Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and the mid-term elections
I have been reviewing Senator Gillibrand and her time as Senator for New York State. So far I have covered her history, and her voting record (including her time in the House of Representatives). I have begun to look at her recent comments to the public on issues like the 9/11 trials in NYC, and her refusal to discuss the Health Care Reform.
What has not been covered are the efforts of Democrat leadership to ensure the re-election of Sen. Gillibrand. These are efforts that have been ongoing for some time. But it must be noted that each Party goes through considerable effort to ensure the re-election of an incumbent in both the House and Senate. Still it is worth review for a voter in New York to understand if they agree with and are willing to vote for such a renewal.
Senator Gillibrand is under pressure currently from an outside source, fellow Democrat former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. Recent polling among Democrats have shown that
27% are behind Ford and 4% say they are backing union leader and activist Jonathan Tasini.
However, this still leaves 25% of Democrats unsure.”
What is not being mentioned is where the support is coming from. Senator Gillibrand is of course getting help from Senator Charles Schumer. Already in 2009 he has spent time to bolster the fundraising efforts of Sen. Gillibrand, including several multi-thousand dollar a plate dinners. This is in conjunction with various meetings with high level Democrats in NY and the Democrat Party. Such individuals include former Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe, though President Obama has not directly presented his support – an act that has failed to help any Democrat up for election so far.
Then there is the support from ACORN. which came about on June 16, 2009. That was a mere 2 months before Senator Gillibrand voted in favor of funding ACORN – one of only 7 Senators and 75 Representatives to do so (Senator Schumer was not among this group).
Senator Gillibrand also counts among her supporters, Goldman Sachs. Which seems odd as they are the primary group being targeted by the Obama Administration as a cause of the mortgage and financial crisis. Then again, a large number of former Goldman Sachs employees are the top aides to the President and hold Cabinet positions. Still the question remains why a group being targeted as a negative to the economy is a major (5th largest) supporter of a Democrat. Citigroup, another on the Obama Administrations hit-list and subject to a proposed new tax, is 11th on the supporters of Sen. Gillibrand.
The Teamsters Union is 9th, American Federation of Teachers is 19th tied with American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees, the American Postal Workers Union is tied at 30th with American Hospital Assn, American Health Care Assn, Bricklayers Union, Carpenters & Joiners Union, Laborers Union, Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union, Operating Engineers Union and United Auto Workers among other unions. Of course unions are always a block of support for Democrats.
In total Senator Gillibrand counts 5 major banks, 9 Wall Street financial firms, 6 major national corporations, multiple law firms and a horde of unions in her top 100 financial supporters.
This is important when we consider that Senator Gillibrand has been a major supporter of the Health Care Reform (though she refused to respond to direct questions on the subject), is directly involved with reforms of Wall Street (as one of the Senators for Wall Street), is about to be in a battle with a far better known Democrat, and is currently flipping positions on critical New York politics (the 9/11 trial).
Thus it can be surmised that a war chest is being created for Senator Gillibrand. The use of this chest is to focus positive attention on her time in the Senate via television ads and the internet. Such ads will not address the fact that she supported the Obama Stimulus, which has failed to correct unemployment in the nation nor stop increases in New York State (though NY is lower than the national average and has been since the start of the recession). Such ads will not take note of the refusal to comment to constituents. Such ads will not comment on her positive position on medical marijuana. Nor will they mention her commitment to ACORN when 93% of all Senators, including the senior New York Senator, voted against the organization. And the ads, based on the polling, will primarily be focused on NYC instead of the State.
Does any of this affect your vote for or against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? Does it matter that she has voted consistently Liberal and Democrat on every issue since she enterted the Senate (and previously in the House). Are you concerned that she has flipped her position on the 9/11 trials – only after the Democrats lost their supermajority? Does the influence of organizations like ACORN, Wall Street, and law firms on the re-election funds matter? Does the fact that Sen. Gillibrand will not discuss these items suggest anything about what she has or will do while in the Senate?
The last several questions are questions only individual voters can decide. Take the time before Novemeber to be sure of who you will vote for an why.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Thank you for this informative article. It’s good to hear that 80% of Gillibrand’s money does not come from banks and Wall Street firms and that she had the guts to refuse to vote for the illegal bill of attainder against Acorn. You have persuaded me to vote for her.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:16 am
Joe,
I was not asking anyone to vote for or against Sen. Gillibrand. Just that they become aware of the facts that surround her and her bid for re-election.
Also, it is a false assumption that ANY politician receives such a high percentage from such a small group of donors. To make such a claim is a backhanded attempt at promoting the candidate via a lie/misrepresentation. The same can be said of the action of Congress against ACORN – which has not been found to be illegal to date, though it is pending a review in the courts.
Please do not try to manipulate the facts presented to bolster a specific view.
That said, you misunderstand part of what I have presented. Of the $1.2 million in dontations from the top 100 donors the breakdown is as follows:
Law firms – $294,250 or 24%
Unions – $176,200 or 14%
Wall Street – $122,450 or 9.9%
Banks – $51,400 or 4.2%
That totals $644,300 or 52%, based on my quick math and scan of the main contributors.
Considering that this is hardly the total list of contributions, plus the fact that Senator Gillibrand was unknown to over 48% of the State of New York in December 2009, the indication is that Senator Gillibrand owes a lot of favors.
If we consider that her home District (when she was a Representative) has 200,000 people of which she did not get 100% of the vote from nor even 50% contributing to her campaign then we see that the majority of her money is coming from politically motivated sources that do not share the view of the general population of NY.
This is not entirely unheard of for any politician. Except in this case we are speaking about someone the public did not vote into office, and has never provided the public the means to evaluate her.
As such, to see such high contributions from such a limitied group of specific special interests is noteworthy.