings. What troubles me is her sanctimonious nature when she calls out Biden for doing exactly what she once did. “But when Mr. Rendell co-hosted Mr. Biden’s first fund-raiser this spring, Ms. Warren’s campaign sent brickbats, deriding the affair as “a swanky private fund-raiser for wealthy donors,” the likes of which she now shuns.”
6
Really, should this surprise anyone? Running for office is like anything else in the US - money. It strikes me that our whole system of campaigning and elections in general, is about something akin to prostitution. I note that the Supremes have had a hand in this, they who face no elections and a corner on the truth when it comes to interpreting which at times seems more like using a ouija board. It is not a sham but does put candidates in an often preposterous predicament. We could fix it but do not.
This is a non-story that is being spun by the NY Times, because they spent money on investigative reporting that yielded nothing.
Going through the numbers in this article, Warren has $29.6 million for her presidential campaign with only $2.5 million accountable to "large donors." How is funding 91.6% of her campaign from small donors now a bad thing?
The article states that she has been very clear about when she was willing to take larger donations and found no evidence that she took large donations so far during the primary.
The latter half of the article, makes it clear that all of the negative quotes in the first part of the article are from people who really respect Ms. Warren for her position on reducing the influence of big money in politics.
Shame on the NY Times for trying to make-up a scandal when the paper's own reported facts do not support the story line.
6
It's expensive to fly around the country lecturing successful people about their failings and complaining about climate change.
6
There are Elvis impersonators, and there are Hillary impersonators.
Elizabeth Warren is a Hillary impersonator, so stacking up the big-bucks on the sly, adds a wonderful level of realism to her act.
And the best is yet to come - even when she loses, her supporters will say she really won!
5
Warren is a hypocrite to claim that her campaign is run by small donors when she knows otherwise. But then the whole debacle about her native american ancestry was along the same lines. This isn't enough to make anyone not vote for her, but it should be enough to make us all question politicians, all the time.
Congress could eliminate the impact of Citizens United whenever they choose. The Supreme Court never mandated or even approved of 'money in politics.' Those that have read the opinions know this well. The Supreme Court doesn't create laws, it just determines if they are implementing within the limits of the constitution.
So, Congress - where are you?
4
So NYT supports public funding of federal elections?
That's the only way to get Big Money out of politics.
If not, how can a candidate be faulted for legally raising funds?
(disclaimer, i am an elizabeth supporter who has contributed ~$390 to her campaign)
let’s take a step back, and review our assumptions for our basic model of how big money in politics functions.
1. candidate (i.e., elizabeth) is seeking office or reelection. candidate needs money to mount a campaign.
2. large money donors put up the prerequisite cash, in exchange for an implicit promise of future favors.
3. candidate wins (re)election.
4. candidate delivers on implicit promises to big money donors to establish herself as a reliable partner, and ensure the future backing of said big money donors.
5. repeat!
now, if you look at elizabeth warren’s actions in the past, say, 10 years, you’d realize that this model makes no sense when applied to her. cash raised for her 2018 senate campaign could not imply any influence over her subsequent 2020 presidential run, especially since it was far from clear that she was even planning on running for president back during the 2018 fundraising cycle.
based on the butthurt comments from the wealthy donors the times apparently decided to interview (as opposed to actual small-dollar warren supporters) it’s also pretty clear she has destroyed most of these politicoeconomic relationships, which would make no sense if she was planning on pivoting back to her former patrons.
if miss warren swindled a few million out of some gullible rich people and then stabbed them in the back two years later, that’s a magnificent plus in my book.
Sounds like she's good at managing money. But how many times has Warren filed for bankruptcy? That's the true measure of a president.
2
@JR
If the true measure of a President is how many times the person filed for bankruptcy, then you would have to score Warren as tied with Trump at zero personal bankruptcies, and ahead of Jefferson, Lincoln, Madison, Grant, Monroe & McKinley, each of whom filed for bankruptcy at least once. Maybe you should reconsider what the "true measure of a President" is.
3
So now you’ve done two hit jobs on Warren and breathlessly promoted Biden’s “it’s personal” ad, in between reporting on various polls. I’m still waiting for a detailed, objective analysis of any candidate’s actual policy proposals. Too much work, huh?
6
Facts: people won’t let you win elections without money. People won’t vote without a candidate marketing themselves
Also facts: people want you to say money is evil and that you won’t take any money
To reconcile, candidates should take money and denounce it at same time. The better you are at lying, the more people will believe you
Enter Trump.
FACT: Hillary spent twice as much money as Trump and still lost.
1
Point is about the best liar winning, money raising if equal. Not saying winning probability directly proportional to money raised.
Next, most money is spent on media. Trump got more media than anyone else. His currency was shock tactics, the others spent dollar bills. Doesn’t make anyone a better president, just experienced media manipulation vs. bought media manipulation.
End of day, world won’t end if trump wins again. He’ll just set some things back - pollution, healthcare et al. He’ll make it cool to be racist. Someone else will come along and change courses again.
The system requires money for the campaign. She cannot win without raising money (that's why money raised is such an important metric - a unique aspect of US politics). It's exactly the same as when corporate CEOs call for regulation, but pollute or 'underpay' employees. To compete, you have to play within the rules you are given. To create a better world sensible leaders know you need to create better rules - otherwise those that are willing to hit the moral bottom can always win.
Warren advocates for better rules, while operating within the rules that currently exist. That's not hypocrisy, it's practicality.
1
Just like Clinton, Warren is owning to the 1%. Very quickly, if she actually gets elected, she will kowtow to the 1% and ignore the 99%. The idea that she is awash in money, from lobbyists and the 1%, is a good indicator she will say, and do anything, to get elected. No seismic change here, just another politician playing to the masses.
She is now fro Medicare fro All, and the so called Green New Deal, but she already stated, that if elected, it will take 10 years or more to implement Medicare for All. and the Green New Deal. She would have come and gone by then.And, that si 10 years, if Congress actually passes it quickly; doubtful.
Yes, Ms. Warren is the darling of the#MeToo movement, Prepare fro disappointment, if she is elected as president. Remember how the ACA came about (bait and switch)? Expect the same thing with Warren.
At least Biden and Sanders are openly honest on where they stand, and what their plans are. Warren, is not. I hope she enjoys here millions from the 1% and corporate America.
5
The problem is less that Warren sought big money donations in the past than that she has announced her intentions to do so again if and when she wins the nomination.
We need to be honest. Warren pledged not to chase big money donors during the primaries because not doing so would have exposed her to criticism from Sanders who has consistently relied on small donors for his whole career. Her more recently announced intention to abandon that pledge in the general election after Bernie has been sidelined tells us that the pledge was always for show.
Warren is an earnest liberal. Her appeal to the more progressive elements of the largely white professional managerial strata is unsurprising. Wall Street would probably prefer Biden or Harris to her. But we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking either that she poses a serious threat to the grip of the corporations and billionaires on American politics or that she is going to energize the much more alienated and multi-racial poor and working class voters who make up Sanders's base.
This article is an important reminder of where Warren actually came from and thus of where she is actually likely headed.
7
There is too much money in our politics and there should, at a minimum, be legislation stating affirmatively that money is not speech. That said, I don't see anything wrong with Sen. Warren's strategy. Given the current situation, I generally don't see anything wrong with taking the maximum contributions allowed by law if the large contributions don't influence government policy in favor of the big donors. That is the key. Sen. Warren has a track record of trying to rein in the greedy corporate plutocrats, and of not favoring the wealthy in her time in government.
1
Pundits never change. It’s all about finding anything short of perfection and turning into a theme. Negative matters. And sells too.
1
Ms. Warren is very smart and she cares about Americans. This article goes to show that she can beat the rich and the so called powerful at their own game.
We need someone who is going to hit the ground running, their is so much to do to repair the country. I want us to win the senate back, get rid of Moscow Mitch and move forward. Rich American's better realize that there is a new day arriving and they need to work with us all. Ms. Warren talks their language and understands the emotional pain of Americans.
1
Incredibly well played and yet incredibly disappointing to learn this in print versus a preemptive announcement. Deception is deception no matter how you spin it.
2
Anyone who thinks that Elizabeth Warren can be bought does not know her.
If you do not know her, get to know her. Read her book. Listen to her speak and watch her interact with people. It's a treat to see a decent human being with smarts and integrity who has leadership ability.
Remember who Obama tapped to create the Consumer Protection Agency.
3
Unless the Democrats hold the House and retake the Senate, Warren or Sanders as President equals gridlock and inaction. We need a President and Congress that will compromise and get something done on infrastructure, climate change, immigration, health care, and etc, etc, etc. We've had enough of nothing since 1992. Congress needs to throw a massive cocktail party for itself and stop the toxic name calling! Which Democrat candidate can lead that the best? My picks are Biden, Pete, and Yang.
2
@Gary Adams
No president can pass any systemic changes alone. The house majority is majority corporate Dems (“moderates” likely because of who funded their elections).
Remember Rs AND Ds are feeding from the same special interest $ trough.
Sanders is the only candidate who admits it will take millions of us ‘checked out’ citizens pushing and demanding change- from the outside of DC.
“Not me, Us”
“I have a plan for that” sounds like Trumps’ “only I can fix the system “
1
Corporate and big money in politics got us here.
You can't have it both ways.
3
Elizabeth Warren used her renowned intelligence to raise money for her run for the presidency. Then she changed her mind about taking money from big donors. And she said that if she became the Presidential nominee she would go back to taking money from big donors.
It was probably a mistake to say she would only take money from small donors for the primary election, but I do not consider it to be such a big deal. It doesn't take away my desire for her policies to take effect if she wins. I love her work in the past -- when she was taking money from big donors, and I suspect if she becomes President she will continue to make policies that really help everyone, not just the donor class.
In my view, this article is a hit piece instigated by Ms. Warren's opponents and there will be many more. Candidates always try to point out other candidates weaknesses and misdeeds. I wish the candidates would not attack each other in the primary because the flaws they point out in the primary will be used against them in the general election.
I was before and still am a Warren supporter. I, a small donor, have been donating to her campaigns since her first run for Senator and I have no regrets about it. She continues to work for the betterment of the people, not just the wealthy.
So I say ignore this hit peace and prepare yourselves for more of the same until the end of the Presidential election.
6
I refuse to think anything negative about Elizabeth Warren. I've listened over the past several years to enough of what she's said that I've decided she knows what's right and worth fighting for. I fully understand she's made mistakes, some of them deliberate, and I don't care about that. She's an EXTREMELY smart and sensible person. As was Obama. She have beliefs or opinions I may not believe myself but she's proven themselves enough to me that, though I may not agree with them, I trust her knowledge and experience - and her interest in working toward a common good to go along with wants to do. I hope she continues to run for the office of President, and I very much hope she wins. I will vote for her.
2
Apologies. I meant to write, "...she may have beliefs or opinions I may not believe myself but she's proven herself enough to me that, though I may not agree with her, I trust her knowledge and experience...". When I first wrote the sentence, I included Obama. Then I removed remove him from it to focus on Warren. In my fervor, I didn't edit myself properly.
Every politician is a hypocrite. Every single one. No exceptions. The only thing that matters is whether the hypocrite you support ends up implementing policies that actually help you, instead of themselves and their rich buddies.
4
"Shane Goldmacher is a national political reporter and was previously the chief political correspondent for the Metro Desk. Before joining The Times, he worked at Politico, where he covered national Republican politics and the 2016 presidential campaign."
Shane Goldmacher is one of those people in powerful media positions who in 2016 legitimized Trump through obsessive coverage and by not calling out what Trump truly represented and is therefore culpable for his election. Funny to see him focusing on such minutae about Warren now.
I see Warren as someone who has always said pretty much the same things since I first heard her 15+ years ago as a guest on late night public radio financial advice programs. I thought she was great then and I think so now. I'm with her.
4
I used to like Warren. Her book, the two income trap, seemed to be genuine analysis of our country and its social problems.She has since moved to the left by a big step. I'm not convinced that her beliefs were really changed. Somehow I feel she changed simply to make headlines and attract votes. I don't know whether that's true. If left with a choice of Warren and Sanders I'll still vote for Warren. However I'm hoping for someone else. Don't know who yet.
2
Every politician who has been a politician for more than two years has taken money from big donors. This practice has only in this election come into the spotlight.
Any politician who changes their policies for the better is to be commended, not undermined for what they did formerly.
5
The NYT runs nonstops columns bashing all republicans, often with the most inane criticism, but suddenly it's an affront to point out Warren's hypocrisy? Cry me a river.
9
Toward the end of the piece we are informed:
“Ms. Warren has said her ban on fund-raisers only applies to the primary. Should she win the nomination, she would return to the events to compete with Republicans.”
In other words, her small donation campaign is wedged between seeking Big Money. (She has made her willingness to take Big Money in the general election perfectly clear on more than one occasion.)
Let’s not kid ourselves. If you take their money, you owe them. Don’t expect huge changes from Warren.
10
The point is that she is business as usual, another Hillary; so everyone, especially her enthusiastic fans here, should ask a simple question: is Warren going to beat Trump?
3
I would fully support Big Donor Money under one condition: It Must Be Anonymous. This way, once elected, the candidate would be beholden to no one or no big enterprise.
But I can be a dreamer sometimes...
Hypocrite claims are nonsense.
Here's the first deal...you can't get anywhere in politics in America without money. That's no one's fault but every American, if you want to get real. But it changes only with someone who gets elected, which takes money.
So you can only change it by receiving donations, then turning your back on them only when you have enough. Sanders did it, Warren did it, every 'anti-establishment' candidate for President did it.
The important part is do you finally turn your back on big money when you can. When you don't have to, anymore. Even if it is a risk.
The bickering about this is poor form. Sure, it is worth discussing, but this is a no go here. If you don't like her policies, sure, don't vote for Warren. But to pretend this is some sort of dishonesty on par with what's in the White House right now, or even close, or even a reason for Warren not to be a candidate, is just to embrace mud slinging.
That's a hypocrisy right there for you, if you want to do that.
4
@D Collazo
Your analysis is quite incomplete.
For one thing, every politician wants to be re-elected. So by default you can't "turn your back" on your donors once you're elected.
Second of all, admitting that you duped your rich donors has many unintended consequences. They finance your opponents, meaning you lose your seat. You lose credibility with ALL your donors, because after all if you turned your back on some people why wouldn't you turn your back on others as well?
This isn't dishonesty on par with Trump. But it is dishonesty on part with Obama who stacked up his cabinet and advisers with his banker friends and law school friends. And as demonstrated in his post-presidential life, he's not at all averse collecting $400K speaking fees from those groups, being employed by them or vacationing with them at their lavish villas.
Giving a person power shows you who they are. And while Elizabeth Warren is smart, capable and not necessarily as corrupt as some people, her history shows that she certainly is not above exploiting people (including her own family with predatory loans) to get a leg up for herself in her career.
1
@Viv Honestly, I find it hard to take your criticism seriously if you are comparing Warren with Obama and calling that 'dishonest'. I'd claim this is the kind of speculative, inaccurate hate framing approach that was in part to blame for the Democrats losing the last election and us having Trump.
Call it what you want but I don't find any accuracy in the way you are putting this argument. I'd say it's detrimental as well, and isn't going to produce a candidate worth voting for if this is the way it is going to go.
Again, if you don't support Warren, fine. But she's not being dishonest, sorry.
@D Collazo
Democrats lost elections and thousands of seats because they don't have the backbone to stand by any of the principles they campaigned on. Even before the campaign is over, there is talk of working with the other side and the need to compromise.
If voters wanted what the Republicans were offering, they would vote for them. There's no need to vote for a Democrat if they're just going to enact Republican policies in the name of "compromise". That's what the Clinton presidency should have taught you.
There is nothing dishonest or speculative about the comparison of Obama and Warren. They have almost identical campaign styles and governing styles.
1
Oh, Elizabeth, how the worm has turned.
4
At this point in America, I don't care how Warren raised money! Please spare the Americqan people about ethics and rules when our current POTUS has broken everyone. Dems 2020!
5
I hope that if Warren does decide to take large contributions in the general election, she details every last cent, and who gave it to her, so her policies can be held to account. No dark money.
1
My takeaway from this piece is twofold. One, Senator Warren is a dextrous chess player who managed to put in two moves before her rivals even got to the board. Two, for standing on principle once she locked in the advantage she needed to win, she needs my small-donor contributions from now. I think the Senator is wise to show such pragmatism without apology. She takes the system as it is, works it to her advantage, and lays the groundwork for more subtle and important reform. It all indicates she would make a formidably effective head of state.
16
Frankly I am impressed by Warren’s strategy here. It allows small donors to feel important without forcing us to shoulder the whole responsibility for financing the campaign. I like this much better than Clinton’s approach, which was to invite me to every $500 a head fundraiser, though the campaign had to know there was no way I had that kind of money to donate (based on how much I did donate to party and local Dems) and left me feeling too poor to participate (though I did volunteer and vote for her).
Honestly, good for her. Democrats need to learn how to play by the rules if they want to actually win, because it’s only by winning that we can change those rules.
4
I am concerned about her willingness to take big money after securing the nomination. Seems like an about-face on a supposedly principled stand against the corruption inherent in the current campaign financing system. The nomination isn’t for sale but the Presidency is?
4
$10 million is pretty small change for a national political campaign, even just the primaries. Don't act as if this will be all she needs.
Get back to us when you find she's underwritten by a Russian oligarch or two.
6
So, Warren sees how connected, insular power brokers like Ed Rendell operate, distances herself from that process, AND ran a fiscally responsible campaign while positioning herself to be a front runner without being beholden to big money gate keepers....
Explain to me how this makes her look bad?
Looks like she saw the game for what it has been and decided it needs a change.
7
Yes, this is concerning, but Warren created the consumer financial protection bureau in 2007. It was not easy.
So that reflects her thinking as well as is a core part of her resume's attraction. We have no choice but to bet on it.
Also remember we still have Bernie and Yang in the race as well.
1
Everyone else has made all the good points. I just can't wait to call her President Warren.
8
There's no need to reflexively defend Warren, or any other politician, as if she is incapable of flaws, poor judgement, or compromise. Doing so leads to cornering ourselves unnecessarily. Let's just accept that politicians are humans, not saviors, and they operate in a space where compromise is necessary and often a strength. The more we accept these realities, the more honest our debates can be. I have enormous respect for Warren, and it would be nice if she had not so recently collected large sums from rich and corporate donors. But she did, maybe it was defensible and maybe not, but that's that. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Rather than argue for any politician's purity, let's argue for their relative strengths.
3
Not surprised at all. Just more affirmation that my suspicions about Old Yeller aren't unfounded. This decision is getting easier.
2
I am extremely disappointed with Ms. Warren's failure to reveal her "stockpiling money from fund-raisers in previous campaigns" before The Times "outed" her.
Her ability to accumulate "$10.4 million from her 2018 Senate race to underwrite her 2020 bid" is impressive, but her secrecy about having done so is a discouraging blot on her record.
Why is it so difficult for candidates for public office -- particularly for the highest in the land -- to be honest with the people they hope will elect them?
4
With Warren, it's the old do as I say, not as I do. Strictly standard procedure as usual for all politicians.
3
The "old school Democrats" such as Rendell, the Clinton's and Biden are totally beholden to money politics. They can't see the forest for the trees, thinking that what was lost decades ago, and sealed by Citizens United is unchangeable.
God bless Warren and Sanders for working to tip over the tables of those money changers, who have no business controlling our public affairs.
1
Do as I say, not as I do. I have mine, but I don't want you to have yours. There are many ways of saying the same thing but none of them smell very good.
3
We have to allow our candidates to take realistic moral positions. Otherwise we’ll end up with more Trump-type presidents. I could max out my political contributions if I wanted to without ending up in the poor house. Does that make me one of these evil people who is “rich” to you? I should hope not; you don’t even know me.
The relevant issue here is income inequality, as distinct from the professional wrestling-type hype of the wealthy vs the poor. The wealthy vs poor hype, a sort of French Revolution redux, is helpful to the hegemonic powers who want to maintain income inequality because its absurd (torches and pitchforks and all that). Just imagine the wanton destruction of the poor wiping away the rich? Seriously, that reality would be absurd. Additionally, a lot of voters prefer to identify as rich, or on the way to being, even if they’re actually just not poor, so they don’t want to support their own othering. Again, absurd to imagine otherwise.
Income inequality, on the other hand, has to do with specific structural problems in our society that disadvantages people. Both the wealthy and poor can help resolve these problems. Just because someone has money doesn’t mean they’re blind to their privilege and having money may mean they have more resources to help...by giving to Elizabeth Warren, for example.
2
Politicians that take a thousand dollars a plate for a Swanson TV dinner are not connected with the people in any way. There’s always a hook that comes with that money—always!
1
In fact, Trump is beating Obama at this point in his re-election campaign and is now beating the top democrats in small donations. He has set a GOP record, in fact.
2
The problem is not her accepting donations but her grandstanding against it. Clearly she knows her audience and that they will do a 180 when push comes to shove.
6
Warren’s appropriation of Native American ancestry for personal and ultimately financial gain and her decision to seek money from the wealthy before proclaiming the wealthy to be the enemy means one thing—she is not to be trusted.
2
Take Big Money without taking their phone calls. Cash their checks and ignore what they say. Principled people with backbones, like Warren, can do this.
1
I want the best candidate to be armed to the teeth with the wherewithal to win our battle to save democracy in the US. That's Elizabeth Warren. She's used her start up funds strategically, she's spending her time meeting real people every day, and when she wins the nomination I want her to use every legal means at her disposal to fuel her path to the White House.
4
Warren is now running against the same “donor class” she raised money from before her presidential run? Seriously? Gov Rendell calls her a hypocrite. The media will now flay her for stashing away money from “the donor class” to run for president. Does this mean the “donor class” is afraid that they will not get what they paid for? Just asking. When I donated my ten bucks for her Senate campaign I was hoping she would eventually run for President. I got my ten bucks worth. I don’t know what the “donor class” was expecting from Sen Warren but I’m glad they’re not getting it.
2
If this is this the hill you want Elizabeth to die on, first think carefully about the alternatives and the stakes. Think about her congressional record.
I'm still all in. I want to live in Elizabeth Warren's world.
3
@Hal Kuhns
Who wouldn't want to live in her world? Rich people pay for all your stuff; you get to criticize predatory lenders while doing exactly what they do with your personal investments; and you get to make high-minded moral pronouncements criticizing other candidates for taking money from big donors after you've already filled your coffers doing the same thing!
2
Another something about nothing to pick apart a strong woman who has the guts to run for the White House. Rich people being offended and who cares. Read any of Elizabeth Warren's books and you'll find an intelligent, resourceful woman who knows where she came from, who she is and how to get things done. Her message has been on-point and steady from the beginning of her Presidential Campaign. Go Warren!
2
I like her, but I think she has demonstrated that she does not really know where she came from in more ways than one.
1
Does the New York Times live in fear of Donald Trump? Are they trying to keep him in office?
I don't get it, and don't like it. Does the New York times benefit financially if Trump stays in power? The corporate tax cut gifts? The great Bob Dylan wrote that "money doesn't talk, it swears". How true.
3
@Paul Shindler. Are you suggesting they shouldn’t report anything on Democrats? Like when Sanders suggested women in poor countries have abortions to help fight climate change? Like when Sander proposed a meat tax? Or when a Mayor Pete misquoted the Bible to justify abortions?
2
Warren is on record saying that she will once again court big money donors if she wins the nomination.
So here we have here courting big money before announcing her candidacy, then eschewing big money during the Dem primary, and then courting big money again in the general if she wins the nomination.
So the question is why denounce big money during the primary and only during the primary? The reason is the SAME as why she took big money before and why she will take it again. It helps her campaign. That's all. It has nothing to do with values, beliefs, corruption or anti-corruption. During the primary she has to court the left leaning base. But to be able to do so she needed a cushion of cash. During the general she once again has to court big money to compete and she will do so again.
She is open about her hypocrisy and maybe that makes her less hypocritical? Or maybe it makes her more cynical? Up to you to decide.
8
Money in politics is the root of all evils.
May be we need an initiative for public funding of all Federal Campaigns from tax set asides, and ban all donations more than $250!
At least she didn't raise $12 million for her personal checking account by reeling off a speech a week for a year, at $225K per speech, while "resting up' for a Presidential run.
So what is the Times getting at here? The candidate with the best fund raising history is Bernie?
5
@RM
What great slogan that would make:
Warren 2020
Less Corrupt Than Hillary
6
I suppose the intent of this report is to somehow or other sully Elizabeth Warren, but while a few may be put off by Ms. Warrens previous efforts at fund raising, I'm confident reasonable Americans are positively delighted she had a significant bankroll coming into the race, to hopefully help her wrest control of our government and its branches from the hands of the Trump / Republican Party self-serving gang of thieves and villains, and their like-minded corporate masters and wealthiest donors.
My first choice is Bernie Sanders as our 46th President, but if Elizabeth Warren gets the nomination I will be equally overjoyed.
And, from everything I see occurring, with just one year before we send Trump into oblivion, I'm confident either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will be our 46th President, with either as the Vice President.
The American people are waking up and watching as never before, and I predict that November 2020 will see the destruction of the Republican Party and the imbecilic Trump.
5
@Mel Farrell. We’re not delighted she’s a hypocrite.
2
It's hard to tell if those with the sharpened knives out, fully ready to slash and tear away, are trump trolls, rnc smearers, purist progressives who insist upon never learning a lesson in practical politics, nihilist cynics who enjoy the glib takedown whenever the easy opportunity is there for the taking, or some other class of mindset for whom the lesson of 2016's catastrophe has not yet been learned.
There are the same echoes of heightened moral outrage and waves of false equivalencies, all based upon incomplete evidence and/or made with very partial argumentation, that refused to see what the alternative to clinton was going to be and do.
So now that you have seen what that logic, energized entirely by emotion and holier than thou theatrics led to, have you still not learned any lesson at all?
If we don't collectively grow up and agree to live in the
world as it is, we are going to remain imprisoned in trump's fantasy land, where only idiocy, vileness, or the crudest of religious fundamentalism triumphs. Is that really the goal of those whose comments are essentially repeats of what could easily be read about clinton, in tone or "substance", in 2016 (and long before)??
4
So the point of this piece is what...Elizabeth Warren is a hypocrite? Because she behaved like virtually every other U.S. senator running for re-election?
And when running for president, she rightly decided that she wasn't going to run her campaign in that fashion. In other words, she chose not to behave like virtually every other major candidate for president in either party (Bernie Sanders, of course, excepted). She wasn't going to devote her time and effort kow-towing to the rich and powerful--with their frequent expectations of something in return for their investment.
It's also true that Senator Warren represented some individuals and groups as a lawyer--before she was a public servant--whose interests are contrary to what she has stood for in her public life.
It's also true that she used to see herself as a Republican.
But she's done nothing illegal or unethical. She's doing what we would--or should--hope every other candidate for president or Congress should do: stop spending time courting big money contributors.
Instead of implicitly condemning Ms. Warren because she didn't run her earlier campaigns like she is running her national campaign, how about this:
Insist that all candidate for president steer completely clear of big money events and donors while running for the highest office in the land.
Insist that they run campaigns like Warren and Sanders
1
@pczisny
How quickly progressives do a 180 degree turnaround when it's their candidate. Explains why Hillary, who set up a "War Room" to go after her husband's sexual assault victims, won the popular vote.
Morals that only matter when they can be used to point out the failings of political opponents are not real morals.
1
So she should give away the money from her senate race?
Come on, a cheap slot.
3
All I ask is that the Bernie bros not lose another election for us. Thank you.
3
Thanks, NYTimes, for repeatedly printing articles in favor of Biden and denigrating or dismissing Warren. I thought the reputable press was supposed to be equitable. Guess not.
5
good for her
2
It seems that unless the female candidate is St. Mary, she’s out of luck. Definitely the democratic party will seem hypocritical if the candidate is a white male, and even if it’s Bernie, Trump will take it.
2
I can hardly tell the difference between Warren and HRC any more. Sad!
5
New York Times, we want a newspaper for thinking people and people and people who can be educated. I doubt you will ever discuss issues or explicate them. Instead, you referred to Bernie's presentation of issues as his "stump speech." In shying away from the issues like this, and backing corporatist candidates like Clinton and Biden without defending their policies accept to say they are more popular, the Times has become a populist sensationalist newspaper.
Warren has changed a lot, becoming more progressive. Good for her.
3
Why does the Times feel it’s their duty to look for flaws in each Democratic candidate?
The worst flaws in the worst of the original 23 candidates—-whoever that would be—- aren’t even in the ballpark with that horrible man in the White House.
The Republicans will appreciate being able to lift pieces out of these articles and shout: “NYT exposes candidate X”
C’mon NYT, stop trying to win the Pulitzer Fairness Prize and recognize what a mess this country will be in if Trump is re-elected.
8
Biden says he will not criticize other Democrats. He tells his voters not to think about his past record from Clarence Thomas to the Hyde Amendment. Then he has his hack spokesperson Randell call Warren a hypocrite. And I suspect the Biden campaign provided info for this story.
Joe, you know how to stay above the fray.
And one more note to all Democratic politicians. If you have ever accepted donations from large donors in the past, don’t bother changing your ways. The NYTimes will come after you either way, so you might as well let those fossil fuel millionaires like Goldman host your fundraisers.
4
Can't hardly believe that this article came from the NYT. So $2,800 is considered big money donations? Penny's compared to donations by corporations. Now I know not to read the NYT or renew my subscription.
4
I don't have a problem with candidates taking large donations as long as they don't see a direct conflict - until there's a law to even the playing field. I do think election reform should be a priority for the next administration though. But Warren shouldn't be given credit for higher ethical standards if it's not true. I was recently reading a commentary in a local newspaper saying Warren should add Massachusetts to her apology tour for lying to Massachusetts voters in 2018, saying she wouldn't run for president, and then setting up an exploratory committee right after she was reelected to the Senate.
On a side note, I found an old email from March 2018, signed by Kamala Harris, asking for donations on behalf of Warren's Senate reelection campaign. I did donate. Ironic that my money is being used against Harris now.
1
If Warren is the candidate I will vote for her. But from a distance, still not paying all that much attention to this campaign other than perusing the daily NY Times headline stories, I get a slight feeling of unease about her, not unlike how I felt about Hillary Clinton. I think it's that she talks a good game and has a fairly good record, she's very smart and tough, but I just don't like her very much. I don't like her over-earnest imploring style, the scolding tone in her voice, the insistence that she is going to fight for us all every day. And then you find out that she is just as cooly calculative as every other politician, which of course she must be. But still, it all has the very familiar Hillary-esque ring to it.
The fact is if I admit it, I'd rather have Steve Bullock, somebody who owns being a politician, and who does pretty good. He's not great, but why do we think politicians can be great anyway?
5
@paulyyams Nicely said, thank you. I think Warren risks a near perfect repeat of 2016. I know the arguments - she's a real progressive [unlike Clinton] and she isn't burdened by Clinton's long history of dishonesty and corruption. But her style, as you point out, is nearly identical: a schoolmarm scold who knows better than we do how we ought to live our lives and spend our money.
5
“But you can’t begrudge something that someone has done at an earlier point if they decide to move in a direction that I personally think is very positive.”
The article could have started and ended with Andrew Yang's observation. Former Gov. Ed Rendell's post-government career in Democratic politics is best described as full-time influence peddler. Citing and picturing him here is a joke. The only campaign with serious and credible grounds to object is Sanders'. And you don't read them quoted here, except paraphrased as saying that Sanders would also refuse big donor money if the nominee. And likely not for want of the reporter trying to get more out of them. Rendell's logic is that, once one has taken big donor money, one must always take big donor money and can never criticize those who continue to take big donor money. How convenient for deep-pocket donors and their candidates. Not so convenient for American voters who would like to see all candidates change the tune to which they dance.
4
seems to me the old guard are circling around Joe Biden, no surprise there. Good for her, using the funds she had for starting her campaign, she stands head and shoulders above Biden who is raising all his money from mega donors and corporations.
4
I like Warren. She is one of my favorites whether or not she accepts only small donations. And that is how it should be. I don't like it that some candidates, especially Sanders though also Warren, are referring to other candidates as "corporate, bought-and-paid-for, Wall Street, elite Democrats." That claim is a reckless, inflammatory lie. In the long run it will feed the cynicism that helps only Trump, as it did in 2016. Warren's big-check donations are one of the reasons she is doing so well right now. They gave her a massive head start. I'm not against small donor donations. However, compared to the number of eligible voters, the number of small donors for any of these candidates, even for Sanders and Warren who are trumpeting that strategy the loudest, is still pathetically small. For example, the Sanders donors (500,000) are roughly two thousandths of the total eligible voters (231,000,000).
51
This reporting seems short on facts. Warren went to a fund raiser in 2018 hosted by John M. Connors. She attended fund raisers in a number of cities where there are wealthy people (who presumably hosted the fund raisers since less wealthy people rarely have the funds to host these). She collected funds from "at least one California megadonor." This is hardly shocking news - it's hardly news at all - and the fact that she subsequently decided to limit donations from the super-rich doesn't make her a hypocrite. To make that case, or a case that she's particularly indebted to big donors, the report needs to provide a lot more specific information about how much money she's getting from whom.
3
Just as she "spoke with forked tongue" about her being a Native American, now she's against big money after she was once for it.
OK, so that's not illegal. Fine. But, unfortunately for Ms. Warren, given perception being treated as the new reality, this doesn't help her cause one iota; especially if she wins the nomination, only to face Trump in debates. Sure; he'll continue to lie at her expense. But, his base couldn't care less. This scenario could possibly result in four more years of Trump.
And, the operative word here, is "possibly."
4
A candidate who will fight against climate change and gun violence, who is brave enough to implement a wise strategic change & pragmatic enough not to waste her resources in the toughest political fight of her career? Sign me up. I’m going to donate to the Warren campaign right now- thanks for the reminder NYT.
5
Warren is showing good fiscal sense, taking intelligent care of her campaign money, sharing raising money with others. If she takes care of the national money as well when President, we will all be happy.
6
She used the only platform available to achieve power, knowing that was the only way she could eventually change the platform.
Now she vows to make that change.
No one gave money to Elizabeth Warren to deregulate Wall Street, attack Iran or pollute our drinking water. Those who gave her money knew exactly who she was, and so do I.
Elizabeth Warren is the Eleanor Roosevelt of our time.
141
@A. Simon . Eleanor Roosevelt was never President.
6
@Ernest Montague OMG I don't think that was the point. Let's talk 'inspiration', please.
6
@Ernest Montague
Not officially, but unofficially she might as well have been VP, so great was her influence and profile domestically, as FLOTUS. She defined the modern presidential spouse that is still the model today.
7
What does it mean to take on corporate money? How does it influence a candidate? Why is Warren dead set on making us believe she is something she's not? She forgoed fundraisers in the primary because she already had surplus Senate money that was raised mainly with big corporate donors. This grassroots marketing strategy is astroturfed and she needs to explain why she's lying to us.
46
@mkzoe 3/4 came from small donors, only 1/4 came from bigger donors (not mega corporations). Anyway she is not accepting like Bernie any big donors. Have a nice day!
4
@as257
Please note that the article says she is not accepting big donors (now that she has her nest egg from them) only through the primaries. After that, all bets are off, and probably on the big donors again. Gives one whiplash.
7
@mkzoe She "forgoed" nothing in the primary, there has been no primary vote yet. She is forgoing corporate dollars and parties now; it's a calculated risk, and having forgone big money this year, I hope Warren's campaign will not suffer next year for the opportunities she forwent this year.
2
The solution is simple. Senator Warren should return the “tainted” money and stick to her narrative. This is not simply a “foolish consistency,” since Warren has proclaimed that the source of campaign contributions matter. Or, we can laud her calculated approach and accept she is no different than the rest of our politicians, and let her abandon her “holier-than-thou” positioning.
5
@LTJ
Au contraire. Watch progressives who eschew big donors to suddenly find them a "necessary evil."
2
This information is known by everyone who is knows Warren and so from a perspective of knowing Warren’s platform the article reads like an outsider criticizing a stranger, more specifically as if the writer (who seems bias against Warren) is upset that a woman they don’t know or aren’t involved with had past relationships before they were exclusive with a certain person and are now venting about it with her ex’s. The main point is invalid because Warren is upfront about her past campaigning, but said she turned a new leaf at a certain date- not that all her campaigning ever was big money free. The big money characters talking about Warren not taking their money sound like they are the past relationships bitter that they lost and that their way of controlling politics may soon come to an end. No one has attempted to do what Warren is doing, she decided to break the mold. You cannot shame Warren for actually doing something no one else has done before. It’s funny how shaming usually is focused against women by men, but it’s funny that men usually end up copying women and claiming the idea as their own. Warren will be victorious and we all should be proud that any person has the guts to do what she is doing.
4
This candidate will not be nominated except under compromised circumstances, and otherwise is not electable for a number of constructive (versus ideological) reasons. In terms of emotional, cognitive and larger psychological fitness (Warren's deficit), the only candidate in conformity, but also the only viable (DNC) candidate deliberately shunned by media and DNC special interests (which often reject competence out of fear of the loss or weakening of its non-elected advisory class) is Gabbard. Therefore Trump will win again as the DNC is disconnected from the actual ruling and decisive voter class: moderates, Independents and swing. Gabbard asserts many rather left of center platforms, but her poise, leadership experience and cognitive capacity for learning, are unusual outlier qualities especially among the current candidate pool.
4
"Money is the mother's milk of politics" as the expression goes, and when have we ever elected a president who was not backed by big money,and upon leaving the office if elected was not wealthier than he or she was when they entered the political arena.Clinton and Obama are prime examples who used the system to become wealthy, so why are Warren's financial shenanigans a surprise to anyone?What is surprising is that anyone is surprised at Warren's false populism!Mario Cuomo, the " populist" who tried our patience with his on again off again decision to run for president, gave a great speech at the 1984 Dem. convention about the two Americas, haves and have nots, but once retired bought himself an expensive townhouse on Sutton Place and sought to attract well to do corporate clients.Article is well written and informative, but Warren's hypocrisy should astonish no one.
3
Better late than never, but let's highlight the fact that Bernie took the high ground many years ago. Let's also remember that Liz was reluctant to jump into the fray in 2016, and it was Bernie that had to blaze the trail that many of the Dem frontrunners now follow. Also, Bernie showed in last week's town halls that he is the intellectual heavyweight on the left. I had been making monthly low-dollar contributions to both Liz's and Bernie's campaign, but now I realize that I need to put it all in one basket: Bernie's. I encourage others to do the same. He is the best, and he deserves it for his many years of walking the tough road.
5
How easily people are able to stop supporting a woman. Bernie’s negatives go by the wayside. We must all remember that white nationalism is about white Men staying in control.
1
“Intellectual Heavyweight,” my foot! Sanders doesn’t seem to show any thinking ability.
Last week, he was asked a question about Kashmir Situation in a Houston rally for Muslim audience.
He doesn’t seem to know history of Kashmir, and probably doesn’t know where Kashmir is on the Map. His answer, according to media reports, represented views of his local Muslim organizer. He blurted out what his audience wanted to hear, without any nuance. In fact, if those were his actual views and he becomes President, you can say goodbye to Strategic relationship with India, as has been the US policy since Bush era.
If USA wants to revamp its foreign policy in accordance with today’s needs, it is about time that Cold War era politicians like Sanders and Biden go into oblivion. If either one of these is the Democratic nominee, I would rather vote for ignorant Trump, than these relics of past!
@Data, Data & More Data rather vote for trump? Are you mad? Rather than trump, I'd rather vote for Woodrow Wilson, and he's not only full of serious faults, he's not even alive.
1
Unlike Bernie, she is a Democrat which means she plays by the rules as a senator by raising money to support the party. Now, for her presidential bid, she's not bound by those rules. If her large-donor fundraising was 1/4 of $25 million raised and she transferred $10 million to her presidential run, she can rightfully claim to be 100% funded by small donors.
8
Let's see...using the tools she has at her disposal to get off the ground, course correcting as necessary, and calling out her future plans for funding should she get the nomination.
Gosh it sounds like she's motivated, smart and candid about her approach.
Would it have been better for her to start from scratch and not use the tools she had available, handicap herself?
It's challenging enough for a woman to try to take a seat at the table and be a serious contender.
This just seems like another route for those that want to bring her down to do so. If she was a man and had done this exact thing I don't think people would bat an eye. But since she's a woman, it's a no win situation and she will be hounded by it for the rest of her campaign.
We deserve transparency and I appreciate this piece. What I fear is that as the crowd of candidates shrinks if she is the only woman at the top you can be sure that a double standard will emerge and it won't be in favor of Warren.
She's got my vote and I'm glad she had the foresight to set herself up for the bid, if not could she have even made it to the table?
People starting off in minority positions, women, POC, LGBTQ, etc. are always trying to catch up, let's not fault her for doing the same.
189
yes, she should start from scratch. are you serious?
@Jaime Woman are NOT a minority - we are over 50% of the population. Please stop promoting this rhetoric. It's insulting & demeaning to all women.
2
@Jaime - Thank you for your statement. Well said!
2
The issue should be, does she court and take money from corporate interests? Taking $1000 from citizens who can afford that is not hypocrisy and it reflects the fact that there are some wealthier Americans who can afford such a donation and who are sick and embarrassed by Trump and who are progressives. Having money does not disqualify one from caring about the nation's future nor does it from advocating and supporting the candidate who is for substantive change in America's future. Ed Rendell represents the base of the old Democratic leadership; of course he would support Biden.
75
@historyguy
As long as their $1000 Is equal to another’s $27.
3
No kidding Shane. It takes money to run for president. What exactly is your point besides knocking down a great alternative to Trump?
10
Well said. The shame of our system is that you need money—ridiculous quantities of it, in fact—to run for office in this country. But this is not Elizabeth Warren’s fault, it’s our own for allowing the lawmakers we elect (who by definition are already financially well-backed) to prevent campaign finance reform from being passed. Systems exist to preserve themselves.
2
the point is calling out hypocrites
1
not the best alternative
1
Is she going to argue that she knows this corruption from the INSIDE, like Kamala Harris, and is thus a stronger candidate because of it? Now that's audacity.
8
Yes, a glaring hypocrisy and misrepresentation by Elizabeth Warren. Another glaring issue with Warren, her being a Republican until the mid 90's (presumably voting for Reagan, twice... Nixon, too, I guess) will also need to be broached at some point by this paper. They'll probably wait until her campaign can weather it, IMO. I'm guessing this paper (and the media establishment) would prefer that she takes progressives away from Bernie - who is clearly legit - leaving the race between Biden and Warren (a no lose situation since Warren has 'signaled' that she wants a "revival", not political "revolution", which is probably the truth). At any rate, it's obviously Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard (and possibly Yang) who the establishment fears. Anyone one wants to redistribute the opportunity for wealth in America or wants to dismantle the military industrial complex is going to be opposed by the corporate establishment - and NYT represents them... as Warren may too, it seems.
11
@carl bumba
"Anyone one wants to redistribute the opportunity for wealth in America or wants to dismantle the military industrial complex is going to be opposed by the corporate establishment - and NYT represents them... as Warren may too, it seems."
Yes, but it is this now wholly obvious opposition that is motivating the rank and file, and in my opinion as we approach November 2020, the American people will shock the corporate establishment, and this corporate owned government, by turning out in historic numbers, and electing either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
And regardless the best efforts of the corporate owned mainstream media, and the machinations of the DNC to maintain and protect the status quo, and try to again sell incrementalism to the long-suffering poor and middle-class, the current annointed candidate Joe Biden will be gone in another few months.
5
So tired of these feeble attacks on Warren. What exactly do you want? A candidate who never played by the standard rules? Of course she did, at some point, get money from large donors—like every other candidate. She doesn’t now, which is better than most can say. Trying to attack her for moving in a positive direction is ridiculous and would not happen to a male candidate.
13
Could we stop this nonsense please? It takes money to run for President. That's the way it is.
She is a great candidate and will get my vote.
13
You need money to win, and you get money from the people and places that have it.
5
@Dan B
Which is why grandstanding against money in politics is always a tricky position. When McCain challenged Obama to accept only government funding, Obama refused. All that moralizing about the rich, corporations, etc., fades away when it comes to winning.
2
At the risk of sounding like a regular Times reader, why is it that the moment a woman rises to the top of the political barrel, she gets blasted by the newspaper of record?
She's was not doing anything illegal in her earlier campaign. If she changed her mind about funding this presidential run, then good for her.
And now, I'll look for articles on how Donald is making money.
12
@Occupy Government--this has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has to do with her taking big money donations, stockpiling it and then saying she's against big money donations and wont take any more. Well,until she gets the nomination that is. So there's a little tiny window where its not ok but then she can go back to business as usual? Come on, this is about a candidates hypocrisy and soundbiting what progressives want to hear but then not adhering to it.
3
Come on, NYT. Unlike Trump, her fundraising is legal.
Where are the headlines about Trump and his mysterious sources of income?
How about the banks Trump uses that are suspected of laundering money?
And where did so much of the inauguration funds disappear to?
13
But, her donors.
Let the misogyny begin.
7
@Kathryn
Yes, of course. All women should be given a pass for hypocrisy and unethical behavior. Because they're women.
5
Why do you use the same "populist" term to characterize the extreme right campaign of Donald Trump (complete with lots of neo Nazi supporters linked to the many Trump ads that appear on Nazi saluting websites) and the left leaning but still rooted in democratic values campaign of Elizabeth Warren? The Times needs more precise language rather than a meaningless umbrella word.
The point of Goldmacher's piece is reasonable, but neither a surprise nor an outrage. That Warren shifted her campaign to reach out to small money contributors rather than big money donors is no great shame.
2
The 2020 Democratic Nominee will need lots of money to complete.
I'm glad she understands that.
10
@Barbara T what you’re saying here is that it’s OK to cheat to win. But cheating isn’t winning, and how do you know that when she’s in office, she won’t do the bidding of the big money donors?
6
@Robert M. Koretsky
Legal fundraising is not cheating.
So it is a little bit disingenuous of the Warren campaign to criticize others for taking big money. They needn't do that.
Okay, but her shift to small money remains a positive, principled change.
Now, back to the issues that matter.
7
Either you represent the interests of the 1% or the 99%. You can't represent the interests of both. One constituency wants the status quo, the other desperately needs significant change.
In this last half century, ALL of our leaders have taken big donor funding and represented the interests of the 1%: Bush Snr, Clinton, Bush Jnr, Obama, Trump. The results have been a rigged economy, massive concentration of wealth for the few and stagnant wages for the many. No attempt to confront insane heathcare costs, student loan debt, corporate crime, military overreach, etc.
I thought Warren would be an acceptable progressive substitute for Sanders, but now it's clear she courts the establishment and won't harm them in office. The red flag clearly was her support for Clinton in 2016.
10
@Xoxarle bravo, you see it exactly in the right light! She talks the Bernie talk, but can she, or will she, walk the Bernie walk? We saw the same red flag months ago.
7
@Xoxarle
She's a Democrat which means she works within the system as it is today in order to serve the greater good. Bernie is an independent and works only for his own ego. Ideological purity has never been a recipe for success in politics.
1
She took the big donor money in her Senate campaign. That's a different race and campaign from the one for President. A small donor campaign for a Senate seat may simply not raise enough money.
I thinkWarren will benefit from this revelation just like she has with her ancestry. It steels her while defusing these issues .
She will be fine. I think she has had a vision and a plan for a long time , and has been preparing for this moment her entire life.
9
Bernie never has taken corporate money. That said, I will vote for anyone on the Democratic ticket 2020,though I am one of those "Bernie Bros", a 62 year old female. Yes I voted for "Her" in 2016.
8
What--so political candidates shouldn't evolve?
4
You don't have to pay attention to the past to understand why articles like this reinforce some people's sense that Warren is disingenuous about her so-called progressive positions--but it helps. What else do you expect from a candidate who was until relatively recently a Republican who felt content supporting the party of Ronald Reagan and a slew of candidates who her supporters would be appalled by? At least Hillary Clinton got over her Goldwater days in college. It's time we get some progressive candidates for the Democratic Party who haven't been comfortable--and even championed--policies of inequity and racism in the past, and who won't make compromises to the fortunate among us.
I've also noted so many posts here about how we should congratulate Warren for being a pro at politics because of her big donor fundraising, while maligning Sanders for doing otherwise. But all you're saying is that it's unrealistic to assume that a candidate should base their appeal, and garner support, from workers and the middle class rather than a small number of wealthy donors. That's really sad--and it suggests that you think wealth ought to dictate politics rather than the vast majority of people who've been left out of our era of extreme inequality. Pretty sure you'd be out there supporting the Hunger Games too ("it'd be too idealistic to do otherwise! keep making the overlords happy!").
8
In the spring of 2018 when Warren was raising corporate money, did she not know she would make a run for president? Doubtful. This and the humble origin story she tells without the corporate lawyer part won't fly in a general election. There's a quality of sincerity lacking in her personal narrative and while her conversion to left-wing populism may be genuine, it will be exploited thoroughly by the opposition and may be suspect by voters.
9
@Cindy Brandeau
Her personal wealth and political history have been glossed over, for sure. I think the papers and people of Mass have her figured out, though.
4
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
227
@Buzzy Except there is already a candidate who hasn't accepted big money. We actually have the option of perfect. I don't have to mention their name, as you know who it is.
13
@mempko That "so called" perfect candidate endorsed Trump's trade policies and helped get him elected, so definitely far from perfect.
10
@Buzzy but shouldn’t we let perfect be the enemy of bad?
1
I feel better about Warren knowing she's a hypocrite, but she should be castigated for pretending this isn't a shameless flipflop. It's not integrity to shun big donors once you have already taken their money. That's politics and it's fine so long as you don't try to deny you're a politician.
52
@Ted
Is "flip flopping" even a thing anymore in national politics?
@Ted
Now that I know the details, I, too, am very disappointed in Warren for pretending she’s something she’s not.
6
Warren is a phony on so many levels. Speaks with forked tongue, and this is just one example. Her complete insanity and lack of a financing plan for Medicare for All is a second example of over-reach, which is her call to arms. Trump's trolls will make mincemeat of her if nominated.
5
the idea that the only way to fix the system (beat Trump) is to unilaterally disarm seems stupid beyond belief. Outside of power we can change nothing, if she says "this one last time I will drink the poison to ensure we never have to again." I feel that's a fair deal for the long term survival of our democracy
9
The writer "worked at Politico, where he covered national Republican politics." Surprised?? Not me! This is why Republicans WIN and we LOSE!!!
7
Elizabeth Warren has evolved as an individual, and by attrition, as a candidate. And I say, "You go girl."
And now that you're someone loved and respected by those looking for someone to lead their country in a direction they believe in like you do, watch your back, for as you know, the misogny that took down Hillary Clinton by the Republican Army, whoops, Party, that seemingly eternal misogenistic male cabal of white man, is still alive and well.
No matter who had climbed onto the public stage they'd claimed for just white conservatives like themselves, when Hillary made her move, they were ready to pounce, ready to attack.
They placed a target on her back and started firing arrows of insults and false accusations and continue that attack today, thirty years later, 30 YEARS!
Ms. Warren, get out ahead on issues before that Republican cabal of white conservative men does, before they define how issues are to be explained. We've seen they are so good at doing this.
Continue to arm yourself as you've shown us you have the forsight and tenacity to do, so we can finally put this narrow minded cabal back into the dustbin of history they belong in.
107
@merc - the issue is not that she took the money. It’s that she’s criticizing others who still take it, while trying to appear pure.
This will be something that Trump won’t have to lie about. Unfortunately, Trump will just be able to truthfully state the fact of her hypocrisy.
3
@Stephen
When it comes to comparing Warren and Trump and getting their hands on money, let's remember taking money when it's low hanging fruit and legal, like what Warren did, is not anything like what Trump's been up to for the last half century, his hiring a pack of lawyers to keep him out of jail for looting the private sector of money in pretty despicable ways. Warren will not be taken to court concerning these willful donations she got. But Trump's hoping to get re-elected becasuse he knows the NY State legal system is waiting to confront him the day he leaves office.
8
Beautifully said. The injustice of it all made me sick with Hillary and only gets me feeling worse with pieces like this. They have to find something to say - it’s not like she’s a man.
6
Money has always been the problem with our elections. NOW
is not the time to all of a sudden condem that which has elected hawks, doves, unqualifieds, crooks, liars, and an assortment of simply greedies. Back the best for the job for now, then get the money out of politics if you can, but elect the best leader to inspire a semblance of respect for our country. We have been humiliated on the world stage, and desperately need to regain the stature that once was US.
4
@jdoe212 But Hillary spent more money than Trump and still lost.
“She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary....”
“Quitting” implies she had previously accepted big-money. Your choice of words (“open secret” (?)) reveals your goal of painting this as nefarious.
8
This is a shrewd woman who portrays herself as an underdog and dare I say a minority all the while using her wile and cunning to become a full tenured professor at Harvard law school and then senator of MA. Now she's using the same playbook to become POTUS. One needs to be very careful when assessing the true ambitions of this candidate. Her plane Jane homey visage is hugely misleading.
8
Every time Trump goes to one of his country clubs for the weekend, it costs the taxpayers three million, mostly in charges the Secret Service have to pay him in accommodation fees. No they don’t go for free in order to protect the President. God knows what Pence’s recent junket to Trump’s property cost, but it was purely designed to fleece the taxpayers. Pence even cited the “security footprint” as the reason for staying there. Cha-Ching! I recall reading a Times article during the 2016 election, a similar purity test diatribe, and telling myself, aha, the NYT wants Trump. He’s a moneymaker for the headlines he constantly creates. Wash, rinse and repeat?
2
The gulf between the NYTimes picked comments screaming about her hypocrisy and double dealing and reader comments saying this is a typical both-sides hit piece pushed to show “balance” is staggering. The leader of the Democrat field *only* hosts big dollar fundraisers and Trump has skimmed so many tens of millions off his campaign that he’d likely be in jail if he wasn’t in office. But yes go on about Liz Warren transferring unspent campaign funds. Memo to NYTimes: Democrats are not required to run cost free campaigns with no donors just to satisfy your typical purity-hypocrisy test that applies only to one party.
9
Hey, let's go after all of the big time politicians and not just the one's whose story will make big money for the NYTimes.
1
Why does the left always let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Democratic politics is like a modern-day Salem Witch Trial.
3
For her true believers I'm sure this isn't a big deal. After all, it's only Biden who should be knocked down for taking funding from well-off Democrats. He's their big bad wolf and she's their little Red Riding Hood.
Darn this 2020 version is looking more and more like a replay of 1972's.
Look it up folks. It's a tell-tale lesson of last time the uncompromising left took control of the Democratic Party.....
2
Smart. Good planning. I like it.
People seem scared of or put off by clever women. It's as if strategizing is untrustworthy when its done by a woman.
15
The problem with Warren's miscalculation on fundraising is how it, in a way, punishes other Democratic candidates for not doing the same. If you're supporting anyone who isn't Warren (and Sanders), then the candidate must be a "corporate shill." It's a tiresome talking point, and honestly I'm glad The Times has shed some light on this open secret of Warren's.
Warren has in fact said, if she were to win the nomination, she would be willing to do these same big money fundraisers again (as I hope any Democratic nominee would do). She's only willing to forgo these donors during the primary. So, frankly, yes, I do find Warren's stance on fundraising hypocritical and, moreover, quite cynical.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/02/26/warren_will_forgo_big_money_donors_in_primary_but_not_general_election_i_do_not_believe_in_unilateral_disarmament.html
1
This piece, and a previous one about what Warren is saying privately to the DNC, demonstrate Warren’s strategic thinking and practicality given the system in which she is operating. Why do some people expect her to enter a gunfight with only a knife?
156
@LizziemaeF
We do expect her to tell the truth about it.
4
Fine. I don't care. As long as Trump is booted out of office.
10
If the Democrats insist on running Joe, I want Liz as a VP. She could be the new Cheney, and become the one really running the show. I don't care how she gets there, I just want her there.
5
And the hit jobs from the establishment begin. Warren's overall policies and goals haven't changed in years. It takes a lot of money to run a presidential campaign. This article spins these fundraising events to make them sound far more menacing and calculating. It shows she is shrewd and capable. It will still be a challenge for her to get the money she needs to get through primaries and (possibly) run against Trump.
I'm waiting for the follow up articles that examine Biden's and Harris's and Buttigieg's etc fundraising with as much scrutiny and "lurid" detail. This is a shameful hit job by the New York Times.
9
Did it ever occur to the columnist that perhaps she learned something during the large donor fundraising that caused her to find it repugnant?
People can change their views based on life experiences, and I personally would not want to vote for someone who wouldn’t change what they do based on their values and life experience.
4
“The open secret of Ms. Warren’s campaign is that her big-money fund-raising through 2018 helped lay the foundation for her anti-big-money run for the presidency. Last winter and spring, she transferred $10.4 million in leftover funds from her 2018 Senate campaign to underwrite her 2020 run, a portion of which was raised from the same donor class she is now running against.”
Can you say, ‘storing up nuts for the winter?’
We live in a world where campaign finance is totally dominated by private money and graft.
Republicans of course, live off of graft. Graft and corruption is their logo - their reason for being.
Most all Democratic presidential hopefuls acknowledge that graft is corrupting and eschew private money as best as they can. And of course we all know this is impossible because if you don’t have a war chest, you can’t run.
And until The People fund and enact a rule that says $100,000 limit, we’re stuck with big donors.
I applaud Elizabeth Warren and her foresight given the constraints of today’s politics. Elizabeth, it’s up to you to beat Donald ‘the Duck’ Trump. You’ve got my vote. You’ve had it from the beginning. Now, who should be your running mate? A Centrist? Bernie? Tulsi?
Hey Dems, Colorado is doing its part for Senate with Hick. What about the other States?
Hey House? Are you going to impeach or what? If not, what are you doing to help Dems in 2020?
Hey Southern District? What say you?
7
I’m a Colorado liberal and absolutely loathe Hickenlooper as a politician (I do believe he is decent, honest and basically kind human). The man has never visited a fracking pad he didn’t want to dry hump.
What he is remarkable at doing is team building. Johnny Drill has an ego that allows for a brain trust, and that I certainly applaud. A better executive than a legislator, in my humble opinion.
Andrew Romanoff please!!!
As an aside, Michael Bennet is a Colorado treasure. Not exactly my cuppa, but highly intelligent and a person capable of thoughtful comprise. I would support his presidency with bells on, but wish he would drop out and remain in the Senate. Bennet is a policy animal and is capable of dissecting and communicating remarkably complicated concepts to all of us.
Romanoff too is notably intelligent, passionate and wise beyond his years.
A person can dream!
I imagine I’ll be forced to hold my nose and check yes for the geologist to send Cory Gardner to a consultant gig and the lecture circuit. Ahhhh... Comprise!!!
The hypocrisy of Elizabeth Warren has been exposed, as if those of us who have followed her rise to political power did not already know that she is a hypocrite of the highest order. She used her phony Native American ancestry to move up the academic ladder, and had to be exposed as having a miniscule amount of Native American DNA; an amount that tens of millions of Americans also have. She rails constantly against the "evil big corporations" on the campaign trail, but has now been revealed to be a willing recipient of their campaign dollars. If Warren with her big government and big spending agenda is the Democrat candidate for president, Trump will expose her hyocrisy and win in a landslide. So run, Warren, run; and keep on lying.
6
What a whiny, wimpy attempt at criticism of a Presidential candidate who has repeatedly demonstrated her will and ability to evolve and grow.
Elizabeth Warren is the best hope for America, and the rest of us.
7
I’m going with your last 2 paragraphs:
“Certainly it’s a lot easier if you have $12 million as a starting point,” Andrew Yang, the businessman and first-time candidate, said with a laugh. “If she hadn’t, then it might have been a slightly different calculation.”
Mr. Yang went on: “But you can’t begrudge something that someone has done at an earlier point if they decide to move in a direction that I personally think is very positive.”
6
We need to give people space to change their minds and reverse course as long as it's not a ploy to deceive the public. Ms. Warren realizes the corrosive effect of money on politics and reversed direction, let's accept that at face value unless proven otherwise.
Warran has a history of fighting for the small guy. She speaks truthfully. She is intelligent and proposes sound policy ideas. Besides Sanders, Warren is the only other candidate rejecting large doners.
It would be reassuring if Ms. Warren pleadges not to accept funds from big donors if she wins the primary. That would reduce all conflicts of interests and beholden to special interest groups.
We need to break the stranglehold of big money in our Democracy; otherwise, it's not a Democracy, but an Oligarchy masquerading as a Democracy.
Before rushing to judgment I would like to know the source of those large donatiuons. It would it make a difference to me if Bill Gates was a donor and not the fossil fuel industry?
Essentially this article makes statements that will arouse voters but lacks verified information as to the source of the donations. Are the donors from industries that harbor a personal financial goal or are they from individuals or organizations that work to educate and help us be a better democracy for all? Let's focus on the facts!
3
In the era of big money politics what Elizabeth Warren has done should be commended. Take the money from the big donors with time limited promises, don't spend the money until the time limit expires then use the money against the big donors. What is unethical about that? Nothing. What is unethical is to use big money donations to make the average person poorer, e.g. by giving the tax cuts to businesses and the wealthy or reducing medical cover. If the fight was fair, i.e. there were spending limits, then taking big donors for a ride might be unethical, but in the absence of spending limits not taking big donors for a ride is unethical, i.e. reneging on your promises to them.
1
So let me get this straight. This entire article critical of Elizabeth Warren's fundraising strategy is premised on a (very) negative comment from Ed Rendell who, besides being a determined centrist who often feels threatened by more progressive politicians, is openly supporting Joe Biden's candidacy. Everyone else quoted in the article provided a positive, yet nuanced, reaction. It makes me wonder if Ed Rendell was sent out by the Biden campaign to take some of the luster off Elizabeth Warren, whose poll numbers are rising. If so, that makes me just a bit more skeptical of Biden while impelling me to donate more money to Warren.
3
Warren has the knowledge, experience, and desire to go after big financial miscreants. That's all I need. I'm in.
Even if she doesn't win, she'd make a great Secretary of Commerce under a sympathetic president.
2
I really want to know why the media and talking heads are not discussing the fact that if she wins the White House, a Republican Governor gets to replace her. This is not a win per se for Democrats in a tightly contested Senatorial race. She's just forging ahead as if nothing could be wrong about this.
Easy solution - return the donations.
2
CVS stopped tobacco sales 5 years ago. Should we call them out because they sold cigarettes for all those years prior? No. We give them credit for making a decision in the best interest of the general welfare. If that decision also provides a marketing opportunity, then bully for them. Same for Warren, although it’s disconcerting that she says she’ll revert to big donors if she faces Trump in the general. Not sure how you explain that -
1
This is just my own personal piccadillo, but I can't behind another ivy-leaguer for president. When I look around our country I see a disproportionate number of people in leadership positions coming from these schools, and I have to say, it kinda feels like an aristocracy is forming.
3
If Warren is the Democratic nominee for President, I am 100% sure Trump will win 44 of the 50 states, and close to 390 electoral college seats.
1
Senator Warren wants the left to believe she's a progressive socialist, the middle to believe she's a capitalist and the right to fall in line and support her because she "has a plan for that". Well, you can't be all things to all people, and actions speak much louder than words. The truth with Warren appears to be that she, like so many other candidates, is not nearly as pure as she'd like us to believe.
Whether or not you believe that she checked the "Native American" box on her job applications during her time in academia, or that, as this article points out, she intentionally took big donor money to amass a large enough war chest to then publicly dismiss and shame the practice, comes down to whether you support her or not. Lovers gonna love and haters gonna hate. With Warren, kinda like Clinton, you are either 100% on her side or you are against her.
As a registered Independent, I am not planning to support her and cannot see myself voting for her to become President.
3
It’s smarter first to get big bucks from rich donors and then to denounce them than to first denounce them and then trying to get the contributions.
1
OK, so Elizabeth Warren played the money game, but changed her ways and took a huge risk to do it so as to have a more genuine agenda. How many other candidates, including our beloved Hillary, have done this?
If this is her worst skeleton in the closet, I'll be one of those sending her a small donation.
1
$10 million is hardly a stockpile. More like a pittance these days.
1
A full primary campaign is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, and a presidential campaign ten times that. So this article eight months later focuses on $10.8 million that Warren collected before she announced her campaign on December 31, 2018. Meanwhile Biden, the preferred moderate, is targeting every wealthy donor whom he can for the maximum contribution. It's not both sides.
2
Media will again give Trump the edge in the 2020 election, count on it.
25
Woman takes legal campaign contributions from large party donors, then decides to fund the balance of her primary campaign with small donors. This is newsworthy, why? It costs big money to run a presidential campaign these days. Why would you expect someone to unilaterally disarm before they find alternative funding sources.
Please stop with the ridiculous purity tests. You swallowed the Hillary email scam and helped elect a man who had abused email in far worse ways. Now you attack Elizabeth Warren's fundraising purity on the same day other news sources break the story about the military propping up Trump's failing Scotland golf course and club. We already know you are not lackey's for the Democratic Party. You don't have to join the movement to fabricate scandals where none exist.
37
I like you common sense. If Senator Warren comes out and says what you said I think she will be just fine.
1
Taking the man's money to fight the man!
9
You know the beauty of the comments section is they DON’T have the awful like buttons. But in succinct form your response was spot on. Of course, Senator Warren will have to clarify or just spell out & delineate policy and strategy or treat the voters like grownups. I look forward to that. Keep treating our POTUS like a pre-K student and the rest of us voters like discerning adults.
2
I have noticed that the NY Times does not squander an opportunity to criticize Elizabeth Warren war chest. Was there a story on Joe Biden too? Did I miss it?
28
I really love the comments here. Yeah, I can see how you could say that. But the fact that this distinction between the way Senator Warren has handled big money and is handling little money puts an interesting and possibly important factor into play is kind of a big deal in itself. I mean they could have buried it.
@EMILY
The 1% ownership shows it self when it matters. They did the same to Bernie in 2016.
3
@EMILY - Warren is the one claiming purity.
2
Did anyone think Warren would not have to find a way to get big money, if nominated? I think Joe Biden is too old, too unlikely to make big changes, and too slow on his gaffe-prone feet, but I can't stand these Senators like Warren (and good Senate candidates like Abrams and O'Rourke) who would give up Senate seats to Republicans for their own petty egos. Let's go with Joe, tempered by a VP like Booker. The Senate matters as much as making sure the clown goes down (which any of them except Sanders will accomplish).
2
WHOA!! Does this mean that candidates who raise the huge sums, but don't quite spend it all, can use the few million in leftovers for their own purposes? Is there no control or limit? Can they pay off the mortgage and claim the house will be used for their next presidential fund raising dinners?
Sound too clever to be honest. It fits that shroud of doubt that hangs around Elizabeth Warren.
People like Clinton and Trump made no bones about being dishonest, but Warren always walked the fine high wire. I think she just fell off!
5
She was a libertarian Republican before becoming a progressive Democrat. She was a Native-American until she was challenged on this. She took money the top 1% before opposing it.
And they said John Kerry was a flip flopper.
And is the $120 cheese steak described in the article like a Geno's or Pat's with a half bottle of champaign?
7
Look my biggest problem with Senator Warren initially was that she was on Dr, Phil (grrr). So she maybe she has “travelled” politically. But she has a lot of experience and she’s not TOO rich and she a depth and breadth of vision that reflects a mind of a great Commander in Chief.
1
@Steve
Oh ya, “truffled cheese whiz”? I meant to comment on that!
Great! She took big money in 2018 planning to use it against the very people who gave it. I have no problem with that. Did she sell the nation to Russia? NO. Did she sell out the middle and lower classes? No. Did she end environmental protection or call climate disaster a sham? No. I have no problem with Warren. Go Senator Warren!!!
21
@Honeybee--do you see how blind they are? She was going to "take their money and use it against them" Absolutely hysterical.
1
Dear Warren Campaign...... as a small-money donor to and loud-mouthed supporter of Sen. Warren, I'll tell you my heart sank when I read this article, and it is still sinking. Dear Bernie, will you take me back?
8
I am giving Elizabeth another $25 this morning. Are you attempting to plant a seed of doubt about her commitment to the public over the 1%ers? Ha! Look at her effort the establish the Consumer Protection Bureau. Listen to her speeches.
And, of course this was written by a man. The corporate world and the good ol' boys are afraid of this articulate, brilliant, passionate woman with a good chance to win the White House.
26
@Carolyn Thank you Carolyn. I can't believe this hit piece on one of the best Presidential candidates we've seen in years. Go Warren!
4
Whatever ticket Democrats decide to come up with, Bernie should be on it. I believe it was Clinton’s major mistake. Although, it might have rubbed some supporters wrong, it would have united the party, and the world will always welcome lovers. So, let’s get going Dems!
4
Time and again, going back decades, American voters have failed to elect candidates who wanted to reform election financing.
It's a little late now to complain that money doesn't come from the "right sources." Talk about whistling past the grave yard!
3
The Republican Party is the party of “money is speech”.
They are the ones that believe in more money in politics.
Please talk about that.
That is the root of this problem.
8
First off, I am a committed Warren supporter during the 2020 primary, and I will vote for the eventual nominee regardless.
With that being said, we have to look at the differences in the elections. A Senate campaign is not the same as a presidential campaign. Presidential campaigns/elections bring more importance and the possibility to buy your interest in a potential president's mind. In the Senate, you are one of 100 elected officials; not one of one. Forgoing the bigwig fundraisers in a presidential election is more important than a Senate election.
Second, the primary is the more important election for introducing and establishing your policies. Warren and Bernie are pitching their ideas in the primary that they will run on in the general if nominated. Those ideas in the primary are not being directed or influenced by donations. In the general, Warren's policies would largely be well known and not subject to the same level of donor influence.
Third, the focus of the general election is to win. The Democratic nominee will be running against a well-funded Republican incumbent. The eventual Democratic nominee will need the grassroots (for energy and small-dollar donations) and wealthy donors (to compete with GOP money).
Finally, if we view Warren's policy proposals in the primary, they show a focus toward the people, not wealth donor interests. Has Warren told wealthy donors that their lives won't change like Biden? No. She's proposing policies that will affect them.
12
OK, i’m a little dumb. Took me a minute to understand “lives won’t change like Biden”. I’m pretty much in the same camp as you. First choice, and second choice anybody but Trump. And while not trouncing your rationale, this issue is a bit of a tightrope. Senator Warren’s explanation or relative silence to this issue is something I am only comfortable leaving in her hands. There a lot of ways to do or don’t respond. I hope that makes sense.
I hope Elizabeth Warren does everything in her power to win the election vs. Trump after she wins the primaries. If it means getting the support from good businesses and people with means, let it be. They are part of our society, and they matter too.
13
@Gian Piero Messi
I would totally agree, as long as the business doesn’t put profit over people.
3
Hey, the working & middle classes have been stiffed repeatedly by campaigners from both parties in return for big corporate money. What a refreshing change that Warren might go for the reverse.
That said, she & Bernie are going to have to agree for a one-two punch on the ticket in order to insure a progressive win. That means relying on the late political polls to determine who will be the running mate to the other. That is the only path to victory in '20.
6
We live in a political election process I call a carnival auction. The best Supreme Court money can buy declared paid for speech is the equivalent of free speech. In order to influence the public, one must buy advertising, 30-60 seconds on TV or radio is a powerful technique. The media survives on commercials. To be fair to Sen. Warren, the cost of these ads are very expensive if one is to compete. What is more important is the candidates message and Sen Warren thinks this carnival auction process should be fundamentally changed. What she and others have not quite mentioned is this doesn't take a (quite a stretch) Constitutional Amendment. Very tight ethics laws(with lock em up punishment) and disclosure of specific ad funding source(s) and possible outcomes would better accomplish the same goal.
5
Democrats can claim the moral high ground on these kinds of issues, or they can beat Trump. They can't do both.
10
WHOA!! Does that mean that one of those candidates who raises $50,000,000 from big guys or little guys keeps the last couple of million if she doesn't spend it? Are there legal obligations to give it back or controls over how it's used. Can a candidate just use it for a few years of high living or paying off the house mortgage?
1
Until Trump is out of office, Dems need to do what it takes to win. You can only fully fund your campaign on small donors when the country denounces candidates that accept big money. Trump's voters will never denounce big money. They let Trump do whatever it takes to win. Dems need to follow suite and push to win at this point. After the Trump nightmare is corrected we can look to purify the process and eliminate Citizens United with an amendment and enact real lasting change.
10
Purist politics. It is who you are raising your money from and with what type of strings attached. At whether the public is able to be informed of all money sources. The GOP hides theirs as dark money and does the bidding of certain harmful extractive industries, developers and big pharma - and a handful of rich families with nary an altruistic bone in their collective and corporate bodies. The dems mostly aim at more citizens and public spirited bodies. The point though, is that if money is the big gun that is necessary to win, it is outright stupid to disarm unilaterally.
3
Elizabeth Warren is a brilliant, fearless, woman of the people that I support 100%. That she used big money people to advance her career is simply another aspect of her brilliance. Better going to her than Trump. She has a long, proven history of being on the side of average Americans. I look forward to her shredding Trump in debates.
This strange piece reminds me of Maureen Dowd helping Trump in his 2016 campaign and constantly trashing Obama and the Clintons.
In Elizabeth Warren, we have a tough as nails, highly educated woman, that will put Trump out to pasture where he belongs.
15
I wouldn’t call it a hypocrite, it is more like double crossing. That is good. Now, billionaires are against her and common folks are on her side. The desired outcome for common good policies.
3
I think it’s telling that big donors are now dissing Warren for shunning their money. If they simply want to contribute because they believe in her leadership and ideas, they would be happy to see her shifting to a donation policy that syncs with her populist message. Seems to me that they are bitter because they want and expect to be able to buy access/quid pro quo.
3
I can agree with your sentiment. Corruption or quid pro quo ruins a Democracy when it varies from one vote is the quid. What’s now alarming are the very rich putting money into Trump’s hands to keep him in a hands off position; it’s an insurance racket that I feel is disturbing. Maybe this played a role before in the USA. I’m about Senator Warren’s age, not nearly as bright, but it’s crazy to imagine in these times we are ruled by a tantrum that could reach out & squash something big and tangible with a stoke of, i hare to say it, a sharpie.
1
There is a name for it: hypocrisy.
10
Oh jeez. Yeah that’s a name. Wow, what you said is impactful.
Look there are a lot of things going on over time. This is politics. This is the world. Change is part of the world. People adapt. Would you prefer Senator Warren moved the other way? That would have been hypocrisy.
Anyway I hope you see something more than I know you feel.
1
@William F--if times change and people can adapt, then why do we hold certain people responsible for something they said 30 years ago?
2
Smart lady. She's gonna make a great president.
Warren in 2020. All the way.
13
By all means let's assemble the Democratic circular firing squad and eliminate any candidate who is not absolutely perfect in all respects.
12
Question: Ms. Warren says she will not accept big donor money or attend lavish fundraisers during the primary season. But what about the general election? Is the money any less dirty then?
5
Imagine the criticism Sanders would face if it were revealed that he had pulled the same shenanigans? It would be a massive controversy. Instead, Warren basically gets a free pass because why?
My guess is she doesn't have the same baggage as Sanders in regards to the sour grapes people still have from his 2016 challenge against Clinton. There are a vocal number of people who never got over it and their view on him is forever warped.
6
And so the hit pieces begin. With Biden wobbling, the Democratic old guard, aided by the NYT, will begin tearing down the opposition, one challenger at a time. We saw this play out in '16 with unwavering support and a thumb on the scale for Clinton.
Warren is generating enthusiasm and large, vocal crowds. That makes her, in the eyes of establishment Democrats, a threat. "Biden is the most electable" will go down a footnote in lost opportunities alongside "Clinton is the most prepared candidate in history."
If the race up to the nomination is close and no candidate has the votes to win on the first ballot, remember, the Superdelegates, all 16% of the total delegates, are free to vote for their personal favorite. History can and does repeat itself, losing to Trump in '20 is possible and this sort of smear is a brick in the wall to a Democratic victory.
5
She’s done. She’s doomed. We need credibility, and that means integrity. And that means “walk the talk” (or shut up). Warren will now have to walk her own walk back or change her talk substantially. Good luck with that, at this point.
If she wants to serve the basic, essential needs of this country, she’ll need to clean up her act with an acknowledgement of the difference between what she’s been preaching and what she’s been practicing, and then either give back the money, offer it to some organization(s) that practice(s) what she’s been preaching, or bow out and give up on trying to woo voters for herself.
That this is emblematic of politics in America generally, and of the Democratic Party, in particular, is no less excusable than it is worrying—and worrying it is. Nobody will get to the White House by trying to out-hypocrit or even out-message Trump. It will take credibility, and that means—indeed, begins with—integrity. And that requires practicing what you preach.
5
In a earlier comment on a different subject matter I posted: "I would vote for a mouse if it is a democratic mouse. Everything is better than what we have right now". Well, I like mice, but fortunately a have a better option. I will, if she is nominated, unquestionably vote for Warren. Like I said, everyone will be better than the self-proclaimed stable genius in the White House.
4
I’m conflicted.
On the one hand I think Warren’s taking corporate money suggests it’s better to choose the original, Bernie.
On the other I can’t believe how high we’re raising the bar again for our Democratic candidates, while our President is shamelessly hosting visitors at Trump hotels, opening our most fragile preserves for his cronies to drill, using the Justice department to threaten car manufacturers who oppose raising emission standards, etc.
Talk about self-flagellation.
5
I find there to be threads of bias in this article. Inflammatory sentences and personal opinions abound.
I wish I could trust the NYT to report the news objectively. I don’t mind the facts.
I object to the slanting.
Yes Elizabeth Warren accepted money from wealthy donors and courted them. Now she is not courting them. I personally hope they still give generously to her campaign and I hope she accepts their money.
Elizabeth Warren makes a better leader than Biden or any other candidate. If you want perfection in humanity you are living on the wrong planet. Even Sanders with his no big money campaign has flaws. Good for him on this he is consistent, that doesn’t mean Warren is lesser to him in her ability to manage this country. I want her to have the power of the presidency and her help with supporting Dems in Senate runs is very important.
Sanders lacks the credibility as an inconsistent Dem.
11
@Thinking--but she's going to court them again when she gets the nomination. And therein lies the hypocrisy
3
@bored critic
nah, I see more hypocrisy in most people in everyday life.
she is not a hypocrite. She is doing what is needed to make headway.
Your idealistic, emotional approach is unreal and most likely does not reflect how you yourself live.
I am not judging her whole character on her intelligent assessment of the situation.
I prefer grownups running things, not people who pretend they are not hypocrites who then dump on people at the drop of a hat.
You can always tell who the GOP fears.
In this case they fear a smart progressive woman.
9
This is classic modern day politics. If you love Warren what she did was just fine. You might even convince yourself this extraordinarily intelligent women had an awakening after raising all that money. If you don't love Warren she is a hypocrite. Absolutely no difference on the other side. If you love Trump you may at times cringe at the Tweets but any other transgressions are just fine. And if you don't there are a bunch of names people like to call him. We will never get out of this cycle if we continue to believe the person on the other side, whoever that is, has zero redeeming qualities and is out to destroy the world we love.
42
@Charlie What is a candidate to do when the best Supreme Court money can buy says bought speech is the equivalent of free speech?
13
@Charlie Yet more “very fine people on both sides,” eh? This is rather shallow wisdom, because it never actually gets down to specifics.
8
@citybumpkin
You make my case as well as your own.
2
Understanding how the real world actually works is one of the things I like most about Warren.
She's a process oriented person. Able to identify how things work, how things can work better, and perhaps most importantly how to get from the realities of today to the way we'd like the world to be. The system is what it is and we need savvy candidates.
I can't wait for her to be President!
23
The rules need to be changed. Until they are Democrats, all of them, need to play by the rules to win.
There is nothing wrong with playing by the rules. There is something wrong with being able to buy access to Congress and the President. Taking the money isn't the problem, it's giving the access because of the donations that is the problem.
6
Politics is complicated. Nearly all politicians take money from donors. How do you fight without the tools to fight - like ads. Ads cost money. I don’t care if politicians have had affairs as long as they weren’t abusive. Please stop looking for the purest candidate but a candidate who you believe who will fight for policies you believe in. I’m an undecided at this point but will vote for the Democratic candidate who finally wins the party’s nomination. However, I am not particularly impressed with the current line up and question if any will beat Trump.
1
I demand purity from my elected officials. I demand that they be better than me in every way. I want them experienced, but with no baggage; I want them youthful and sage; I want them to be successful in politics, but chaste when it comes to money; I want to hear and see them....for free.
8
@RonRich No one's demanding what your (obviously tongue-in-cheek) post demands. She's simply being held to her own claimed standard. If she can't meet that standard, she should withdraw her claim to "no big money" and get on with her life. Or return that money.
It's the hypocrisy that's at issue.
1
Taking legal donations is wrong how? If you cannot show that Ms Warren has corruptly sold her representation you are just trying to besmirch her character for using the system she wants to change to change it.
The problem with big money is not the concept of it or the honest use of the idea as Ms Warren has done.
The problem is the people who sell their representation for these donations.
Sad as it is most folks who run for office are willing to sell their vote or naive enough to be slowly corrupted and manipulated into a position where they are beholden.
Remove large amounts of money and that problem diminishes to easily manageable levels.
7
This story tries to be a take-down of Elizabeth Warren, but obviously is based on the hurt feelings of our donor class.
15
Instead of going on and on about this type of backstory, with its hints of hypocrisy, displays of offended outrage, and rationalizations that everything is now on the up and up, it would be far more valuable to learn how a candidate intends, if at all, to move towards a public financing scheme that would, at least partially, if not fully, replace the constant search for private funds from the donor class. Part and parcel of that would be the necessary and related effort to undo the toxic consequences (and appalling logic) of the citizens united decision.
This is the basic source of the various ills that plague the country's political life (at all levels of governance) because it reinforces the deep cynicism about all politics and politicians that trump has shrewdly exploited for his profit only.
2
Let's have the takeaway of this story to be this: 1) It is necessary and imperative for all candidates to raise whopping sums of money in order to gain or retain their office. 2) It is necessary for them to spend a whopping amount of time doing it. Conclusion: The only way to end this inefficient, wasteful and corruption-breeding cycle is to get money out of politics. Period.
3
She's been a phony from day one. You can view the Texas Bar Association card where she has written 'American Indian' for race, and signed it. You can guess how she got hired by Harvard Law School as a professor, even though the law school she went to, Rutgers, is not even in the top 50. You can see how she made money in real estate before the crash of 2008.
If the Democrats nominate her, this is all going to come out and appear everywhere. They'd do much better with a candidate who didn't game the system quite so much. Unfortunately, the three top candidates have serious flaws that could really hurt them.
5
More serious flaws than Trump? Hardly.,
3
The corporate NYTs certainly fears the progressives. They would have the country defeat Trump only as long as we don't go too far left. According to them, we should have a safe moderate that the masters approve of.
Trump is not the cause, he is a symptom. If everyone, including the democrats are working for the wealthy and corporations then the "burn it down" attitude of the Trump base is justified.
The standard NY democrats are not going to convince the rest of the nation that they have the interests of the people in mind. We all know the neocons are fake democrats.
People who would not support an FDR type of approach are conservatives and should join the GOP.
2
If she is supporting wars, increasing money for surveillance and the MIC, continues to take corporate money while preaching the opposite, lied about weapons of mass destruction...then investigate and publish all over. This...? Nothingburgher!
8
I have deep respect for Elizabeth Warren. But, the fact that she took big dollar donations from plutocrats in the past, and plans to continue doing so if she wins the primary, makes me doubt her ability to enact the big structural change needed to create a sustainable, livable future for Americas' working class people.
This is why I will be voting for Bernie.
8
@JT The best Supreme Court money can buy ordained paid speech is free speech. No candidate has a realistic chance under the current rules without big donors. She is living with a system she strives to change.
3
It appears that she followed the rules as they are written, then changed her policy. Maybe she knew all along that she had to compromise to get into the big league, where she is now.
The big question to me is her voting record so far, and what she will do if she is elected. Has she supported her rank and file constituents as a senator, and will she work for me as president? Do I approve of her platform, and do I believe that she will remain true to it if elected?
So far, she's looking good. I'd prefer if she veers towards the center a bit, but not by much. Everyone including her knows that resistance from the opposition will drive her in that direction if she wins.
8
Is there a reason why any candidate should reject money from large legal donors if it is given in a way that results in anonymous gifts that cannot result in an expectation of a quid pro quo.
5
Whatabaoutism. This is what I see when I go through the comments section. Whataboutism. It seems this logical fallacy is ubiquitous nowadays. Warren's behavior reveals high-level hypocrisy. She is trying to make us believe that she is against the big-money oligarchy, but she has funded her current presidential campaign based on resources obtained from rich individuals who have their own interests.
Please, do not become distracted with what other players are doing. Please be more objective and realize that Warren's behavior is just wrong and it could backfire if she becomes the Democratic nominee.
6
What next? A twelve part series on Elizabeth's emails? Stop it already.
14
Who didn't know that professional professor politician privileged powerful 70 year old white European American woman Betsy Warren was a moral degenerate callous cruel cynical hypocrite?
While the moat loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party is black African American Protestant female.
6
@Blackmamba
2nd paragraph..While the most loyal...
1
If only the NYT would spend as many column-inches describing the policy proposals of the candidates, the public would have some knowledge by which to make choices.
Instead we get, over and over, this tired, superficial horse-race commentary about the personal flaws or past behavior of this or that candidate.
I love the NYT, but Mr. Goldmacher and his editors should be feeling ashamed. Because they have certainly brought shame onto the newspaper.
8
Blame the fools in this state for falling for her shenanigans. I would call them lies, but the mods would bounce me, I'm sure.
7
VERY SMART POLITICS AND FAR FROM UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL. Warren is using the funds that her supporters gave hern to continue her fight for the position that she deserves for SO MANY reasons.
To the contrary, Trump would have simply pocketed his under similar circumstances (and probably banked millions during his "parties").
It is a shame that in most politics, money buys votes. This should not be so. On a level playing field, there is no comparison between the ignoramus crook Trump and Warren; there is no contest between a narcissistic sociopathic moron and a wise woman who would govern this nation superbly.
6
This is just a sexist article criticizing a women's ambition.
5
this is basically a non-issue for most Dems an most Independents. why in the world have the editors decided to run this piece. ridiculous.
5
One minute too much the liberal purist, the next tainted pragmatist. What’s a girl to do?
And Ed Randell is the epitome of swampy Dem.
10
Herein lies a distinction between Warren and Sanders on the issue of fundraising. Yet both platforms and some others (O'Rourke) understand that we must end Citizens Untied to rid politics of unlimitted corporate money. This is the culture all candidates live in and this oval office drives as the super swamp of corporate interests. Warren's platform has it right. And Sanders' has it down to the core of his donors.
83
@1blueheron
Citizens United is largely a red herring and a distraction from the really problematic Supreme Court decision on campaign financing, Buckley v. Valeo, which, in 1976 equated money with speech. Citizens United is a progeny of Buckley, as are many more recent decisions on campaign financing. If money is speech, obviously most of us can be out-shouted when it comes to influencing politicians. The decision essentially legalized political bribery. I agree it is the main challenge to be addressed if we are to restore a semblance of democracy.
10
@1blueheron Exactly. Until we end Citizens United, Democrats must use every dollar at their disposal. We need to evict the corrupt, cruel GOP from the White House and the Senate-- so we can literally save lives, not to mention the Constitution. Warren is a great candidate and I hope she takes the money and runs to win.
9
@N
Your "red herring" is destroying the country. Any billionaire can literally fund his own candidate to promote his interests.
9
We don't really want a horserace election where the press sizes up candidates on character and picks one for us. Elizabeth Warren's strength is in her policy proposals. If the NYTimes can't assess these and let us know what they contain, then they can't really tell us something we need to know about Elizabeth Warren.
These hit pieces and personality and horserace coverage are misplaced and not worth reading.
14
@ondelette - These policy proposals could never pass Congress, even if they wiped out the Republicans. Do you really think that affluent liberal professionals are going to tax themselves 90%? You heard the outraged cries from the blue states when the GOP limited the SALT deduction, hitting wealthy Democrats living in suburban mansions. These proposals are ten times worse.
@ondelette
I am a likely Warren supporter, but appreciate this article as containing relevant information, unlike the puff piece the NYT recently published about Biden's role in the Bork confirmation hearings. The issue of campaign financing is central to our democracy, and needs to be addressed. I have ruled out supporting Biden, Buttigieg and Harris, because most of their money has come from large donors. And I think anyone is naïve if she or he doesn't think the source of one's campaign funds doesn't influence conduct in office. Look at, for example, Obama's presidential campaign receiving large donations from Wall Street, and Citigroup receiving the largest bank bailout and basically appointing Obama's cabinet, as revealed by the media.
72
@Jonathan - no one is taxing "affluent liberal professionals" 90%. Maybe the 1% should pay their fair share, but other than that, I don't think Warren ever mentioned taxing others 90%. Ac for the SALT deduction, are you kidding? "wealthy democrats living in suburban mansions"? I don't know where you live friend, but in NY and NJ it's not mansions that put you over the SALT limit, its regular houses. The tax rates are high. It was put in to hurt the states (either coast) that didn't vote for Donnie. That's the only reason.
1
More of the Democratic Old Boys Club trying to undermine a women in their own party. Where have I seen this before? Oh yes...when Hillary Clinton was in a primary race against Obama and every news station I turned to had an old white man from the Democratic party reciting the same script, "She should get out of the race."
I'm tired of the old boy politics of the Rendell and Biden era. This strategy is going to backfire and drive more Americans to write checks for Warren. Grassroots is how Obama won and it is how Bernie became so popular, it will work for her. Good for her for changing her strategy.
I say, "He should get out of the race."
11
@Hope
It's how Sanders got popular and why he is still popular. And it is a large reason why many people, including myself, will be voting for him over Warren.
3
From her writing that she was an American Indian on a college application to her taking big money from big donors and then renouncing those donors without returning their money, it's a case of "the more I hear about her about this hypocritical opportunist the less I like her" .
If you like where she' s coming from politically you can get the same thing from Bernie without the self-serving, hypocritical opportunism.
13
@MIKEinNYC - The Texas Bar Association card is worse - it's in her own handwriting and can be found everywhere on the internet.
Race: American Indian
Signature: E Warren
You could have to be pretty naive to imagine that the GOP would not display this image on the front page of their campaign literature.
4
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you're gonna make a point about how bad big money in politics is, then don't transfer the funds that came from previous campaigns with big investors. Do what Andrew Yang (and others) did, and start from scratch.
On the other hand, if you do use that money, then you don't get to question the morality of it all without being a hypocrite.
112
@dcfan why can't i have my cake and eat it too, exactly? Indeed, don't I have to have it in order to eat it? I can't eat what I don't have.
1
My, my, my. The New York Times worries about a candidate, who, in the past, took money from wealthy donors. But the Times seems unconcerned about Biden and Trump raising money that way in the present.
14
Good for her!
10
I hate when the Times does this. It fuels the belief on the left that they are trying to take down certain candidates, hence basically calling her a hypocrite in the article. She had fundraisers where folks could donate the max. Big deal. Where is the story? All she has said is she will do no more fundraisers until the general....She just did the work ahead of time and had money to start the ground game. Now she can spend time meeting the voters in all those primary states. She is one of several who have refused money from Super Pacs, lobbyists, fossil fuel, and corporate pacs. That is the real story, not that some wealthy people gave her money. Do they have no right to support a candidate? Really, don't do this NY Times. It's totally misleading because it fuels what some people feel is the futility of elections.
9
@Kelle
The "big deal" is that her campaign is partly funded by the very same big monied interests and donors who she claims to challenge.
2
Oh, please NYT don't do this again to another leading woman candidate just as she is rising in the polls and becoming a formidable candidate.
18
A number of readers think she had a change of heart. Let’s look at the record.
When she ran for the Senate in 2012 she had her opponent, Scott Brown, join in a pledge not to take outside money. They didn’t. She won.
She ran again in 2018 and took money from outsiders and billionaires, some of which she used to give to other candidates to prove her value to the Party. She socked away over 10 million of those funds for her presidential campaign.
Next, she declared she was following Bernie’s lead by not taking money from big donors and was the first one to declare her candidacy in January. Epiphany, right?
Yeah, right. Except for the statement that she will woo the donor class again after she gets the nomination.
Warren is clever but hardly transparent or consistent. If she did the “no big donor” pledge to draw Bernie voters to her, in much the same way that she snared Brown with the original pledge in 2012, I would not be surprised.
The little sound you hear in the background? That is the sound of my respect for her crumbling.
102
@nora m, the Bernie Bros and purity partisans will never accept the reality of politics in America. Respect is a fickle coin tendered more out of personal ego than sound judgement. It is easily given and taken away and has little value beyond making the giver / taker feel righteous. I want a candidate that can win not one exemplifying some higher unattainable morality. Not only win but govern afterwords. If Obama had been willing to play a harder game we might have had better results. Roosevelt understood this better than most and so in many ways did Johnson. Warren can play hardball and is clever. Sanders is a cranky old man who postures and pontificates, even if he had won 2016 his rigidity would have left his time in office as another failed attempt at governing from ideology alone. I'll pass on that until he is the only choice.
29
@nora m That's a shame, because you're allowing stories like this to influence you. The fact is this...Under our current system, for any candidate to have a chance, they have to raise boatloads of cash. Yang is NOT going to win, by any shot. Why not stick to looking at her record, her substance, and not Times articles that try to find something salacious. Anybody looking for that perfect saint to make their lives wonderful will never find such in the world of politics.
28
@nora m
The little respect you had for her sure did crumble fast.
Your idealism could be problematic.
How has that idealism served you in your own hypocritical daily life by the way?
How about paying attention to all of the information and not using one part of it to destroy all the positives?
Do not let a person like Biden, the NYT pick, get power by allowing the NYT to divide us against the most progressive potential candidates we have!
19
This shows a slightly disturbing trend of doing the wrong thing to get ahead and then changing course when it is convenient for her.
This really does make me reconsider my view of her.
108
@Vincent And this is exactly what the big money corporate types that are in full control of our government want you to say. Congratulations, you've been played.
33
@BambooBlue
Are those the same big money corporate types that have funded her past campaigns? Perhaps you're the one who's been played.
9
@BambooBlue
And they were the ones who got Sanders to run in 2016 so that they were ensure Clinton would lose?
1
Miss Warren knows how to please the primary voters from not doing fundraising to not doing Fox Town Hall. All of these will change when she wins the general election and that gives the question of what is her core value. I do not support Bernie but at least he has been more consistent then Warren for the progressive platform. To me, she is just a very savvy opportunist and unfortunately her Texas Bar exam "incident" occurred when she was 44 years old also supports that
3
So let's focus on pointing out the supposed "hypocrisy" of a person who has shown she is fighting for the average person, who has a track record of speaking truth to power, and has a dedication and perseverance to take the fight to the wolves, but yet expect her to unilaterally and retroactively disarm within an opaque and secret money electoral system. Really? When some are receiving millions of dollars in secret funding, and our current president is profiting from the office daily, it makes the $5,400 limit or the $1,000/plate dinners insignificant and certainly not "big money."
200
It’s interesting to see cognitive dissonance at brilliant work in the comments here, justifying Warren’s actions and praising her smarts. It would have been -perhaps- understandable if the voters she’s wooing heard all this directly from her, in the same breath that she emphasizes how she shuns big money donors now. My respect would’ve been intact if I heard all this from her. Go Bernie!
6
@EB
She fooled a lot of my friends. I hope they’re reading the fine print now, Bernie 2020!
4
No matter one’s political leanings, one should always retain a healthy dose of cynicism toward all our politicians.
7
I read this article looking for what may be deceptive or double-dealing on the part of Elizabeth Warren's fundraising apparatus both past and present. Instead, readers will find a smart, prepared and honest democratic candidate running for the presidency. This article provides another dimension as it reports Warren's foresight, principles and organization. It appears to have been an editorial decision on the part of the NY Times to couch the article in a negative light in order to attract readers' attention; mote the headline above the story. The negativity here is properly addressed to the paper and not Elizabeth Warren.
339
@F. McB
That's right. This article would have more credibility if the Times were to do an analysis of Biden's, Harris' and Buttigieg's campaign financing from mostly large donors. Also, I have read that Booker took large donations from the pharmaceutical industry in the past and voted against a bill that would have provided for negotiating drug prices. Those are the more important campaign financing stories, in my view, and I am concerned about financing of elections and think this information tarnishes Warren to some extent. However, if the Times thinks the article will push potential Warren voters into the Biden camp (pretty clear the paper is pushing his candidacy), it is mistaken. The real hypocrisy here is that of the Times, in not doing analysis of the donors to the campaigns of its favorites, and the voting records of those candidates in relations to donations they received in the past (e.g., Booker).
23
@N
Thank you for your detailed comments regarding the practices of other candidates, which I will examine, and the questionable editorial positions of the NY Times. The more we know and are able to share with our fellows the better informed the citizens will be.
7
@F. McB
You're welcome, and thanks. I learn a lot from other commenters and from conducting further research into information they provide. I think I learned about the Booker example this way, and verified the information in media reports I had not previously seen.
7
Shocked, I tell you! I am shocked! Imagine a politician raising millions of dollars from those who give away millions of dollars! This isn't news. It's way of American politics, it's not going to change, so get used to it.
3
Given that Biden-backer Ed Rendell is the chief Warren critic in this story, perhaps the Times should have included a little more compare-and-contrast to Biden’s relationship to big money. How much did he bring into his presidential bid? What’s he taking now and from whom?
12
And the unfair attacks on the top female candidate begin. I wish commenters here would be honest and just admit they don't want a woman to be president. I'd prefer it to the hypocritical criticism of women that only did exactly what their male counterparts do without any tarnish to their name.
5
This is a rather pathetic attempt at a hit piece on Warren. How dare she go through the (at the time) absolutely traditional and accepted means of financing campaigns? How dare she re-assess her position to more closely align with her constituents' beliefs?
Candidates are allowed, and hopefully highly encouraged, to grow and learn from past experiences. Nothing in this article makes me question Warren but rather the motives of the writer.
12
The point of this article seems to be just to give her a bad headline. Joe Biden is not a more honest politician and you could take a closer look at his donors if you want to provide fair and honest reporting.
14
Warren's another Hillary. If she captures the Democratic nomination, Trump can be counted on to have yet another bag of zingers in his holster and probably even riff on Hillary just for the agony of it.
And Warren? For The Lord God's and Jesus Christ's sake AND the Buddha's and everyone elses, too, don't reprise anything remotely resembling Miss bouncy/the optimistic cheerleader a la Hillary.
Remember.
A sizeable portion of males will be voting AND making their judgments based on something akin to "toughness", regardless of gender.
THEN they vote for the first name they can reasonably recognize as "male".
And you think I'm kidding,
Right?
3
My, my. This could have been written by a RNC or Trump campaign flack.
6
At this point, you have to doubt her sincerity. She took big money for a “race” on which she had no intention of spending it and instead used it to seed her Presidential campaign. Now, she wants to prove her “progressive” credentials by condemning big money fund raising. Nice move, that, especially since she already had and spent the money. It’s easy to call yourself a progressive after you’ve benefitted from the old ways of shady political maneuvering, but that doesn’t make you one.
96
@Larry Politics is politics...But, hey keep looking for that pure, sainted candidate and let us know when you find him or her.
10
@Larry They ALL benefited from the old ways. Nothin' but Snake Oil Salesmen (and women).
1
Publicly financed elections -- they won't eliminate corruption but they'll help to reduce it, while enabling candidates to spend more of their time on productive activities instead of begging for money.
7
Andrew Yang’s Democracy Dollars is an answer
3
@Larry,
2008: McCain went public, Obama stayed private ... everyone learned the lesson. Warren obviously among the "everybody".
1
Just goes to show that, despite her rhetoric, Warren is no better than any of the other politicians. She can drop the act now.
7
@Matt
Read the article. While the headline insinuates a negative look at Warren's fundraising, it actually reports Warren's foresight, organizing skill, principles and transparency and decision making.
6
Senator Warren is smart and politically savvy.I applaud he efforts to diminish big money in politics and would urge every Dem candidate to follow Senator Sander's lead as has she.
I personally don't care who does it, or why. I believe our democratic system will only grow healthier as the billionaires find it harder to buy themselves a lackey in the halls of power.
8
Good for her!! Glad to see that someone smart is doing her best to get elected, rather than doing her best to express her feelings!! I don’t think she can be elected, but I’m liking her more and more. “The perfect is the enemy of the good”!!!
5
So what. Those are the ground rules. Play to win.
5
Surprise! Warren is a politician. Does that discredit her as a progressive? Hardly. OK, purists will take offense. They'd prefer their progressive champions to have nothing whatsoever to do with the moneyed class, not even if the well heeled donors are themselves progressive in their leanings. Sure, building up a war chest through big-money donations and then turning around and criticizing others for feeding at the same trough is Machiavellian. It's a classic case of having your cake and eating it, too. But that's politics. And Warren can truthfully claim that she is not solely dependent on big money donations, which ought to count for something with progressives and everyone else. Purity doesn't win elections. Machiavellianism in the pursuit of ruthless self-aggrandizement doesn't deserve to win. Warren's platform doesn't appear to be a clever ruse --it's a policy wonk's delight and promises real change if even a part of it becomes the law of the land. She ought not be disavowed because she has shown herself to be a politician.
7
Ed Rendell is what the Democratic Party’s status quo establishment looks like, one that working families strongly reject. As catalyst for the “big -dirty- money” , the Democratic Party is awash with special interest money which neglects and holds working families with contempt. Let’s not forget that he was ineffective in delivering a higher level of Pennsylvania voter support that Hilary Clinton could have used.
Senator Warren is better off staying as far away from the likes of Ed Rendell as possible.
10
While I understand that people can change, let us not forget Elizabeth Warren was a Republican first. That has ALWAYS concerned me.
5
Sigh. More Conventional Wisdom from the chattering class that (although probably not intentional) objectively serves the Republicans. Liberal Democratic candidate plays by the currently existing rules that they advocate changing and presto: they are hypocrites because they did not unilaterally disarm! Republicans OTOH are expected to raise every legal penny (and, more often than not in today's atmosphere where Republicans lack any morality in sustaining their minority rule aided by a Republican controlled SCOTUS, plenty of extra legal pennies as well) so when they act as expected there is no story.
4
this looks like an interesting article. I must read it. But, come on, without money in America, you are dead. Can't do anything. Doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, everybody has got to have some schtick if they aren't lucky, star-crossed sperm, born to Joe Kennedy. Joe, you know, is often unfairly maligned. Read the new biography. He gave back. Joe Jr. John. Robert. Ted....Today's millionaires/billionaires by comparison, with a few notable exceptions, like St. Soros, spend their time and money raising clones of themselves who's question is: "What else can my country do for my family?" I like Elizabeth Warren and approve of her message that it's time for the rich to pay their fair share. This isn't France before the revolution. (or is it?) However I'm not voting for her because I took too much political science. And I want a candidate most likely to win, which would be Booker. Warren for VP. Kamala for AG. Bernie as our party secretary. Inslee for Interior. Bloomberg for Commerce. Klobuchar for Education. And trump to jail.
3
It is not as if she realized the evil of big-money fundraisers. Her entire narrative is a pre-planned scam. She knew full well that she was raising $10m more than she needed to win re-elction in Massacusetts last year, in order to enable her to act the saint - but only until the general, when the pre-raised amount runs out.
Look up "cynical" in the dictionary.
For those commmenters saying she has mended her ways? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. She had the speeches all planned during her big fundraisers less than one year ago.
7
I’m a grassroots Warren supporter and I am not at all concerned by this. Yes, before now Warren fundraised like every other major Democratic politician. (Why is that a surprise to anyone?) Finally, she got well known enough to be able to try her current small donor, grassroots approach and she did. I admire that — she’s pragmatic, but she knows when the time is right to take a big risk for something she believes in!
174
@E
That must be why she's already stated the "small donor" schtick is just for the primaries.
It is a gimmick. A marketing ploy.
It's not a political belief.
Its a move from a calculating pol to undercut the true progressive on her Left, while she panders to those power brokers from the establishment.
Real "grassroots". Ha!
Kinda like the T-Party. Funded by the Koch Bro's.
Who also funded the Dem. Third Way.
Who are now talking up Warren as the pol they can work with. Shock! Not.
But true...most of Team Blue isn't concerned about this. They've been voting in corp. owned pol's for decades.
Just wish they'd quit whining when nothing changes.
Because they keep voting in the same bought 'n paid candidates.
3
The other comments here are very predictable.
“If she is so progressive why did she take rich people’s money? Eh? EH? HAHA GOTCHA!”
Every candidate is going to be flawed. Every. Single. One. Bernie Sanders ran a campaign in 2016 that was rife with pay inequality and sexism. And he is underwater with a very, very crucial Democrat voter block: Black women. They don’t trust him because he centers white rural voters in his policy proposals. Bernie supporters REALLY don’t like to talk about that.
At the end of the day, I’m voting for the Democrat candidate. Period. And if you care, AT ALL, about freedom, and putting Trump out of office, you’ll vote for whoever the Democrat that winds up with the nomination is.
Voting third party = vote for Trump
Not voting = vote for Trump
Voting write in = vote for Trump
Why? Because every valid logical argument begins with acknowledging reality. Any argument that does not begin with acknowledging reality is a fallacy. The reality is every third party/write in/stay home vote favors the incumbent. Every. Single. One. Acknowledging that as reality, if you do one of those things and you might as well buy a MAGA hat, because you are no liberal.
87
The comments about Bernie’s campaign are simply untrue.
13
@Austin Ouellette
Bernie was hit from the outside, and leave it to family to not stand with family.
5
@Austin Ouellette Please do not misrepresent Bernie's support base. It is diverse. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/7/18216899/bernie-sanders-bro-base-polling-2020-president
11
Ms. Warren's rise from successful consumer advocate, spurned by Republicans, to Senator and now Presidential candidate has been earned every step of the way. That she has gained donations from large donors speaks well for her.
65
@LWK no doubt the same way her minority hiring at Harvard was "earned".
5
Wow. A politician raising money from donors to fund their campaign for high office! Is this really the issue we all need to be fulminating about right now? Something that every candidate has had to do since the invention of television?
It is not illegal. But secretly funding wars (Iran-Contra), willfully ginning up false intelligence to lead us into ill-begotten wars (Iraq), and turning our rule-of-law Justice Dept into an Executive Branch lapdog worthy of a dictatorship all are. I support the NYT printing this story, I just hope readers can maintain clarity and perspective of the existential challenges we truly must face if we are to survive this perilous moment in American history.
37
On September 18, Elizabeth Warren, the much beloved poster child of the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party, voted for a bill that authorizes $700 billion in defense funds. This includes $640 billion for the Pentagon and an additional $60 billion for military operations in countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This bill increased military spending by $80 billion, which far surpasses the increase requested by Trump ($54 billion). There were 8 no votes (against 89 yes votes) and three abstentions, but Warren was not one of them. And yet, she claims that Trump is abhorrent & dangerous.
14
She could not vote one way or another on September 18, because today is Sep 9. If you refer to defense bill passed in June, she didn't vote on that bill.
2
@Michael Sorensen
So, you don't think Trump is abhorrent and dangerous?
2
@Michael Sorensen As much as it is true that our military has been abused and misused through the years, it remains true that our country requires a functioning defense capability. Megalomaniacal destroyers will continue to emerge from humanity's gene pool as they have throughout history, and only the institutional response of the united sane will prevent the repeat of disasters like Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, and, some fear, Putin via Trump. We face chaos from within and without. And we must both clean house and maintain the military.
2
I for one value the ability to learn, grow, and change one's position based on experience.
It's a shame that forward-thinking adaptability and resilience gets slammed as some kind of insincere waffling.
Isn't it better to learn from one's past?
31
That’s the American spirit! Be smart, ambitious and think ahead! Nothing wrong here!
14
If she has fooled them, good. She do not denounce big money per. She denounced the rich who refuse to pay their part of a more just wealth distribution.
15
@Roland Berger
She do not denounce big money per SE. Sorry.
She "drank the koolaid" once she got to Washington. Now she is the darling candidate of the oligarchy as well as their insurance that Bernie can't get in because they can't control him.
10
Literally, who cares? I'm voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is.
53
@Dorothy N. Gray
I care!
3
So basically she’s already been bought and paid for.
14
@J Clark No. Not true. Large donor fundraisers are not the same as support by corporate, lobbyist or Super PACS. She has forgone donations from all of those. Some people have money, why shouldn't they be able to donate the max of $2800? I'd donate that if I could. That's not a lot of money to many and certainly not enough to "buy" a candidate. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/24/18656919/2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-campaign-donations-finance-pledges
3
Former smoker gives up cigarettes. Once she said she would stop the activity, she stopped. Where's the story here?
52
@Linda Garey
She also said she would take it up again.
1
if you had bothered to read the article, you would know that "the story"is that she has plainly stayed that she intends to "start smoking" again in the general election.
1
Story is that Warren accepted large donations in 2018 that were expended on her presidential campaign, that she plans to resume taking large donations if she is the Democratic nominee, and that her campaign has criticized Biden for accepting large donations.
I think that Warren’s tactics are smart and pragmatic, but that her campaign is hypocritical in criticizing Biden for accepting large donations.
In addition, Warren’s reliance on small donations is temporary. Sanders has been relying on small donations for years.
1
If you check, I'll bet you'll find that Elizabeth Warren has always had one of the highest number small donor bases throughout her political career. That some large donors also gave, meant that she was able to shovel piles of money to other democratic candidates and to the DNC. As one of those gazillion small donors, I am proud of the way she used her campaign funds. Why don't you do a story on the amount she's given away and the number of people who have given to her? That would tell us more than this drivel.
32
Did Elizabeth Warren take dark money from Russia and other foreign agents? No, but Trump did. Pick your battles.
54
Dems should leave the cynical "whataboutism" to the party of Trump. "No one is perfect so efforts to improve the world are meaningless" is a toxic sentiment.
19
Ms. Warren is an opportunist who has always used any advantage she can find to advance her career, beginning with her claiming Native American heritage to secure a professorship. Her populism is very much in the same spirit.
That said, Ms. Warren is also a very gutsy, hard working and focused person. I deeply admire her willingness to fight and to go out on a limb that other more risk-averse politicians shy away from. The fact that she takes calculated risks is actually in her favor. She clearly recognized that the combination of her early fundraising and the political climate against big money donors gave her an edge and she seized it. I used to think Ms. Warren would be drubbed by Mr. Trump. I’m not so sure now.
8
@Shiv A level-headed comment. I would only add that her family's belief that they had native blood was sincere, and in fact hundreds of thousands of Americans do, while they do not have native heritage. That is a distinction we have all become educated on.
1
Comparing the actions of a Democrat candidates against Trump is a very low standard. We must do oh so much better in setting expectations and responding to concerned inconsistencies in words and actions.
4
So what? She raised money "the old fashioned way" for a time. She corrected that. Can anyone be faulted for reforming themselves? Can anyone who is a real leader be expected to lead our way to reform if that leader himself or herself has not shown a personal ability for reform? The best thing about articles such as this is that it underscores how little anyone has or Senator Warren's weaknesses. Her strengths far exceed anything her opponents can exploit to undercut her way forward as the first woman president.
21
@East EndShiv A level-headed comment. I of thousands of Americans do, while they do not have native heritage. That is a distinction we have all become educated on.
Contrary to some of the comments here about this being a hit job, I think that this too needs to be aired. No one is perfect and we learn and evolve. The thing I care about is that despite her fund raising means, she has always been an advocate for the consumer and the individual over larger corporate interests and her record shows that.
14
Running for any Federal office these days takes tremendous amounts of money, and that corrupts the process to a greater or lesser extent. For Warren this might be a venial sin. I have no problem if Sen. Warren raised money in 2018 from big donors. They certainly haven't made her go all Republican, or stop her populist message and policies. Say three Hail Marys and be on your way!
19
Sadly it costs a lot of money to run for President. Time for campaign finance reform.
21
You don’t need Campaign Finance Reform if you are the candidate who raised $305million in small donations because Bernie is beloved for millions of honest reasons.
Warren signals she is no threat to the increasing oligarchy.
Clinton 2 point oh nooooo... Trump again.
3
@Lilly While I love Bernie, Elizabeth has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to make the system work that he has not. It may be, in part, collaborative ability.
4
This is a non-issue for me. I'm all in for Elizabeth.
30
Warren is a politician. They curry money and favors. In this way she is no different than others in office. She does not truly represent the people she is supposed to represent.
7
Dear NYTimes,
If you are our alli, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, if you understand what is at stake, you will follow what the people want the outcome of this election to be.
There is no time to be pitting our people running for this savior of our country against each other instead of against Trump. The people have spoken with their small donations in great numbers to Sanders/Warren diminishing the importance of the little amounts the rich have given to them. They will never be beholding to corporate rot.
By the way, if you remember, Mr.Rendell's opinion turned out to be wrong in 2016.
I hope we get it right this time.
Thank you NYTimes, I know you want the best for the country, people depend on you.
3
Please don’t lump Warren in with the only politician who actually is for the people and who has never and will never signal to the establishment that he will get in the White House and then perform political theater only.
If she believed in the Progressive agenda Bernie set last election, if she believed that was what was best for the country, why did she not endorse that agenda and Bernie then?
3
@Lilly Obviously, because she believed that Hillary was better able to win and pursue our goals then, and in fact, Hillary did win the popular vote and only lost electorally due the the surgical excision of votes from the inner cities of three states by Putin's trolls using social media - 70,000 votes in 3 cities defeated almost 3 million! "We wuz robbed."
1
@Lilly Obviously, because she believed that Hillary was better able to win and pursue our goals then, and in fact, Hillary did win the popular vote and only lost electorally due the the surgical excision of votes from the inner cities of three states by Putin's trolls using social media - 70,000 votes in 3 cities defeated almost 3 million! "We wuz robbed."
1
This reads like gotcha journalism. Good for her for knowing how to play the game. She raised enough to become a senator and kept her eye on the real prize. The one who should worry most about Warren’s savvy political instincts is the current White House occupant.
22
So the establishment Democrats haven’t learned a thing? So we are still supposed to get in line with the lesser of two establishment evils?
That gave us Trump and will undoubtedly again.
5
Reminds me of Clinton’s campaign. Deny, ignore, failure to acknowledge. All her supporters making excuses and rationalizing.
Hasn’t Warren learned? Haven’t the Dems learned? Politics and hypocrisy as usual. This will come back to haunt her if nominated.
11
A little false DNA there, a little hypocrisy here, and a whole lot of miscalculation if she thinks 180M voters are going to willingly give up their employer-sponsored health insurance for Medicare. Has anyone stopped to ask why doctors limit the number of Medicare patients they will take? Hubris to match that of HRC!
4
@dbl06: There was no false DNA, there’s no hypocrisy, unless you think it’s hypocritical to having been a meat eater before becoming a vegetarian too, and I never understood why Americans want to pay more for less and mor uncertainty when it comes to their health insurance.
12
It appears she is well qualified to be President as she is adept at misrepresentation with a straight face. Did she burn the list of those donors so she won’t use them if the polls show her behind?
7
Translating the headline: "Elizabeth Warren followed political norms for years, then vowed to follow a different path, but is bad for spending the money people gave her under the old norms, because she is not psychic, did not see the future, and did not understand that her hands must be cleaner than anyone else's in the universe for the NYT to treat her fairly." The only REAL news would be if she vowed to stop taking $ from big donors but continued to take $ from big donors. Because that is HOW TIME WORKS.
48
@Susan THIS! A million times!!
7
please apply to all donations given by Epstein. still feel the same way?
@Susan
So the fact she took Big Monies previously, knowing she had already won her 2nd senatorial term; and that she'd be campaigning for pres. next...
Touts her "small donor" schtick as a progressive bona fide...
But has quietly stated she'll drop the gimmick if she makes the general and will once again take any and fall monies...is how politics works.
This is also how hypocrisy works.
It is also dishonest.
Playing voters as dupes and fools.
Which many appear they are to be.
1
Relax, NYT, before headlining some hoped for juicy debacle. Elizabeth Warren changed her strategy to be in line with her personal values. That's all. It's positive and in line with Democratic principles also.We'll live - which is more than anyone can say under the rule of the current administration.
20
Was a crime committed? Has she been riddled with bankruptcies and dubious business practices her entire career? Is she a lying, scheming, narcissist? Is she as dumb as a brick?
I didn't think so.
106
@MBurr I would say taking $350,000 a year from Harvard to teach a single class is indeed...a crime.
What would you call it?
3
She was a Native American. She suffered from discrimination and deserved that $.
It’s called - no integrity.
1
@Erica Smythe Either we're all supposed to get rich in America or we're not. I'm tired of liberals having to play a different game. The important thing is her policies and her beliefs. If Harvard offered me 350K for a single class, I think I'd take it. As would you.
98
So you're saying she's smart.
11
Smart, yes, if that’s how you define hypocrite.
2
She is a total hypocrite. She also told everyone she was Native American to enhance her job prospects before getting exposed by Trump. It’s called racism - culture misappropriation.
7
@Jay Lincoln Wasn't that about enhancing her job prospects debunked a long time ago? (And anyway, it seems to be true that she had a Native American great great grandmother.)
I have met Americans who tell me they are Dutch, because some ancestor came from the Netherlands. Do I have to be all up in arms now because that is 'cultural misappropriation'?
Isn't it natural for people to be interested in their ancestry, and especially if that ancestry comes from far away (Netherlands) or is rare (Native American)?
I really do not understand what all the indignation is about.
17
@Elisabeth
You may not understand what’s at play here. She claimed to be Native American to take advantage of affirmative action in order to secure a job; or at least greatly increase the chance of being hired. Writing on a application that one is Dutch does not trigger such an advantage.
2
@Songbird
Did she secure a place reserved for Native Americans? I read that was not the case.
1
Much ado about nothing.
11
"How Trump was a Democrat before he became a Republican", "How Jimmy ate meat before he became a vegetarian", "How Oprah was heavy before she lost weight", "How Bernie was young before he became old", etc.,...What do you want to prove with this article? That people change?
55
O Tempora, O More
“She didn’t have any trouble taking our money the year before,” Mr. Rendell said. “All of a sudden, we were bad guys and power brokers and influence-peddlers. In 2018, we were wonderful.”
5
I don't care where Democrats get their money. They will need lots of it to beat Trump. Go get it!Whatever it takes.
Once we get the current monster out of the White House we can go back to our purity efforts. But right now job one is beating Trump.
Whatever it takes.
WHATEVER. IT. TAKES.
27
What it will take is the most beloved, honest and productive Progressive politician right now in the country, maybe the world.
Bernie will beat Trump.
5
She took big money now she wants to stick it to Big Money. Sign me up!
46
Big money only invests where they believe they will get a great return.
That’s how it stays big money.
That’s call hypocrisy in a candidate.
That’s not change.
That’s corruption.
4
The New York Times' misguided views of fairness resulted in false equivalence of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton helping to elect Trump. Now to sell newspapers it resorts to writing about supposed flaws in the Democratic candidates. Elizabeth Warren is not responsible for Citizens United. Why not concentrate on current issues-helathcare, climate change, foreign policy, trade, the economy. Keep the nitpicking up and the Times will help reelect Trump. Might as well just endorse him.
156
@Kenneth Kramer Mr. Kramer and all those who begrudge and distrust The NYTs's scrutiny of their favored candidate you can always avoid their coverage of politics or switch your allegiance to another news source. I am tired of voters complaining about bias and agendas of this great paper because it writes a story they don't like, usually because it punctures their sanctimonious bubble. As for the paper's coverage of the 2016 that arguably damaged Ms. Clinton there is ample evidence--not of bias but of of excessive attention to the so-called email scandal.
2
@Annie
It's not about our favorite candidate. The NY Times attacks ALL the Democratic candidates. Pete Buttigieg isn't "gay enough" whatever that means. They attacked Sanders last go round, they relentlessly attacked Clinton when she was running, they attacked Amy Klobuchar with the Enquirer type article on how she's a "meany". They've gone after Williamson, they've gone after Biden, they've gone after Harris. It's far from an attack on our "favorite" candidate.
Now tell me, when did Bernie do something like this?
15
@Kron You mean taking dark money from the Clintons where they bought him a 3rd home on the lake..in order to get his support at the convention?
Of course they didn't write the check themselves.
They had donors do it..
1
@Kron
The fact that Bernie doesn’t is a measure of his honesty and credibility. Bernie is trustworthy.
Warren is biting the hand that fed her. If she is duplicitous on this - and as a grassroots donor to her campaign, it angers me - on what else will she give great lip service while having her fingers crossed behind her back?
She won election to the Senate the first time with a pledge of no outside money, so her stance on not taking money from big donors this time seemed real.
Yikes, she has a war chest of big donor dollars while running a “grassroots” campaign; she takes Bernie’s ideas and turns them into policy statements to stake a claim to them. What else? To say I am disappointed in her is an understatement.
16
Bernie is the only incorruptible politician.
Bernie doesn’t need big money because he has policies beloved by the majority of Americans.
We American poor and disappearing middle class gave him $300million last election because he is actually going to do what he says, and hundreds of millions of us across the country will make sure real change that betters our futures and all of life on earth happens.
Not take money from the increasing oligarchy with a wink and then pretend they tried.
8
Warren had said she wouldn't take money from PACs, or dark money. I don't recall her ever stating she wouldn't take maximum contributions from individual donors or refuse to have fund raisers.
Our country is politically sick. Billions were spent on the last presidential campaign. Billions more will be spent on this presidential campaign. Personally I don't care if the Democratic candidate spends a trillion dollars to win the election. If trump is not defeated the country that I love will be destroyed. We are quickly turning into a 1930's European country with a certain political mindset that apparently can't be named; flagged by the NY Times censorship.
Our rights are being chipped away at one at a time. We have a dangerous sociopath as the head of our country with his dangerous sociopathic administration spitting on our Constitution almost daily. he is treated like a little tin pot dictator demanding fealty from his "court", slavish devotion and constant praise and admiration. he is an embarrassment on the world stage and a danger to all. he is not concerned with any campaign contributions legality or ethicality. Yet we are expected to fight him with our little slings and arrows while he shows up with nuclear weaponry.
Sadly ethics have abandoned a political arena. But when you're dragged into the mud you have to fight in the mud. It's time for gloves off, fighting fire with fire. If we want our country/world to survive intact trump NEEDS to be stopped. It is that dire.
30
@sharon
"Sadly ethics have abandoned a political arena."
Sharon, I'd like to introduce you to a guy named Bernie...
2
Ed "Big Baby" Rendell whining about being called a fat-cat just makes me laugh. The entitlement of these old men to think they can just pay in like they always have for access is mind-blowing.
Rendell's tears tells me Warren is doing something right.
25
I guess I haven’t been paying enough attention - I actually believed she was a “small donor” candidate. And now she criticizes other candidates who are doing exactly what she did (and is now trying to hide)? What a hypocrite.
Thanks for publishing this article. This is why papers like The NY Times are so important. Keep pitching your articles right over the middle of the plate.
10
Seems like that conservative NYT editorial board is showing through. If I wanted to read and follow this stuff I'd watch Fox news.
There was actually a time I listened and voted republican. Today, no way, no how! Instead I'll send another $30 to Elizabeth.
147
@Mike04217 "Today, no way, no how! Instead I'll send another $30 to Elizabeth."
Me too, Mike.
12
Don’t expect her as president to bow to Wall St, unlike Biden.
26
@Cloud 9
Before reading this I would have agreed with you, now I am far less certain. She is also telling the party elites that she is one of them, which reminds me of Biden’s promise at a Wall Street fundraiser that nothing will change for them if he is elected.
4
@nora m
Hi. My son is a Wall St guy and, not surprisingly, he and his colleagues despise Warren. I told him that she can’t and won’t try to destroy them. That would be stupid. And that she’s not. But they could expect reasonable regulations.
1
Liz - so very disappointed in your hypocrisy. We could overlook the empty promises and policy proposals delinked from economic reality. But hypocrisy from you? A pity.
9
Bernie Sanders was FIRST in this category of small donors.
Bernie Sanders was FIRST in health care for all.
Bernie Sanders was FIRST in voting NO to going to WAR.
Bernie Sanders was FIRST in acknowledging climate change.
Bernie Sanders was FIRST in free college education.
WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE...
The DNC didn't help Sanders in 2016.
Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Bernie Sanders has been on the same road for the last 30 years.
INTEGRITY, MORALITY, HONEST COMMITMENT TO THE PEOPLE.
37
@Thomas
Something that has me puzzled about Warren and her philosophy, she did not support Bernie in 2016, and now her platform is a carbon copy of Bernie 2016. She supported Hillary all the way even though their ideas clashed. Or did she want the Presidency herself and knew Bernie could have taken it all on a Sanders/Warren ticket.
We really could have beaten Trump. No doubt. If she is the nominee, I hope it is Warren/Sanders.
7
@Thomas David -
Bernie Sanders is also already 78 years old. Not his fault, but a giant issue. He’d be almost 90 at the end of a second term. Just what America needs./s
Does Warren not also exhibit integrity, morality, and an honest commitment to the people? So your answer should be obvious.
People change and move forward. They learn, reassess and evolve. Imagine moving thru life with the same set of beliefs and principles and not learning and readjusting along the way. The real story here would be if Warren won the primary and then went to big donor money to win the WH. Then I would understand the further discussion. This has not happened. Thank you, next.
14
@Holly J
That is exactly what she has said she plans to do.
4
@Holly J
Best comment so far!
She certainly has evolved alright. Many years ago, she was actually Native American. What a chameleon! It’s truly amazing. She’ll be whatever she needs to be when the time is right.
1
I like Warren but she should have seen this coming and been out ahead of the story. She could have had a good story of a personal epiphany about the dangers of relying on large individual or corporate donations, admit she had done that in past but was now moving in a more values-based direction. NOTHING can be hidden from an appropriately persistent free press, nor should it. Don’t blame the NYT for reporting what opposition researchers already knew and will present in much harsher light.
12
Lisa, nicely researched piece. I am not a Warren person per se but have a very different take.
Big money is all over politics. No one can be elected without it. If there is going to be a change, it will be someone that crosses over from this group. I take Warrens claim in the spirit it is meant, not the particulars. I do agree she should be challenged on this.
Watched Obama campaign take lots of individual donations but put the same Goldman folks in place that destroyed the economy under Bush.
No one is pure. What we need is someone to cross over.
Thanks.
18
@Mark
“No one is pure”
Have you checked out Bernie? He walks the walk - all the way.
5
@Mar
"No one is pure."
What do you call never taking corporate or big-donor money for 40 years? I call it Pure as the Driven Snow.,
1
One reason for anyone and everyone to run for political office is the carryover provision. Any self-declared and registered person can conduct out a current campaign with active solicitation /collection of donations. Then, if candidate in the particular pursuit of an office comes up short in polling along the way, in a primary or in the general election and is NOT elected, the candidate by virtue of his control of the campaign and its treasury can hold onto the monies received in the process for another day ( another campaign for whatever office and whatever time ). There is no reimbursement of excess funds, there is an accumulation if they don’t waste it all on the losing battle. The war of getting elected continues.
My mistake.
Bernie didn’t raise $236million in total last election.
He raised $305,812,811. In small donations from every state in the country, even though almost no one know who he was last time, because people believe in him and trust the change he wants for us.
Bernie isn’t signaling to the establishment that he will fall in line, like Biden, like Warren... Bernie is the only one we can trust.
31
In the debate, they should ask all the candidates about the money they use to fund their campaigns. It is all kind of crazy — through the years we’ve all met the kids who come to work in campaigns. I remember when Senator Kennedy ran for the nomination and they tapped myself and a bunch of my high school friends to ferry a bunch of cars up to the Secret Service for his motorcade. We thought we were all pretty special that day! Many of the permanent kids put heart and soul into these campaigns and maybe they should be on the take when the campaign ends, as I’m not sure where the money ends up, but in their pocket might be a good idea. This would have kept Sen. Warren from building a political nest egg.
Elizabeth Warren is climbing in the polls. Lets see some articles about that. Whats driving the rise, whos changing their minds, will she plateau, can she close further on Joe Biden, what will it take for her to be frontrunner?
Money, lots of it, answers some of the above questions. Unfortunate, but that's the business of politics, at least for the near term.
Elizabeth Warren though is doing her level best to assure the small donor is the lions share of the campaign donations.
20
As of today, I plan on voting against corporations and only for Bernie/ Liz. Everyone one else has stronger ties to the center ultimately leaning right and will keep a part of Trumpism alive. Progressives are the true democrats that hold the bright future, everything to the 'good'. Better to reach for the stars and get a bucket of stardust, promises, than a bucket of what we are getting now. I meant status quo, but you can fill in the blanks.
Something that has me puzzled about Warren and her philosophy, she did not support Bernie in 2016, and now her platform is a carbon copy of Bernie 2016. She supported Hillary all the way even though their ideas clashed. Or did she want the Presidency herself and knew Bernie could have taken it all on a Sanders/Warren ticket.
We really could have beaten Trump. No doubt. If she is the nominee, I hope it is Warren/Sanders.
The situation is critical, the prize should belong to the Democrats and played without a gamble.
6
The one with the most money wins. The ones who donate the most money get something or other they pay for from the one who wins. No one who can't raise funds wins. Every presidential campaign costs billions. This is how we choose a leader? Why not set limits on spending? Why not use public funds for equal spending by every candidate, with equal air time, equal travel, equal staffing? Every candidate's budget closely monitored. Best man or women wins. Not the biggest spender. Or favor giver.
8
So what.
Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican until she became a Democrat in 1996.
Does anyone begrudge Warren for that magnificent evolution ?
So Warren is evolving again in a positive progressive direction.
It's nothing but great news while Republicans and most Democrats continue to swallow 0.1% campaign finance bribery for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Meanwhile, the Grand One Percent party is the largest 0.1% swamp in America.
Besides, if you want to know what Elizabeth Warren did while she was still accepting corporation campaign donations, remember that she nearly single-handedly created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010, which has pursued corporate predators and bankers and returned $12 billion to 29 million Americans in refunds and canceled debts from shady corporations.
Warren already proved she can support the public while accepting corporate money.
Her ethics are strong and always have been, with or without corporate money.
Any progressive or moderate voter demanding political 'purity' will be a de facto Trump supporter in 2020 in the same way Hillary wasn't 'pure' enough for some in 2016.
Keep your eyes on the prize, voters.
The Trump-GOP swamp has no bottom and no ethics.
Americans should thank their lucky stars they will have Elizabeth Warren to vote for.
Andrew Yang, first-time candidate, said “you can’t begrudge something that someone has done at an earlier point if they decide to move in a direction that...is very positive.”
402
@Socrates
The Grand One Percent, as only Socrates can write it! I hope that one sticks!
I also hope someone out there realizes what the Daily or Colbert shows are missing, and puts you on payroll. You really have missed your calling.
16
@Socrates Well said, if we let the good be the enemy of their perfect we are doomed and might as well concede right now. Every candidate is going to have flaws, and the question is whether they are good enough to beat the GOP. Moral purity and hypocrisy (since those who demand moral purity themselves are far from perfect) have been a disaster for Democrats.
8
@Socrates
If she really is having a "magnificent evolution" please ask her to return all the big donor monies. Else it is just a euphemism for double-standards.
7
As a teen, once I read the entire almanac to broaden my knowledge and was surprised to learn there that under our system one could make political donations. So I made one. I felt simultaneously exhilarated to suddenly have more voting power than if I simply went to the polls, and uncomfortable with that power. My $20 felt as unfair to me as if it had been $2,000, but on reflection I couldn't think of how campaigns could be funded without private donations. If, for example, whoever wanted to run got the same financing as every other candidate, presumably the public would fund crackpots and half-hearteds to run on an even footing with qualified candidates who really wanted the job. Serious discussion would be drowned out by populist noise, as today it so often is on the Internet. Look, if a purist politician sincerely wants to take money out of politics, they shouldn't be taking any donations, at all. I don't think it's somehow morally superior for a million "small" donors to sway an election by writing checks than it is for others to do so by writing large ones. Campaign finance reform is like healthcare or education -- lots of politicians talk about it, telling gullible people whatever they want to hear, but the devil is in the details. Exactly how should it work? Politicians don't want to talk about the details, and few, if any, have a serious plan. They'll figure it out, maybe, when they're in office. Meanwhile, they all take loads and loads of donations, if they can.
2
Warren is a strong candidate whose primary issue has long been corruption, or the undue influence of private money on public policy. Still, she is a realist who understands this corrupt system and how it works. It seems ironic that the author of this article is named Goldmacher but, one way or another, that is what is required to fund political campaigns in this country. Thanks to Sanders, we have "people's pacs" now that allow significant crowd funding. You can count on a candidate, if elected, to represent the interests of their backers. Warren and Sanders are now supported by citizens. Though I do not find Warren as authentic or trustworthy as I do Sanders, I would not hesitate to vote for her.
11
It's just a catch-22 - in order to change the rules you have to position yourself by following the rules. This can be corrupting but I'm pretty sure the abundantly decent Warren had a plan for that, too. A good one. Hope she wins.
19
@confetti
"It's just a catch-22 - in order to change the rules you have to position yourself by following the rules."
Uh...Bernie raised $300 Million. He never had to "follow the rules" of Big Money.
1
I don’t care about her taking money from rich progressives in the past.
I do care about what she has done — clawing back money from banks etc. to help consumers.
Elizabeth Warren is smart, principled, savvy, verbally quick and courageous.
I’m with her all the way.
70
She should be questioned on this topic in the next debate to see how well she can defend her history of campaign fundraising that does not exactly match the claims of her campaign. If the press does not challenge her on this now, before the Iowa primary and she consequently gets the nomination, then the Republicans will be able to denounce her as a phony. The way Sanders responds to this also matters. Based upon how nice he was about Hillary's emails and the work he did campaigning for Hillary after she won the nomination, I expect he will also be nice to Warren on this. I still think Warren would be a great choice for Sanders vice-presidential partner. Her Bible Belt background and more enlightened interpretation of Christianity would be a good match in a debate with that cherry-picker Pence. Sanders does not have the background to effectively debate Pence before a fundamentalist constituency. The eternally consistent Sanders can more effectively denounce Trump as the greatest phony of them all. And he can also more effectively attract swing voters, rural voters, young voters, and minorities.
6
Let's face it, running for president is a very expensive endeavor and there is not much choice about how a candidate raises the necessary funding. If one tried to work outside the system one would not even get off the starting block.
The system is rigged by and for big money donors. This is what should be changed not Warren's behavior.
8
Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau took back billions of dollars from global banks like Wells Fargo that obtained it through fraud. Warren plans to put new taxes on the very rich to help regular people.worth Heritage, education, and infrastructure. Warren fought against Biden when he was helping banks gut bankruptcy laws for regular people.
Warren's record and her plans say that she is not for sale.
45
@McGloin
Her donors in the MIC might disagree.
As her 2 of 3 votes for Trumps military bloated budgets suggest.
Research her ties to Raytheon and General Dynamics.
Yes, she fought against Biden. For the same reasons she castigated Hillary. But she then signed a secret letter in support of Clinton didn't she. Appearing to sell her candidate backing to HRC instead of Sanders for a dangled VP spot, she was never going to get.
Not for sale?
Not so sure.
1
What's important here is that the people need something, badly, and a candidate is working to provide it. While consistency is obviously important for politicians, so is the capability to evolve in a good faith, and there's nothing to indicate that isn't what's happening here. A few wealthy donors feel insulted, as collateral damage for fixing the single biggest problem in our democracy? Fine.
3
I know several people in this region that attended Warren high donor events. Many of them have also attended presidential events for Biden, Booker, and others.
Warrens attacks on people like us who supported and liked her revealed her “Trumpian” side. She could have made the pivot without the animus. Her blanket charges of corruption and evil might be music to the ears of the progressive minority’, but they ring hollow and opportunistic to Main Street America.
She can not defeat trump.
4
I think Warren and her advisers are brilliant. I find it wonderful that Multi Millionaires gave Warren the head start she needed in order to run this campaign. It is about time that these very wealthy people did some worthy donating to an incredible candidate like Warren.
Warren has already proven that she does not let their money influence her decision making or her plans to put this Country back in order. She is a Capitalist who believes that Capitalism with a conscience is the way to go.
If this article was meant to weaken Warren's support, I doubt that will happen. She, unlike Hilary does not try to hide what she does. I often think that if Hilary had been forthcoming about her Wall Street speeches, she would be President. You cannot hedge with the public. It builds distrust.
Trump is a prime example of that.
10
Kudos to Warren for being PRACTICAL as they are the people who get things done.
14
Solution. It is imperative we pick Bernie as our nominee and Liz as his partner. Both are for the good of humanity in every respect. Good for planet, good for every color and religion, good for good, good for the old and the poor. Against war.
But also to give respect back to the rich. Even though they might resist in the beginning. Hmmm.
Together they have the most money, from the most people and that equals votes. Objective, do not forget, is to win. It will take a lot of money to beat Trump's corporate driven, corrupt dynasty. They, she understands this. If she stands with Bernie, and all he believes for the good of and only for the good for our Beloved Country, they cannot loose.. If we are to swing this hate ridden pendulum back, it must be with the strongest of force. They have got the strength, the power of the good, the power of the people. Biden just doesn't have the strength or enough money, even with his corporate connections. Don't accept corporate driven polls. Follow the money and you will see most is from your neighbors of color, from all religions, from true patriots of this country, and only for the good of the country.
Who, in their right mind can vote against the good?
13
Instead of searching for Warren's changes of heart, let's instead assail the Citizens United decision for making an impossibly uneven playing field. Warren deserves leeway for being committed enough to change her rules so that they match her message. She hasn't altered her campaign to court big money and power. She's altered her campaign to be more true to her promises to be the voice for the voiceless and give respect to the disrespected. Please. Enough anti-Warren nitpicking. She's the right wonk for lighten our darkest moment.
7
Based on the whining tone of the rich donors she is now shunning, I can see why she did it. These entitled self-declared elites and mega-rich think everything and everyone is for sale, and it belongs to them.
Campaign finance now!
Also, this doesn’t improve my opinion of Biden, or hurt my opinion of Warren, but I still think Bernie has the best approach to dealing with billionaires.
4
Unfortunately, it is again all about personality and not policy. Instead of this holier-than-thou bickering over what a person has or has not done, thus inviting another destructive ad hominem campaign of attrition, the focus, in my opinion, should be on policies. One such policy could be to devise a mechanism by which government has to justify spending decisions in a more stringent way, for example, by extending the emoluments clause. This way, one does not extrapolate personal conduct into the future, but puts in place meaningful safeguards against abuse.
3
And so it begins. As Elizabeth Warren gains in popularity, the attacks on her integrity will only increase. I can only hope that we will not see the same shameful double standards applied to female candidates as we did in the 2016 campaign. This article strikes a bit of a nerve as somewhat petty, digging deep for some fault to paint a successful woman as flawed.
21
This just proves, once again, that Warren is smart and pragmatic.
Time to make another donation.
5
Well, the patron saint of this "talk one thing and do something opposite" is the 44th POTUS.
Mr. McCain - foolishly believing in his own name sake and Feingold bill - refused to match a dollar for dollar being raised by then Sen. Obama.
And he paid the price.
Now, a POTUS fighting for reelection - he made the self made millionaire, Mr Romney and his riches as a weapon to first scare Romney off and then out raise him in winning a reelection.
And then, he had the audacity to criticize SCOTUS Justices seated in front of him in the halls of Congress - no less - their Citizens United decision.
And it prompted one Justice (Alioto) to mouth "no, you can't be serious."
So, sen. Warren is treading a well worn path.
Luckily for us Republicans - we seem to have learned the lesson.
And POTUS campaign officials and our congressional leaders appear eager to use every possible avenue to raise funds.
Unilateral disarmament never pays - and definitely not in our elections.
The best candidate money can buy got us the guy stinking up the Oval Office now.
Doesn't look like politics will ever get rid of big money influence. I'm not going to worry about changing the way things work now. First order of business is to get a Democrat elected; how much money it will take doesn't matter. The Republicans are going to raise a ton of money, but their money is not going to get trump re-elected - it will take more than just money to do that.
More important than ever to vote, then if the Democrats win they can change the process so that we can at least know who is donating all that money.
2
Well, the patron saint of this "talk one thing and do something opposite" is the 44th POTUS.
Mr. McCain - foolishly believing in his own name sake and Feingold bill - refused to match a dollar for dollar being raised by then Sen. Obama.
And he paid the price.
Now, a POTUS fighting for reelection - he made the self made millionaire, Mr Romney and his riches as a weapon to first scare Romney off and then out raise him in winning a reelection.
And then, he had the audacity to criticize SCOTUS Justices seated in front of him in the halls of Congress - no less - their Citizens United decision.
And it prompted one Justice to mouth "no, you can't be serious."
So, sen. Warren is treading a well worn path.
Luckily for us Republicans - we seem to have learned the lesson.
And POTUS campaign officials and our congressional leaders appear eager to use every possible avenue to raise funds.
Unilateral disarmament never pays - and definitely not in our elections.
The fact that these wealthy donors are disappointed that Warren is no longer accepting their high-dollar donations and can instead raise money from average Americans is ridiculous. If they cared at all about her policies or her as a candidate they would be glad that so many others Americans, who are far less wealthy then they are, are stepping up to support a candidate they both believe in. Instead the ultra-wealthy donors are hosting fundraisers for other candidates, indicating that they aren't disappointed that they can't support her as they had in the past, but disappointed that she isn't for sale.
7
Is anyone surprised? More “do as I say, not as I do” politics.
Btw, how are all these folks who want to spend trillions on fighting climate change getting around the country politicking? On their bicycles? Airplanes, anyone?
And, could we have a show of hands for all the “Medicare for All” types — and Medicare eligible — whose health care plan is only Medicare and no more?
2
Those who make reference to an “evolution” in Warren’s thinking are really reaching. As a society, we’ve been talking extensively about the evils of too much special interest money in politics for some time now. The notion that Warren did not have a definitive view on it in 2018 and then came to see the light sometime thereafter is preposterous. She’s an opportunist plain and simple. That’s also why she checked the box as a minority at least twice during her legal career even though she is a white woman, and she knows she’s a white women.
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of opportunists out there both in politics and elsewhere, but I find this a bit much when you have someone constantly lecturing the country about everyone else’s opportunism only to find out that she’s just like the others.
6
Note that Sanders has raised much, much more money than Warren, especially from small donors. There’s a reason small donors love him more than her: he’s the real deal. That’s what frightens the fat cats and their mass media about him. Go, Bernie!
8
Big deal, how much did Trump take, and from whom? Where are those tax returns? Still waiting!
4
Well, there are probably a lot of newbie-voters and chronically naive purist-ideologues out there who are surprised and disappointed by this paradox. But then, the first visit to the sausage factory is always revolting.
They should be glad that Warren has shown that she has the stomach for the struggle ahead. If she's to be a winner, she'll have to shaft the trust-fund vegans along with the hedge-fund plutocrats; she will be seen to switch back and forth multiple times, with every interested faction, hopefully gaining traction and momentum along the way. Because, to succeed, you must establish solidarity with disparate groups--who do not get along--and establish yourself as the only one who can unite them. You invite each of them to place a hook or two, so that they feel invested, but you can't ever allow any bloc to imagine that they own you.
Done right, it is a rare art; it is not intrinsically evil. Anyone who is not adept at this will fail, admirably. The measure of her talent will be how many of each will come around to a practical acceptance of this, and how soon. Eventually, no matter who wins, nobody cares who paid for the champaigne.
4
And not a single mention here of Citizen's United, a key reason our democracy has been hacked. Incredibly wrong and unfair to judge Warren for this and not at least mention what the GOP, NRA, Russia, money launderers the world over, on and on have been doing to hack democracies via Deutsche Bank and others, all to cut taxes, push deregulation, empower oil and finance and an increasingly powerful band of plutocrats to grab power. THERE's the story here...and we need to keep on it. It's like you're witnessing a tidal wave and zeroing in on a puddle.
10
Honestly I don't care where the legal donations come from so long as they defeat Donald Trump. Let's all stop being so puritanical and start rowing in the same direction.
11
Once again, the press trash the woman who plays the men’s game to win. What Warren did is NOT reprehensible. Liz, you do not have to apologize for Robin Hooding rich folk. But for heavens sake do not apologize and do not talk about it. Stick to your blueprints to restore the Middle Class.
9
I'm sick and tired of the Times constant bashing of small issues with Democratic candidates. The story should be, "Warren and Sanders eschew big donors, unlike Biden and any Republicans". Instead, we get this. Times, do a lot better, really soon, or you'll start losing subscribers like me.
20
Following yesterday’s puff piece on Biden, how he alone is responsible for sparing us Bork, due to his keen moderation: today you employ your headlines to confuse the voters and slam Elizabeth Warren. She does not denounce big money!! She does attack the INFLUENCE of billionaires and banks and corporations through ‘citizens united’ anonymity, that contribute to presidential campaigns and above all to the dark money not in any specific campaign.
You can’t be a candidate without raising money. If the Newspapers who speak for the corporate interest would stop slandering the best candidate, she could do better countering Biden’s gross catering to PAC money and to Republicans.
Thank you, I am seriously considering unsubscribing due to this chronic imbalance in reporting on Warren and Sanders. Tell the truth!
Stefan Brün
9
"There is no way to say exactly how much of the $10.4 million Ms. Warren transferred from 2018 was attributable to large donations."
... Given the headline, should this admission on the author's part really be buried halfway down the article?
5
Really one from the Times playbook. Profiles of Warren and making nice all summer, then no sooner is everyone returned to their routines from summer, then the gloves come off.
Warren took money from big donors, then renounced it. You know what? I can live with it.
18
She is skillfully strategizing with the big boys.
I am not a supporter, but this article, which reeks a bit of scorn,
has made her more of a contender for me.
And, yes, whatever it takes......
5
Bernie raises $236 million from small donors across the entire country, proving no politician needs big money when they are loved for the policies they propose.
It is therefore a blatant lie that politicians needs to woo the oligarchy to win.
Warren should have endorsed Bernie if she believed in his Progressive agenda.
That she didn’t, proves she is more interested in what’s good for her and the powers she pretends to want to fight.
82
...or perhaps she was more interested in seeing the first woman become President of the United States. For someone of her generation, who had to put up with exponentially more sexism compared to today, seeing a woman become President is a powerful thing. Now, maybe she'll have that chance.
15
@Lilly
One person successfully fundraising with small donors, after establishing himself over several decades, is not proof that it's unnecessary to accept big money to succeed in politics.
17
Too old, too set in his ways, too much of a character, too much of an outsider with a grudge.
14
I couldn’t even finish reading this hit piece. Isn’t the very idea of denouncing big money donors in fresh bid for office acknowledging the fact that you, at one time, took money from those big donors? This isn’t news. Worse, it’s part of a long history of the NYT doing everything it can to besmirch the name of *any* female candidate. Clinton’s emails deserved to be covered, but if you were to only read the NYT you’d think it was the biggest scandal in our history. Look at what they did to Amy Klobuchar.
39
As Harold Ickes Jr. once said to The Republicans in Congress: So What?
Democrats must take a page from the Trump playbook and throw the charges of inconsistencies right back into the faces of Republicans.
Inconsistencies by Democrats are of minor concern when confronting a pathological liar like Trump.
9
My take-away from this hit piece is that Warren/Yang might just be the ticket.
12
If I had my druthers candidates would only be able to run and fundraise 6 months before any election, which would be used for campaign appearances only! We the American people would dictate the terms of politicians employment such as no political adds, politicians would voice their platforms on the people’s Public air waves, PBS. All debates wold also be on PBS. Term limits would be another demand including Judicial appointments. They would also have the same health care that the people have, but could be supplemented by private insurance. Reimbursement for any work related expenses would be controlled just like any other job. This would maximize the time they have to do the people’s work. I’m sure there are a lot of flaws in my naïveté but something has to change, many other people may have great ideas to change our democracy for the better. I’m also sure the founding Fathers did not intend for our country to have the cottage industry that has grown around this political juggernaut.
13
@Andy
Shrink the political juggernaut.
Reduce the whole process to 2 months - similar to the length of time in other democratic countries. Less need for the billions now needed to run a US campaign.
4
I am reassured, not put off. We will not get saints, poets or artists in political office- & it's unlikely they would have the management & "political skills" necessary to be successful - witness Obama-a fine person, with a caring heart, but unable to achieve many things he believed in because of being too centrist and respectful. Witness LBJ, who, with all his faults was able to "twist arms" and successfully pass legislation. {Just because much of his social engineering was -with our 20/20 hindsight- unsuccessful or even counterproductive, it seemed a much better way forward than the policies of George Wallace & Richard Nixon-and in fact they probably were better}. If Ms. Warren is clever, even devious, able to establish & maintain positive relationships with powerful people -in or out of government- that seems to me to be a positive thing. It's obvious that being stubbornly ideological-"principled"- is not an effective way to lead nor succeed. More than anything now we need a president who can succeed at governing in a system that is full of contradictions and destructive incentives. I love Warrens style-bright, quick, human, feisty, with that most important quality-a sense of humor, as well as an ability to listen, learn and change. If the Senate can spare Kamala Harris from completing a Democrat majority, I'd like to see her as Attorney General; in fact most of the Dems candidates would be great in appropriate roles in governing. We need them.
143
@dovidgo
An excellent bit of rationalization that explains why we are getting the shaft from the 1 percent today.
4
@dovidgo Yeah let's forego principles for politics. Keep the powerful in power so she can become first woman president. Look how well that worked out for us in 2016! Might as well vote Trump...
5
Democrats have to have money to stand up to Trump's campaign gold mine. Whatever it takes to end this nightmare.
232
@Marianne Roken
Yes, you are right - almost. It is indeed a nightmare to be rich and do so well in the stock market, a shame to have such a great economy which influences so many lives with unsurpassed prosperity and lowest unemployment records. It is a nightmare not to have the power, to run the USA into trillions of government debts for the sake of promises of prosperity for ALL especially for illegals who seek to share with U. It is a shame not to have open borders to all Mexicans who seek to enter the USA illegally and indeed not to share the wealth of the nation under the Trump leadership equally without prejudice, with all other failed African and South American totalitarian dictators who destroy their population with corruption and lawlessness. Share and Share alike the poverty, corruption and mismanagement of leaders of Venezuela and some others and open your hearts to those who seek to destroy. Why are they left alone to their miseries, help them by making every one U know poorer, more threatened by open borders. U are so kind and caring ms. Roken ffor suggesting the remedies. U open the eyes and hearts to so many... Please, ask also every person not to sell all their properties and stock market on the day the government changes.
1
@Marianne Roken
True, but then she shouldn't lie about it and tell everyone she only takes money from the "little" guy.
Guess she defines the "little" guy as the 1%.
For shame on Ms Warren. Wonder what other wool she is trying to pull over the peoples' eyes to become the first female president, (maybe).
Doubtful those white men from Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio will vote for a woman.
4
With all due respect, that is a lie.
When a politician is beloved, they will raise $236million, with zero from the increasing oligarchic powers.
Bernie proved it.
And he’s doing it again.
Only Bernie beats Trump.
13
All media outlets (unless you are running a neighborhood newsletter) are using publically owned infrastructure, the internet, radio/TV spectrum, even cable is strung and dug on public land. How often does this media discuss the widely obscured requirement to provide FREE and EQUAL access to individuals running for office, not just billionaires and reality show bozos.
Everyone at their dinner table this Thanksgiving will have at least relative who would make a better president than the one we have. But she is not rich enough to run for president.
39
We have an entrenched campaign system that relies upon big money donors, and it has been this way for decades. Running for president is an enormous, expensive job. That is the current situation. But Dems and independent voters are sick of this system. They want big money to take a back seat to principles, a vision for the country, and new ideas. What these voters want, however, doesn't line up with the mechanism in place -- big money is still needed to compete against Republicans, who are dependent upon large donations to grease the wheels of their campaigns, and whose voters adore the rich and want to emulate them in all things, from greed and selfishness to graft and self-dealing. They see nothing wrong with Republican politicians taking huge donations and being beholden to rich donors, so they are resistant to change and suspicious of anyone who attempts it. Yet, if Dems and independents want the system to change, someone has to take the first steps, and I'm glad Warren has the courage to stick her neck out and buck the system. That's why people support her in the first place -- she not only works for change, she implements change.
540
@Allison
There are candidates who have won US house and senate seats without taking big $.
There is one presidential candidate who is running who has never taken big $.
They are showing us that that even without changing “the system “- you can win on policy- not just the $.
But to change the system- the status quo- we need a president who has moral and political courage- and is not beholden to the big $ donors.
Warren doesn’t pass this test unfortunately.
20
If Warren believed in Bernie’s agenda, as she’s copying now, why didn’t she endorse his agenda last election?
In poll after poll, Bernie beats Trump.
So, Warren helped give us Trump by not endorsing what the majority of the American people want. The American People gave Bernie $236million. He doesn’t need big bank or fossil fuel or big Pharma or any other oligarchy money, like Warren does.
Warren will give us Trump again.
35
@Lilly
The DNC is embracing her as the replacement for Biden when he falls. They fear Bernie for several reasons, but they say he will be another Mondale candidate. I think Biden is and Warren may be. This revelation is not going to look good in GOP hands. I also wonder if a few of the donors will feel used and not donate.
13
I’m disappointed Warren took big donor money in the past, but I’m glad she’s changed and learned.
Now, what about Biden, who kicked off THIS campaign with a big dollar corporate fundraiser.
108
@Objectively Subjective
Did Biden every say he was NOT taking money from big donors? That's the difference.
1
@Objectively Subjective
"I'm disappointed Warren took big donor money in the past, but I'm glad she's changed and learned"
...and returned that money to the terrible people who gave it to her.
3
@Objectively Subjective
She hasn’t changed; it is strategic. She will resume big fundraisers.
Big difference.
6
As Andrew Yang said in so many words, move on; don’t begrudge. Would be way more helpful to read articles comparing specifics in plans for each Dem and Repub candidate, eg, health care plans, visions for our educational systems, infrastructure plans, gun violence, etc. Let’s make this election all about real issues, where your job is delivering an informed public.
501
Where a politician takes money .is. a real issue.
It means those who invested in her believe they’re getting their money’s worth.
10
@SC That would be possible, only if Republicans had any plans.
2
@SC You say we ignore inconsistencies in candidates' records and focus on their plans. I disagree. Candidates will say anything to get elected; "plans" are just campaign promises. The best predictor of how a politician will govern is their past actions and not their campaign promises.
My concern with Warren is her hard right-wing past, which she has not been forthcoming about. (Yes, there is ample documentation of her hard-right past). She didn't register as a Democrat until 1997, after getting a career-enhancing position with the Clinton administration. And six years after she changed her voter registration, in her 2003 book, she rejects what she calls "European-style, quasi-socialist safety nets".
I don't trust her, and this article points to only one of the reasons. I think progressives would be best served sticking with Bernie Sanders, who has a lifelong record of commitment to progressive causes.
3
Good for her. It shows - consistent with almost everything else about her - that she can evolve.
After all, it was only in 1996 that she changed her party affiliation from Republican to Democrat.
The ability to evolve with new information and insight is a gift and one that I hope I have well into my old age.
425
@CJ. And she'll probably evolve back when it becomes expedient. That's what’s called flip-flopping.
Much is made of needing an experienced politician for president. I disagree. Nothing can prepare anyone for that job. It comes down to listening to advisors and steering the country based on their advice as well as the core beliefs upon which you ran for office.
Career politicians owe people, including rich donors. To me, that will always be a drawback in a candidate.
8
@D. Wagner
Why would you think she'l flip-flop? Some of believe failing to evolve is just being obstinate. Admitting your mistakes is showing humility and honesty. Growing (evolving) is usually a welcome trait not something to scorn.
Did YOU always support same sex marriage or did your support evolve through time? I recall that marriage equality act wouldn't be put on as a Mass ballot initiative because it probably would have been defeated. I remember all the screaming, the wringing of hands that that would end society as we know it, all the prognostications. But as the mayor of Worcester said something tho this affect the morning after it passed "the sun is still shining, it's a beautiful New England day". I don't recall having much opinion on this either way but I don't have any problem with marriage equality. And full disclosure I am a heterosexually married mother of five straight adult children.
If society didn't evolve and become enlightened we'd still have separate drinking fountains, lunch counters and public pools.
If you've never changed your mind on any position you've held as more evidence /argument/rationale presented itself enlightened you maybe YOU should be running since your attitudes are apparently carved in stone and you've always held the correct position. But we mere mortals evolve. I guess warren isn't a goddess just a mere mortal like the rest of us.
9
@D. Wagner
I think and hope Warren might be different and am willing to give her a chance. Where has she ever flip flopped?
"Evolving" for political expediency worrisome and could lead to flip flopping, I agree. But not when you learn from a new position and stick with it.
6
Money is the method for getting out the message: Everyone's message. The only concern I have about big-money donors is the fact we will never know who they are.
Is next week's low-hanging-fruit installment going to cover the other contenders- and for what purpose?
23
@Candlewick
And why does someone donate big money to a candidate for office? Who would give thousands (or millions) to someone out of the goodness of his or her heart without wanting anything in return? And why shouldn't we all know who gives what to whom?
4
@Rea Tarr
You wrote: " And why shouldn't we all know who gives what to whom?"
I raised that concern in my comment. You also ask me a question about why people donate big money; for the same reasons I have donated 'little' sums or the individual maximums.
I have no idea what's in a big donor's heart but I have donated because I hoped my little sum would help the candidate win by helping finance the campaign. That's what donations of all sizes- ultimately do: Obviously the rewards can differ.
1
Part of the Warren money story should include her achievement in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that has returned nearly $12 Billion to 29 million people wronged by financial institutions.
721
her bureau cost me and others money, couldn't refinance my mortgage as the CFPB prevented banks from lending
5
@louis v. lombardo
oh, we can't talk about that. Better to complain she's just one more empty suited huckster.
I followed the creation of the CFPB from its inception. People have no idea how much protection that institution provided to the average consumer. It would be a great service to the readership if the NY Times had the brass to analyze and publish just how much the creation of this oversight agency has done to curtail predatory banking and credit practices. The oversight rules are far too many to list here but they had been a life saver for those caught up in the credit/banking trap.
Simple things like static payment dates, how penalties can be applied, how payments are applied, maximum fees etc. It was truly telling to learn that credit card companies made more money in fees than the did in the exorbitant interest rates they charge by their usury manipulations (https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/credit-cards/articles/this-is-how-credit-card-companies-hauled-in-163-bi/)
but why mention the good any of the candidates have accomplished? It's far easier and ever so much more satisfying to tear someone down!
42
@rtr
proof please?
We bought cars after CFPB and also got an equity line of credit with no problems at all. I have friends who purchased a home during the Obama years. They had no problem getting a loan.
13
I was a $5 per month donor to Warren five years ago, and I’m a $10 per month donor to her now.
I gave $27 to Bernie in 2015.
Biden has never much money from small donors. I don’t want to hear it. And to Ed Rendell - sorry that this cycle has reduced you to sniping in the margins.
203
Why would a Democrat Massachusetts incumbent need ANY contributions for her re-election campaign? The answer is she wouldn’t. But the question isn’t why she took all that money, but why did anyone give it to her? They knew she didn’t need it. They were simply buying access.
The millionaire Warren portrays herself as one of the middle class, an opponent of the rich and powerful and someone who won’t be influenced by monied interests.
Yeah, right. The people that gave her that money are waiting patiently for her populous message to sweep her to victory. Then they and Warren will meet in private and the payback will begin. After all, her re-election in 2024 will cost more than $1 billion and there’s no way she can raise that without big money diners. She needs them.
The system stinks and she stinks with it.
51
@Matt Williams Gee, that would be totally convincing if only everything in her decades-long career didn't say the exact opposite.
14
@Matt Williams
Until Citizen's United is repealed, the only way anyone can get elected to the Presidency is to take money from big donors. How could she or anybody else win this vital election without large donations from those wanting to gain favor. The issue is not whether she takes their money, but how she uses it. I have been following Elizabeth Warren's career and supporting her with $ 20.00 a month for years and she is as honest, smart, dedicated to good government as anybody in this country. For your information, Democratic is the adjectival form of the word Democrat. You need to pursue your education. Senator Warren is a breath of fresh air.
13
@Sewanee
Massachusetts has elected Republicans for senate (e.g. Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy). So Warren's hold on her seat is not guaranteed.
4
Can people that previously didn’t believe in global warming change their minds? Truly hope so! We should get all money out of politics. Money corrupts the system. Nothing gets done except tax cuts for the rich.
26
This proves the amazing support for Sanders who- if you investigate his 40 year political career- has never taken big corporate donations. Always funded his campaigns with small donor donations.
If Americans believe we have a corrupt, currently legal- political campaign finance system- and want systemic change- he is the candidate to support.
The NY Times had to create a second map to show all other candidates’ small donor donations - because his lead obscured all the others.
Nothing will change on climate crisis action, healthcare or legislation to help average Americans until we get Big $ out of campaign finance.
104
Reminds me of the concentrated NY Times effort to undermine Bernie’s 2016 bid...
I will hope the powerbroker of The NY Times learned something from that. If there starts to be a pile up on Warren’s flaws, count me out.
742
My thoughts exactly. Yuk.
43
@SB
When will the NY Times report on their corporate tax cuts from Trump, who they gave 3 times as much coverage as Clinton in the last election, who got 3 times as much coverage as Bernie.
125
@SB
Truly spoken, SB! We have seen this movie before and, as a result, the Country got CIC Bone Spurs.
44
I think it’s great that Sen Warren’s not doing high-dollar fundraising during the primary campaign. I don’t find it hypocritical for her to use money she raised previously from wealthy donors anymore than I’d call it hypocritical for someone to become a vegetarian after a lifetime of eating meat.
What I would have a problem with, however, would be if Sen Warren resumes high-dollar fundraising once she’s nominated. I’m a supporter of hers — I’ve donated to her previous campaigns and to this one — but it would not sit well with me — and would undermine the credibility she’s built with the electorate this year — if she went back to the same old, same old.
68
@Marc: If she uses the money to fight the Republican nominee, it will be well spent, no matter the origins. "Pecunia non Olet".
10
@Marc
She has already said that she will resume big donor fundraisers after she secures the nomination. Be so informed.
10
@Marc
From her own lips...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrMA9Rnmx1w
Warren's credibility was gone when she failed to stand with, much less speak out for, her NA brethren at Standing Rock.
Warren's credibility was gone when she voted for 2 out of 3 of Trumps bloated MIC giveaways.
Warren's credibility was gone when she failed to sign on to the (Sanders) legislation to raise the Soc. Sec. cap; despite her sitting on the board and agreeing with said need to save Soc. Sec.
Warrens credibility was gone when her Education advisor is TFA. A charter school foundation funded and founded by billionaires such as the Walton's and Eli Broad for the sake of undermining public schools and Unions.
Plenty more available upon request.
Warren is not who she is attempting to sell herself as.
1
Can’t help but think a Republican in this situation would be praised as clear-eyed, tough, and savvy.
320
@Brian. But a Republican wouldn’t be railing against the evils of big business.
10
@Brian Or a man, for that matter. Where is the think piece on Joe Biden as he continues to accept corporate donations?
4
It's the Golden Rule: Them that have the money...rule. The more things change, the more they remain the same. I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked, that this is happening!
7
Not surprised. I'm sure the Trump people are taking note and she has not proved to be very adept at handling incoming from Trump. Go, Bernie.
20
@RAC
Bernie had fundraisers on Martha's Vineyard. He is hardly lily white, not that I care. Sadly this is how campaigns have to operate now because of Citizens United. Until we take big money out of politics ethics are out the window. Publicly financed campaigns are the only way to level the plating field. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for *that* to happen if I were you.
2
Not sure who I'm supposed to feel sympathy for. Wealthy political donors who don't appreciate her message of getting money out of politics?
44
Curiously, there are many democrats who are quite enamored with Ms Warren despite her making rather big unattainable albeit appealing promises. In the past, she seems to have gamed her law school application by exaggerating her Native American ancestry, and recently she broadly proclaimed that medical doctors are biased against African Americans despite the fact that the evidence that she references is quite old or anecdotal. If she stopped all the pandering I actually would be more likely to consider her candidacy. Even now, given the way Ms Warren discusses class, I worry that she is spreading divisiveness instead of unity. Sound familiar?
15
@perltarry
I am enamored of Ms. Warren and with good reason. To get into a good Law School takes throwing in everything possible on one's application that is true and gives one a slight edge. That is not gaming the system. She did not exaggerate her Native American ancestry; she stated it. Name a politician today that does not "pander" to the electorate. That's what running for office in America today is all about. Your comments about Elizabeth Warren to me sound prejudicial.
6
@perltarry: She did not game the system by exagerating her Native American ancestry - that has long since been debunked -, medical doctors and medical literature has been proven to still be biased against African Americans (and women and non-whites in general) as of today, and the one spreading divisiveness is Trump, who uses it as a tool to get what he wants. Her promises are backed by solid plans: "I have a plan for that" is her campaign slogan!
4
@perltarry
What's divisive about being honest about the horrendous wealth/class disparity we have in this country? Any politicians worth her salt would highlight this travesty! Thank you, Senator Warren and Senator Sanders! Truth is not divisive--it's necessary!
4
It all depends on your point of view. When you do it, it is OK. When your adversary does the same thing, it is vile, evil, and all the other pejorative, negative words your can think of. There is entirely too much of that these days.
34
Reminds me of the old adage "Do as I say, not as I do."
36
Sounds more like "Do as I do, not as I did"
5