If a corporate sector gave a legislator a ton of money in contributions, and then the legislator went out and fought for regulatory and fee breaks for that sector and those corporations, what would you call it?
Perhaps you’d call it a Scott Brown fundraiser:
Campaign contributions to Senator Scott Brown from the financial industry spiked sharply during a critical three-week period last summer as the fate of the Wall Street regulatory overhaul hung in the balance and Brown used the leverage of his swing vote to win key concessions sought by firms.
From mid-June until the Fourth of July, according to a Globe analysis of his campaign finance reports, the Massachusetts senator took in $140,000 from banks and investment firms and their executives, including companies based in the state, such as MassMutual and State Street Corp. That is 400 percent more than the $28,000 received on average by all Republican senators during the same three weeks.
As the money poured in, Brown and his Senate staff were working both publicly and behind the scenes to scuttle $19 billion in fees on the financial industry that would have paid for part of the regulatory overhaul, and to weaken a provision intended to curb certain types of investment activities by banks and insurance companies.
“As the money poured in,” Brown did the bidding of his financial benefactors, using his public office to do favors for a special interest. Isn’t that a quid pro quo? And it sounds like a pretty great deal for the big banks – $140,000 in contributions to Brown in exchange for $19 billion in fee cuts and additional deregulation.
RMGers, is that good governance on Brown’s part? Is this dynamic between Brown and the big banks perfectly OK because Brown has an R next to his name?