Dow Chemical and silicone breast implants made by its Dow Corning subsidiary: If the Post’s report is accurate, what Warren has done is quite outrageous. Not only did she accept giant fees ($600+ an hour) to represent a giant chemical company accused of making women sick (Warren later disputed evidence that the product made the women sick), but she then had the gall to pretend that she was actually the one fighting on behalf of the women instead of the company. One of the advocates for the women said the company used “every trick in the book” to avoid paying the women, and yet Warren said it was her efforts that got them a payout. This isn’t the only case in which Warren appears to have misrepresented what she did for the companies. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/10/why-criticize-warren
Maybe this line of attack works, maybe it doesn't. I have no skin in Warren vs. Pete but trying to be objective I think this would backfire because Pete is courting an even narrower portion of the meritocracy and this is essentially telling them their life choices are wrong.
I personally prefer to stay away from telling people not to vote for her because she was a successful teacher's pet technocrat, becoming a corporate lawyer was once a big achievement for people, especially people from working families and lawyers make good money. No one thinks like this, the technocrat that followed the rules and was lucky enough to work the system doesn't see a problem with this, the coal miner doesn't blame himself for being a cog in the pollution process and so on. I think her courting establishment figures, trying to accommodate wealthy people and generally being deferential to them is a better political argument for making the case about trust against Warren.
Does Buttigieg think people shouldn't get paid for their work?
Did she pay her share of taxes? If the answer is yes then this is a non-story.
Democrats as a group don't hate people who get good pay for their work, so trying to paint Warren as some sort of evil capitalistic elitist because she had a decent paying job is a bad tactic for Buttigieg to take.
You're hearing a lot of "progressives" say this was over 10 years and it is not a lot of money. But that's besides the point. Buttitieg's campaign is preparing for attacks from Warren. If Warren goes after Buttitieg for Mckinsey or taking corporate money, Buttitieg will come back with "well. You were a corporate laywer for Dow Chemical and Abestos Companies". If Warren responds with, "Well. it was only for 1.9 million over 10 years". She comes off as out of touch and not caring about the appearance of corruption.
The better route is to admit the mistake and say you've changed. It won't be as good of a position as Bernie who was never corrupt. But at least it's a morally respectable position.
She seeded her campaign (and continues to fund it) with money from her senate run where she did private fundraising. She did it for many years. She took plenty of big money donations, from some big companies; Alphabet Inc is one of her top five donors for example.
You can find almost every Pete private fundraiser online, people always post them, I have a coworker who went to one. He does a stump speech, sometimes does Q&A and takes pictures after. Anyone who donates more than $200 is publically reported, whether they did it online or at a private fundraiser; same way you can see who has historically donated to Warren, you can find the same for Pete.
You mean fundraisers in the private homes of supporters? Not everyone wants reporters in their living rooms or camped out in their driveway.
If you want to know what he says at a closed door fundraiser, it’s quite easy, because in the age of smartphones they keep turning up on YouTube and Twitter.
Because people are excited to meet people they like and believe in, in an intimate or private setting. It makes it feel special.
If I were to meet a politician I liked, or a famous actor, or my favourite band, it would be pretty awesome if we got to hang out in a restaurant, or a recording studio or something, without reporters filming us.
>Because people are excited to meet people they like and believe in, in an intimate or private setting. It makes it feel special.
You can have reporters at small gatherings. I have done it at my house before.
>If I were to meet a politician I liked, or a famous actor, or my favourite band, it would be pretty awesome if we got to hang out in a restaurant, or a recording studio or something, without reporters filming us.
This is a political campaign. What would be awesome is to have actually transparency.
Biden doesn't have these kinds of findraisers eirher. Its not like its just hardline progressives that are taking this stance.
Yes you can have reporters there, but fewer people will be in to that, or offer to pay high ticket prices to attend.
The thing that makes them expensive, is that Pete literally goes to someone’s house to speak there and hang out. They’re not *buying influence* or whatever nefarious stuff you think is going on.
If you want an example of some hard hitting investigative journalism being smuggled out of these closed door fundraisers, look no further than this hidden camera footage exposing Pete’s policy on [bigger bunnies](https://mobile.twitter.com/alackerlyons/status/1135276536133668864).
But on a serious note, the lack of press doesn’t create a lack of transparency. If you want to know what happens at these fundraisers it gets reported everywhere, *by the actual attendees*.
The reason Pete has to fundraise this way is that he is new. He hasn’t sat in Washington for decades, doing plenty of big dollar fundraising already, he is an outsider with low name recognition, and it’s the only way he can play the game.
I think it’s bad if politics locks out fresh faces, because you just see the same people trotting out the same messages over and over.
>Yes you can have reporters there, but fewer people will be in to that, or offer to pay high ticket prices to attend.
Literally no one cared when I had reporters at my house. Why is he doing expensive high priced ticket dinners anyway?
>But on a serious note, the lack of press doesn’t create a lack of transparency.
Yes it does. Even Biden doesnt do this.
>The reason Pete has to fundraise this way is that he is new.
Bullshit. He could very easily let press to these events and not lose anything. Or do you not think he's actually good enough to make it without avoiding the press?
You want Pete to invite reporters into people’s private homes? He literally can’t do that, he would need permission of the homeowner.
Honestly I think it’s pretty normal to not want reporters in your living room. If a progressive celebrity wanted to host an event for their favoured candidate, they might not think it appropriate to broadcast their support too widely. The political allegiance of individual citizens is a reasonable thing to keep private.
Unless you want to see the political activity of every individual citizen now?
> he would need permission of the homeowner.
>Honestly I think it’s pretty normal to not want reporters in your living room.
This has got to be the lamest excuse for lack of transparency I've ever seen.
It’s not an excuse, it’s a reason. This isn’t a transparency issue, because his speeches at closed door fundraisers are all over the internet. Everyone whips out their phones and uploads them to Twitter.
If he was saying something different there it would leak *immediately*, just like it did for Hilary and her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
In reality, he just gives the exact same speech, makes no additional secret promises.
I'm overall biased against Warren as a Buttigieg supporter, but this transparency duel they're having is ridiculous. Buttigieg was an associate at McKinsey. Even if he worked for the International Association of Puppy Killers, he had literally no control over his clients. Lawyers make a lot of money and (generally) should take all clients as everyone deserves a legal defense. Who cares?
Pete absolutely had the opportunity to say "no" to that work. Unlike Warren, he was born into a family and situation where he had far more opportunities to go a different route. The fact that Warren chose work that was morally beneficent despite her struggles proves that.
That said, the bigger issue here is the fact that no one should be in the White House if they can't be 100% honest with the public about what they've done. Trump has proven that public service and NDA's are anathema to each other. If Pete's suddenly forced to confront someone who can blackmail him (for work he did at McKinsey), he then has to make a choice between public and personal benefit. No matter how good a person you want to be, that kind of judgment creates an impossible bias that only hyper-moral individuals (e.g. Carter and Fred Rogers) can be trusted to even consider, much less act on.
No to work that requires permanent NDA's if he had any political ambitions. After working in Pharma, I can tell you right now, NDA's exist for only two reasons. Client work that hasn't been completed assuming public viewership or working on materials the public would be pissed off about. The former resolves pretty quickly (within five years unless you're talking longitudinal scientific studies). The latter exists to hide things that are either difficult to explain or unsavory to the average human moral appetite.
Do I believe Pete's been doing unsavory things...not at all, but the President of the United States cannot have that kind of black hole on their resume, because that's how you get scandals (manufactured or real) that destroy credibility necessary to accomplish anything useful.
Agreed. I'm much more interested in what Pete is saying in these closed-door fundraisers now than what he did as an associate at McKinsey.
That said... as someone who went to an elite university and saw many of my classmates go through the recruitment process, I can say with some authority that firms like McKinsey, BCG, and Bain are cancers on society that take promising young kids and align their ambition with the interests of plutocrats and autocrats.
Sure. The Biden campaign allows one press embed (no video camera) into all of his fundraisers, who then shares notes with the rest of the press pool. That seems like a reasonable bare-minimum standard.
But the practice of not allowing any press into fundraisers and not releasing the names of bundlers is at least poor optics—and in my opinion, even if there's no direct causation between who gives you money and what you support, the composition of a candidate's donor-base (especially at the top end) tends to reveal a fair amount about their politics.
It's an important part of her story IMHO. Part of why I know Warren is for real is because she's very open about how she wasn't always the way she is, and specific about the reasons why she believes what she does now.
She grew up in a struggling family in Oklahoma. Her parents almost lost their house due to a medical emergency. She went to a commuter college working a part-time job. She became a teacher, got fired for being pregnant, got divorced and went to law school.
She's been very open about her work as a lawyer, and it should be noted for people who don't click the link that her campaign is the one putting this info out there because she wants people to know. Because after years representing corporations, she became the country's foremost expert on bankruptcy law and decided she was sick of normal people getting screwed over by multinational corporations. So she decided to go into economics and study inequality.
By the time 2008 rolled around she was in front of Congress as an expert witness demanding accountability from Wall Steet execs. In 2010 she helped create and run the CFPB and returned billions of dollars to Americans who got scammed by corporation who thought they were above the law.
The fact that Warren is so transparent with how she didn't take a straight line in her life, but ended up fighting for good, is one of the major reasons why I trust her. Releasing her record practicing law in the middle of this debate on personal transparency for candidates is just another drop in the bucket.
She's a solid #2 for me. I respect Bernie being consistent for decades but I also recognize the humility needed to change your stance. It shows that truth is more important to her than pride. I'm not gonna bash her for learning from life experience.
Her transparency is fucking amazing. I only know the real intentions of two candidates who also happen to be very transparent, Sanders and Warren. Huge contrast to Buttigieg. If only every politician could be like them...
Warren says she made $1.9 million from private legal work
The senator had come under pressure from Pete Buttigieg to disclose her compensation from corporate clients.
By ALEX THOMPSON
12/08/2019 08:03 PM EST
Elizabeth Warren disclosed receiving $1.9 million from private legal work since 1986, including earnings from large corporate clients. Her announcement came amid pressure from rival Pete Buttigieg to reveal her past compensation.
“We must nominate a candidate who can create the most robust possible contrast against Republicans on conflicts of interest and corruption issues,” campaign spokesperson Kristen Orthman said in a statement.
So, Buttigieg is going to open his McKinsey kimono now?
Pete has given the same level of detail to his work there. Where is Warren's client list? I don't care about Warren's client list or Pete's client list. They are both fine not giving more info for both.
> Pete has given the same level of detail to his work there. Where is Warren's client list?
You mean this client list?
[Elizabeth Warren's Legal Work](https://elizabethwarren.com/legal-work/#expert)
>In May 2019, the Elizabeth Warren campaign disclosed a list and descriptions of her legal work. In December 2019, the campaign updated this page to include compensation for that work wherever possible. These disclosures include all of the cases Elizabeth Warren worked on that we have been able to identify and all of the income from each case we have been able to determine from public records, Elizabeth Warren’s personal records, and other sources.
NDA's exist to protect profit motive. That is why companies have you sign them.
The issue is he is protecting someone's profitable secrets. Period.
Does he personally have any super secret corrupt stuff? I'm going with no. However, making acceptations for presidential candidates seems like something the company should be fine with unless they intend to have a lot of presidential candidates for some reason.
That's pretty small for even a decent small town lawyer. I mean, anyone ever work with attorney's? We had to sue a guy once and he had no case to argue back. It was either give the money back or I report him to the DA. A 2 page letter cost my family like 7 grand. That was an easy case. Imagine a case that might be criminal? Or involve lots of different documents, calling , emailing people.
Probably got ripped off. Long story short my mother was paying a guy weekly to renovate my grandfather's home after he passed to sell it. I wasn't really involved but about 6 weeks into this I swung by my grandfather's house and I didn't see shit renovated. Some new lights, paint, carpet, a few new electric sockets. Handy man shit. My mother paid him well over 100k so far for that. Yes, my mother wasn't very smart. I confronted him about he was like, oh, um, here's the last check back, it wasn't cashed yet. Told him that's not good enough and you'll be hearing from our attorney. But it was very little work on the lawyers part. A few phone calls, emails, and the letter threatening criminal referrals if he didn't pay back 85% of what he took. Which we calculated was the fair market value for what the labor and materials would had cost. He originally said he'd give 50% back, which we said no to. Gave him a final offer if the 85% or we just go to the DA. He knew his goose was cooked if he went that way and finally agreed.
I mean, I don't know how long the letter took to write, but it was a pretty boiler point letter. A lawyer who is proficient in the English language and understands the law well probably could had banged that letter out in 30 minutes. I'd wager all the time put into this was maybe 4 total hours. I'm not really complaining. I expected the bill to be at least 5 grand. So 7 grand really wasn't a shock. Remember I was just making a comment about how lawyers make a ton of money, so Elizabeth Warren making 1.9 million as a lawyer honestly isn't something a lawyer would be happy about. My neighbor or used be to neighbor when we were growing up is a corporate lawyer now. I can't tell you exactly what he makes but I know he lives in a 4 million dollar home in NJ with crazy high taxes and drives a very expensive BMW SUV. So he's def pulling in at least half a million a year.