the DSCC

HYPOCRITE KEN BUCK CAUGHT SCRUBBING WEBSITE

Buck Caught By Reporter Altering Policy Positions On Campaign Site

Buck Joins Sharron Angle And Ron Johnson In Trying To Re-Write History

Ken Buck has been exposed as a hypocritical politician once again, this time by being caught red handed by a reporter today scrubbing his website of his past policy positions. Over the past several months, Buck has either removed or altered his position on issues such as the war in Afghanistan, a woman’s right to choose, and immigration. Buck’s website scrubbing comes just weeks after a front-page Denver Post story exposed his hypocritical actions on the campaign trail. As the story reported, Ken Buck spends his days railing against earmarks and pork, has signed a “no earmarks” pledge, and even said that if a Senator doesn’t vote to ban earmarks, they shouldn’t be in the Senate. However, Buck has a long history of requesting earmarks, and has requested at least $5 million in earmarks for Weld County over the years.

Buck joins fellow extreme tea party candidates Sharron Angle and Ron Johnson in trying, but failing, to pull a fast one on voters in their states by scrubbing their websites.

“Ken Buck can tinker with his website all he wants but no matter how hard he scrubs, Buck’s positions will be too extreme for Colorado,” DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy said. “A slick website makeover won’t change the fact that Colorado voters have serious questions about where Buck really stands on a host of issues.”

Ken Buck continues to show himself as a fraud by repeatedly shifting positions and saying one thing one day, and another the next. After criticizing Tom Tancredo for saying that President Obama represented “the greatest threat to our liberty,” Buck switched positions just several days later and said “there is a lot of truth in what Tom Tancredo says.” At a recent campaign event, Buck told a woman she should vote for him because “I do not wear high heels.” This immediately sparked a controversy and Buck was again forced to backtrack and apologize for his statements.

IN HIS OWN WORDS: DSCC RELEASES “LISTEN” - NEW TV AD SHOWCASES KEN BUCK’S OWN EXTREME STATEMENTS

Buck Wants To Privatize Social Security And Re-Write The Constitution To End Coloradans’ Right To Elect Their Senators

Listen To Ken Buck’s Extreme Statements At http://www.dscc.org/listen

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee continued to aggressively highlight Ken Buck’s extreme positions by releasing a new television ad today “Listen http://www.dscc.org/listen,” which highlights Ken Buck’s extreme statements on Social Security and the 17th Amendment. As Coloradans across the state are finding out, extremist Ken Buck’s position on protecting Social Security is atrocious, with Buck even admitting that Social Security is “fundamentally against what I believe.” Buck supports the reckless Republican plan to invest Coloradans’ Social Security in the volatile stock market, giving billions of dollars in fees to Wall Street. When asked whether he supports re-writing the Constitution by repealing the 17th Amendment and ending Coloradans right to directly elect their own senators, Buck replied “the short answer is yes.”

“Coloradans need only hear Ken Buck’s own words to find out he is too extreme,” DSCC National Press Secretary said. “Whether the issue is killing Social Security or ending Coloradans right to directly elect their own Senators, Ken Buck’s own words show he is simply too extreme and risky for Colorado families.”

In addition to proposing repeal of the 17th Amendment and privatizing Social Security, extremist Ken Buck has embraced the radical Tea Party agenda in nearly every way. Buck has called for federal student loan programs to be phased out, is open to returning to the gold standard, eliminating the Departments of Education and Energy, imposing a national sales tax on Coloradans, doesn’t believe in global warming, and opposes the principle of separation between church and state. Buck also faces ethical questions regarding his tenure as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

DSCC IE “Listen”

Date: 8/27/10

Copy/Visual Documentation

Narrator: Listen to Ken Buck on social security.

Buck: “Fundamentally Against What I Believe.”

Source:Buck Remarks Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10 Buck Said That Government Running Healthcare and Retirement “Fundamentally Against What I Believe.” At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10]
Narrator: He’d put Social Security in the stock market billions for Wall Street.

Source:9News Debate, 7/22/10 Buck Said He Would Consider Privatizing Social Security. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Buck said he would consider some privatization of Social Security but wanted to be sure needy seniors retain a safety net.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/10]

Buck: Individuals Should Invest Their Own Social Security Funds. Buck told 9NEWS during a debate with his Republican primary opponent Jane Norton, “We’ve got to peg Social Security to individuals so those individuals have the ability perhaps to invest in various funds that are approved by the government. But those individuals also own that fund.” [9News Your Show Debate, 7/22/10]

Buck Suggested that Government Should Not Be Running Health Care or Retirement, and That The Private Sector Runs it Better. At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10]

Securities Industry Association: Wall Street Would Reap Between $279 Billion and $39 Billion from Private Social Security Accounts. According to a study conducted by the Securities Industry Association (SIA) in 2004, Wall Street would stand to reap between $279 billion and $39 billion in revenue under a system of voluntary private Social Security accounts, like those proposed by President George W. Bush. [Securities Industry Association, 12/8/04]

Wall Street Would Make $39 Billion Under ‘TSP-Style’ Private Social Security Accounts. One system of private Social Security accounts explored by the Securities Industry Association (SIA) in their 2004 report was modeled after the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a retirement plan for federal employees and military personnel: “As President George Bush’s 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) set out, any model for individual Social Security accounts would be likely based on a system of centrally administered contributions, using the existing payroll tax system and run by a federal agency…In effect, any new system would resemble the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).” SIA concluded that Wall Street would likely gain $39 billion in revenue under a system of “TSP-style” private Social Security Accounts.” [Securities Industry Association, 12/8/04]

Wall Street Would Make $279 Billion Under ‘Two-Tiered’ Private Social Security Accounts. Another system of private Social Security accounts explored by the Securities Industry Association in their 2004 report was modeled after a “two-tiered” approach: “In its 2001 report, the CSSS also set out the possibility of a two-tiered structure for individual Social Security accounts. As before, there would be a centralized approach to collecting and administering contributions. Contributions initially invested in ‘Tier I’, which would office a limited set of index funds, along the lines of the TSP as outlined above. When workers’ contributions exceed a certain threshold - $5,000 was suggested by CSSS – they would then be allowed, but not compelled, to invest that balance and additional contributions into a wider range of ‘Tier II’ funds. It is likely that these Tier II funds would include actively managed funds with higher total fees.” SIA concluded that Wall Street would likely gain $279 billion in revenue under a “two tiered” system of private Social Security accounts. [Securities Industry Association, 12/8/04]
Newsday: Wall Street Would Pull In Big Bucks Under Private Social Security Accounts. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks. From mutual fund managers to brokerage firms to investment advisers, financial-services companies could in time earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees and other revenue if workers were allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes in the stock market, as President George W. Bush is proposing.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]

Financial Industry Analyst: Privatization Is a Huge Potential Revenue Stream for Wall Street. Robert Hegarty, vice president of securities and investment at TowerGroup, a financial research firm in Needham, Massachusetts, told Newsday, “Financial firms would be crazy not to look at this as a new business opportunity,” referring to proposals to create private Social Security accounts. “It’s a huge potential revenue stream over the long term.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]

Mutual Fund Industry Trade Association Spokesperson Called Privatization a ‘Business Opportunity’ for Wall Street. Greg Ahern, a spokesman for the Investment Company Institute, a mutual fund industry association, told Newsday that Wall Street could benefit under a system of private Social Security accounts. “There would certainly be business opportunities in managing large pools of funds,” said Ahern. [Newsday, 2/20/05]

Narrator: Listen to Buck on whether he’d rewrite the Constitution and our right to vote for our own Senators.

Buck: “The short answer is yes.”

Source:Buck Remarks, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09 Buck Supported Repeal of the 17th Amendment

Question: “Would You Be In Favor of Repealing...the 17th Amendment in Order to Bring Back the Legislature’s Voice in the National Congress?”

Buck: “The short answer is yes.” [Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09]

Buck Thought 17th Amendment Had a “Horrendous” Effect, Wanted to Repeal it. Buck said, “I don’t know that we get [repeal] tomorrow, but I think we get there in the very near future when people understand just what a horrendous effect the 17th amendment has been oni the federal government’s spending.”[Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09]

Buck Thought it Would be Better to Let State Legislatures Elect United States Senators Instead of the American People. In June 2009, Buck told the Pikes Peak Economics Club that the American public needed to be educated “about the populist nature of the 17th Amendment and how it has taken us down the wrong path. How states could very well pass amendments and the same types of protection of women and victims that the federal government has forced on the states and wouldn’t force on the states with senators who are elected by the state legislatures and not by the people in a process that involves a lot more politicization of those elections.” [Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09]

Before 17th Amendment Was Passed State Legislatures Elected Senators, Led to Vacancies, Infighting. According to the United States Senate website, until 1913 United States Senators were elected by the state legislatures. Prior to the amendment passing disagreements in several states had caused there to be vacant seats, including an Indiana seat being left vacant for two years, and a seat in Delaware being left vacant for four years. [Senate.gov, Direct Election of Senators]

The 17th Amendment To The United State Constitution Allows For Direct Election of Senators By The People. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. [17th Amendment to the United States Constitution]

The 17th Amendment Was Ratified and Added to the Constitution in 1913. The required ¾ majority for ratification of the 17th amendment was achieved in 1913 when the State of Connecticut ratified it. [Senate.gov, Direct Election of Senators]

Before 17th Amendment Was Passed State Legislatures Elected Senators, Led to Vacancies, Infighting. According to the United States Senate website, until 1913 United States Senators were elected by the state legislatures. Prior to the amendment passing disagreements in several states had caused there to be vacant seats, including an Indiana seat being left vacant for two years, and a seat in Delaware being left vacant for four years. [Senate.gov, Direct Election of Senators]

Narrator: Ending our right to vote.

Threatening social security. Ken Buck the more you hear, the more you wonder. Buck Called Social Security a “Horrible Policy”, Questioned Its Constitutionality. At a Constitutionalist Today forum in March 2010, Buck was asked about the constitutionality of Social Security and responded, “I don’t know whether it’s constitutional or not, it is certainly a horrible policy. What happened in the LBJ Administration back in the 60s when they took the money out of the trust fund to use to fund general fund programs. And what we ended up with is a system that will bankrupt anywhere from ten to twenty-five years from now. It is bad policy.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10]

Buck Suggested that Government Should Not Be Running Health Care or Retirement. At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10]

Buck Said He Would Consider Privatizing Social Security. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Buck said he would consider some privatization of Social Security but wanted to be sure needy seniors retain a safety net.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/10]

Buck Proposed Raising the Retirement Age. At a meet and greet, Buck said “One of the things that I’ve already told my 19 year old and my 22 year old is, they are not going to retire at age 62, or age 65, or age 67. We’ve gotta be realistic as the, as the life expectancy in this country continues to rise, the age of retirement for social security has to continue, and Medicare has to continue to rise. And so people are gonna be working longer. We may have 2 careers, 3 careers in our lifetime. But we are not going to be able to sustain a model where we pay people in retirement longer and longer.” [Summit County Meet and Greet, 5/17/10]

Narrator: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Visual: Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

GLASS HOUSE ALERT: POLITICIAN MIKE CASTLE WAS DELINQUENT ON PAYING PROPERTY TAXES

New Documents Shows DC Politician Mike Castle Was Repeatedly Fined For Paying Taxes Late On His Washington Apartment

Castle Exposed As A Hypocrite After Calling His Primary Opponent ‘A Financial Disaster’

With each passing day, Delaware voters are seeing Mike Castle for who he really is - a longtime, entrenched, inside the Beltway politician, who epitomizes everything wrong with Washington. After making a career doing the “Washington waffle,” establishment politician Castle finds himself locked into a bitter primary battle and has launched negative slime ads against his surging tea party-endorsed primary opponent Christine O’Donnell. In his attacks, Castle calls O’Donnell “a financial disaster,” and goes after her for failing to pay taxes on time.

However, new documents show that politician Mike Castle also has a bad habit of failing to pay taxes on time. According to the DC Office of Tax and Revenue, Castle paid penalties and interest on his property taxes on his Washington apartment on at least three separate occasions.

“Politician Mike Castle has been in Washington long enough to know that those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “After doing his best to slime his opponent over her failure to pay taxes on time, it turns out Castle also has a bad habit of forgetting to pay his taxes. Whether it’s his constant waffling on the issues or his hypocritical attack ads, Mike Castle is proving why he’s just another Washington politician who has been in office for far too long.”

Establishment Republican Mike Castle and insurgent candidate Christine O’Donnell will go face to face at the polls one weeks from today. O’Donnell’s campaign has picked up momentum in recent weeks, with the Tea Party Express pledging to spend six figures on advertising on her behalf before the primary. Politician Mike Castle has resorted to running negative attack ads in hopes of stopping her momentum.

Castle Penalized For Late Tax Payment on DC Property in 2005. According to District of Columbia property tax records, Castle made a late 2005 tax payment on his property located at 224 Justice Court, Apartment #56 in Washington DC. On April 28, 2006, Castle paid a $61.21 tax penalty and $64.27 interest on his 2005 property tax payment of $612.13. [DC Office of Tax and Revenue, Source ID# 2061187033014, Transaction ID# 9100017721773]

Castle Penalized For Late Tax Payments on DC Property in 2006. According to District of Columbia property tax records, Castle made a late 2006 tax payment on his property located at 224 Justice Court, Apartment #56 in Washington DC. On April 268, 2006, Castle paid an $89.91 tax penalty and $13.49 interest on his 2006 property tax payment of $872.94. In September 2006, Castle paid $1.27 in interest. [DC Office of Tax and Revenue, Source ID #2061187033014, Transaction ID#9100017721674]

WANT COFFEE WITH THAT? DSCC SERVES UP MIKE CASTLE’S “WASHINGTON HOUSE OF WAFFLES”

New Website Takes To Task Longtime Establishment Congressman Castle For Flip-Flopping Around The Beltway

See Which Waffles Are On The Menu Today At http://dscc.org/waffles

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee today released a new website “Mike Castle’s Washington House of Waffles,” to take longtime establishment candidate Mike Castle to task for his habit of flip-flopping around the Washington Beltway. Whether the issue is a woman’s right to choose, climate change legislation, earmarks, Wall Street reform, or the stimulus, politician Mike Castle just can’t seem to stop waffling.

“Longtime Republican Congressman Mike Castle has been in the Washington waffle business for years now,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “Delaware voters know that the daily dose of hypocrisy, flip-flops, and changed positions served to them by politician Mike Castle represent everything wrong with Washington. One visit to Mike Castle’s Washington House of Waffles will show a Beltway politician whose hypocrisy knows no limits.”

Establishment politician Mike Castle has spent close to two decades serving up waffles in Washington. Castle has flip-flopped on his support for a woman’s right to choose; has supported climate-change legislation, except when he doesn’t; swore off earmarks, yet shows up at events touting earmarks which helped Delaware businesses; voted for Wall Street reform, after voting against it; and continues to show up at ribbon cutting ceremonies for stimulus events even though he voted against the bill in the first place.

THE FACTS ON CASTLE’S WAFFLING:

Castle Pro-Choice, Supported Roe v. Wade. In 2002, a candidate profile reported that “Castle: Supports Roe v. Wade.” [Wilmington News Journal, 10/13/02]

But Castle Voted to Deny Millions of Women Health Coverage For Abortion Procedures. In November 2009, Castle voted for an amendment that banned the use of federal health insurance subsidies to pay for “any part” of a policy that includes abortion coverage, denying millions of women insurance that would cover abortion procedures. The Stupak (D-MI) amendment would bar the use of federal funds authorized in the bill to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes abortion coverage, unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the woman suffers from a physical disorder, injury or illness that would, as certified by a physician, endanger the woman’s life. Individuals with subsidized policies who also want abortion coverage would have to purchase it separately, using their own money. It would also prohibit individuals from using affordability credits to purchase a plan that provides for elective abortions. [HR 3962, House Vote #884, 11/7/09; New York Times, 11/9/09]

June 2009: Castle Voted for the Clean Energy and Security Act. In 2009, Castle voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The measure set comprehensive goals to reduce climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions limits, alternative-energy requirements, better energy efficiency and regular analyses from federal agencies. It reduces carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050. The bill required that 20 percent of energy produced come from combined renewables and savings by 2020. The bill included funding for job training and assistance. The measure passed 219-212. [CQ Today Online, 6/26/09; CQ Weekly 6/29/09; Vote 477, 6/26/09]

•   FLIP FLOP – Castle Flip-Flopped on Cap and Trade Bill, Apologized for Vote and Called Vote a “Misjudgment.” During an April meeting of the Sussex County Republicans, Castle apologized for Q: Will you continue to support Cap and Trade legislation? CASTLE: Well no, the cap and trade legislation, and I realize there is a lot of concern about that and criticism for all that matters, and I supported that for the same rationale that I just talked about, I believe we have to become more independent, to keep our costs down, we have to have security issues I’m not hung up particularly on global warming, I’d like to see our environmental practices improve if you will, and I voted for that with the idea that it may not be perfect, but that it would go to the senate and they would make it better, and we could then go on and pass something which us makes sense, it has been derided, it is not going to go forward in the senate, and for that reason I would probably not vote for it if it came up again to start it again in the house… But cap and trade is a dead issue, and I apologize to you and to anyone else who’s offended by that vote, but my rationale is different than just that particular piece of legislation, it was to move the cause forward and it certainly not worked that way, it was a misjudgment.” [Sussex County Republican Meeting, Georgetown, 4/1/10]

Castle Joined House Republicans in Pledging Earmark Ban. As reported by Gannett News Service, “When the Delaware congressional delegation brought home only a fraction of the federal money they were seeking for a program to reduce infant mortality, Rep. Mike Castle observed, ‘Anything's better than zero.’ That was last year. This year, Castle isn't seeking any money for special projects or programs in Delaware - zero money for beaches, schools or transportation projects that he's long said are worthy of federal funds. That's because Castle and other House Republicans have pledged not to seek money for special home-state projects - or earmarks - for a year, which they say promotes fiscal responsibility.” [Gannett News Service, 6/1/10]

•   Castle Touted Earmark for DE Company After Withdrawing Requests for All Earmarks. As reported by the Wilmington News Journal, “Castle recently attended an event touting $2.4 million he helped bring to Newark-based ANP Technologies to make devices to detect biological weapons. That event came just a couple weeks after he withdrew requests to authorize $365.5 million for Delaware water and transportation.” [Wilmington News Journal, 6/2/10]

•   Castle’s Move Against Earmarks a “Big Change for Castle.” According to the Wilmington News Journal, “[Castle’s] move against earmarks -- which could divert tax dollars to other states -- is a big change for Castle, who has sought earmarks throughout his 17 years in Congress.” [Wilmington News Journal, 6/2/10]

Castle Opposed Strengthening Regulation of Wall Street After Financial Meltdown and Wall Street Bailout. In 2009, Castle voted against passage of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, a bill to overhaul federal regulations for the financial industry. The legislation would establish a process for dissolving financial institutions that pose risks to the entire financial system and create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from unsafe financial products. It would regulate the financial derivatives market, impose restrictions on credit rating firms, strengthen investor protections and require private capital investment advisers registration. As amended, the bill would set national mortgage standards, expand federal preemption by permitting the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to overrule state consumer financial laws if they impair national bank business and authorize $4 billion of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds for housing relief. The bill passed 223-202. [HR 4173, Vote # 968, 12/11/09]

•   Castle Switched His Vote, Voted for Financial Regulatory Reform. In June 2010, Castle switched his vote and voted for the financial regulatory reform bill. Castle had voted against an earlier form of the legislation in late 2009. Castle was one of three Republicans to vote for the bill. [The Hill, 6/30/10; HR 4173, House Vote #413, 6/30/10]

Castle Opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In 2009, Castle opposed the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The bill was a $787 billion spending package to provide aid to states and cities, funding for transportation and infrastructure projects and expansion of the Medicaid program to cover more unemployed workers. It included $301.1 billion in personal and business tax breaks. [CQ Bill Analysis HR1; Vote 70, 3/31/09]

•   HEADLINE – Castle Fights Hypocrite Label: Republican Accused of Voting Against, But Touting, Funds. [Wilmington News Journal, 2/12/10]

DSCC PRESENTS CONGRESSMAN ROY “MR. WASHINGTON” BLUNT TO MISSOURIANS IN FIRST AD OF GENERAL ELECTION

Washington Insider Blunt Was The “Man In The Middle” On $700 Billion Bailout Talks, Rated One Of “Most Corrupt” Members Of Congress

See Why Congressman Blunt Is The Worst Of Washington At http://www.dscc.org/royblunt

In the first ad of the general election, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is presenting Congressman Roy “Bailout ” Blunt to Missouri voters. Congressman Blunt, who represents the very worst of Washington, was the “man in the middle” on the $700 billion bank bailout talks, and “led the House GOP” in crafting the bank bailout bill. Congressman Blunt has been rated one of the “most corrupt” members of Congress, and over the course of his career has taken in over $1.6 million in campaign contributions from Wall Street special interests. No wonder Congressman Blunt has a long history of sticking it to the middle class and leaving them behind.

“Congressman Roy Blunt represents the very worst of Washington,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “Not only did Washington insider Blunt bail out the big banks to the tune of $700 billion, he’s also been rated one of the ‘most corrupt’ members of Congress and has taken in over $1.6 million from Wall Street special interests. The choice for Missouri voters couldn’t be clearer this November: Congressman Blunt, a longtime Washington insider who encapsulates everything wrong with Washington, or Robin Carnahan, a proven reformer who will take on the special interests.”

Washington insider Congressman Blunt has a record of sticking it to the middle class. Blunt rubberstamped the disastrous policies put into place by former President George W. Bush that protected Wall Street and exploded the federal deficit. After leading the charge to bailout big banks to the tune of $700 billion, Blunt now stands in the way of commonsense efforts to jumpstart job creation. The people of Missouri can thank Blunt for thousands of lost jobs, a huge trade imbalance, and Wall Street bank bailouts.

DSCC IE “Bailout”

Date: 8/13/10

Copy/Visual Documentation

Narrator: Roy Blunt's Washington.

Visual: ROY BLUNT’S WASHINGTON

Narrator: A culture of corruption and special interests. Where Missouri gets left behind.

Visual: ROY BLUNT’S WASHINGTON

Visual: MISSOURI GETS LEFT BEHIND

Narrator: And, when our economy collapsed – Washington is where Roy Blunt took the lead and voted for the 700-billion-dollar Wall Street bailout.

Visual: ROY BLUNT TOOK THE LEAD

Visual: $700 BILLION BAILOUT

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/23/08; Vote 681, 10/3/08 Headline -- Blunt Leads House GOP In Bailout Talks. [Gannett News Service, 9/30/08]

Headline -- Blunt Is Man in the Middle for Bailout Talks. [CQ Today, 9/26/08]

Blunt Lines up Support for Another House Bailout Vote. [Gannett News Service, 10/2/08]

Blunt Key Negotiator On Financial Bailout Package. Blunt was a key House negotiator on the financial bailout package, working closely with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. CQ reported that “Hoyer said he and Blunt, who has emerged as the GOP leadership's point man in trying to get a recovery bill passed, had spoken by phone ‘three, four five times today.’ Blunt also spoke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House aides said.” [CQ Today, 10/1/08]

Blunt: According to Secretary Paulson, Wall Street Rescue Bill Doomed To Fail Until Sen. Gregg And I “Stepped Up And Made It Happen.” During an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Blunt said Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had credited Blunt and Sen. Judd Gregg for making sure the TARP legislation passed. Asked “what would be a couple of high points as a leader,” Blunt said, “And then of course, I had (Treasury Secretary) Hank Paulson tell me on the phone last night that this rescue effort (for the $700 billion financial rescue) appeared not to be happening “until you and (New Hampshire Sen.) Judd Gregg stepped up and made it happen.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/23/08]

Blunt Voted For Controversial $700 Billion Bailout For Banking Industry. In October 2008, Blunt sided with voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). [Vote 681, 10/3/08]

Narrator: Where Blunt has taken over 1.6 million dollars in contributions Wall Street.

Visual: ROY BLUNT $1.6 MILLION FROM WALLSTREET AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS

Source: Center for Responsive Politics Blunt Has Accepted Over $1.6 Million from Wall Street Special Interests. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Roy Blunt has accepted $1,658,044 from securities, banks and financial interests over his career. Blunt’s contributions include $943,159 from securities and investment interests, $581,435 from commercial banks and $139,850 from finance and credit companies. [Center for Responsive Politics]

Narrator: And Washington is where Roy Blunt was named one of Congress's most corrupt politicians.

Visual: ROY BLUNT “MOST CORRUPT”

Source: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Press Release, 9/20/06 Blunt Named One of 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress. In 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), named Blunt one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress. CREW named Blunt because of his alleged “misuse of his position for the benefit of his family.” The report cites Blunt’s involvement in pushing legislation that it says benefit`ed Philip Morris and United Parcel Service. Blunt's wife, Abigail Perlman, is a lobbyist for the Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris, and a son, Andrew Blunt, lobbies for UPS in the Missouri Statehouse. [Joplin Globe, 9/27/05]

Blunt Named One Of 20 Most Corrupt Members Of Congress. In 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) named Roy Blunt in the second annual “20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” report, a report documenting “the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress.” It marked Blunt’s second consecutive year to be included in the report. [CREW Press Release, 9/20/06]

Narrator: Roy Blunt.

He isn’t just IN Washington…

…he IS Washington.

Visual: ROY BLUNT IS WASHINGTON

Narrator: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Visual: Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

DSCC PUTS TOGETHER THE “EVIDENCE” IN NEW TV AD, AND IT SHOWS TOOMEY FIGHTS FOR WALL STREET ROUND-THE-CLOCK

Wall Street Derivatives Pioneer Toomey Wants To Privatize Social Security And Send Pennsylvanians’ Life Savings To Risky Wall Street

See Why Pat Toomey Is Not On Your Side At http://www.dscc.org evidence

In a new television ad airing today in Pennsylvania, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has collected the evidence on Wall Street derivatives pioneer Pat Toomey, and it’s clear Toomey continues to fight for Wall Street seven days a week. As a trader on Wall Street, Pat Toomey helped to pioneer derivatives. After leaving Wall Street, Toomey fought to privatize Social Security, which would hand over billions of dollars to Wall Street, but put the life savings of Pennsylvanians’ at risk. As a Senate candidate Toomey continues to advocate for policies which place Wall Street over Main Street, and it’s why he is wrong for Pennsylvania.

“The evidence is in and it’s clear that Wall Street derivatives pioneer Pat Toomey sides with Wall Street over Main Street every chance he gets,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “Whether it was his work pioneering the use of derivatives on Wall Street, or his risky scheme to privatize Social Security and send billions of dollars to Wall Street, Pat Toomey is the last person middle-class Pennsylvanians can afford to have representing them in the Senate.”

Wall Street derivatives trader Pat Toomey has been fighting for Wall Street his entire adult life, often advocating for policies that have been disastrous to Main Street. Toomey made a career as a derivatives trader on Wall Street, where he made money engaging in the same reckless behavior that contributed to the collapse of the economy in the first place. After being elected to Congress, Toomey carried water for the same corporate special interests he worked for on Wall Street, compiling a far-right legislative record, even further right than former Senator Rick Santorum. After leaving Congress, Toomey served as President of the Club for Growth, a far-right political organization dedicated to pro-Wall Street, anti-Main Street policies.

DSCC IE “Evidence”

Date: 8/30/10

Copy/Visual Documentation

Narrator: The evidence is clear. Pat Toomey stands up for Wall Street, not you.

Visual: Pat Toomey. Mr. Wall Street

Narrator: As a Wall Street trader, Toomey pioneered derivatives.

Visual: Pioneered derivatives

Source: Allentown Morning Call, 4/11/04 Toomey Did “Pioneering Work” With Derivatives. While working at Chemical Bank in the 1980s, Toomey did “pioneering work” with interest and currency rate “swaps,” which are a type of derivative. [Allentown Morning Call, 4/11/04; Financial Times, 5/23/97]

1986: Toomey Launched “Serious Derivatives Operation” at Morgan Grenfell. Toomey moved to the British bank Morgan Grenfell in 1986 to start a “serious derivatives operation.” He was later to describe his work to Derivatives Strategy: “We were dealing in various currencies, all kinds of interest rate and currency-related derivatives—options, swaps, forwards and so on.” Within a year of coming on, two senior directors would resign under accusations of insider trading in Guinness’ takeover of Distillers. In a discussion of how corporate culture affects a bank’s propensity to take risks, The Economist described Morgan Grenfell as “a merchant bank which had a more free-wheeling culture.” [The Economist, 6/25/88; Derivatives Strategy, 5/99]

Toomey Worked on Chemical Bank’s Earliest Interest Rate Swap Transactions. After getting a political science degree from Harvard, Toomey landed a job in Chemical Bank’s capital markets group in 1984. In order to build its eurobond issuance business with American corporations, Chemical began offering interest rate and currency swaps, and Toomey was soon helping out with the bank’s earliest swaps transactions. [Derivatives Strategy, 5/99]

Narrator: And derivatives nearly wrecked our economy.

Visual: derivatives... a major cause of the financial crisis"

Source: New York Times, 5/14/09 New York Times: Derivatives Were a Major Cause of the Financial Crisis. “In its first detailed effort to overhaul financial regulations, the Obama administration on Wednesday sought new authority over the complex financial instruments, known as derivatives, that were a major cause of the financial crisis and have gone largely unregulated for decades.” [New York Times, 5/14/09]

Warren Buffet Called Derivatives “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction.” In 2002, Warren Buffet referred to derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” During an interview on the Charlie Rose Show in October 2008, Buffet repeated the charge. “And basically I said they were possibly financial weapons of mass destruction and they have been,” said Buffet, referring to derivative trades. “I mean, they destroyed AIG. They certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Stearns and Lehman, although Lehman had other problems too.” [PBS, “The Charlie Rose Show,” 10/1/08; Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 9/21/08]
Buffet: Derivatives Destroyed AIG, Bear Sterns and Lehman. During an interview on the Charlie Rose Show in October 2008, Warren Buffet linked the use of derivative trades to the financial crisis. “And basically I said they were possibly financial weapons of mass destruction and they have been,” said Buffet, referring to derivative trades. “I mean, they destroyed AIG. They certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Stearns and Lehman, although Lehman had other problems too.” [PBS, “The Charlie Rose Show,” 10/1/08]
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman: Derivatives Played a Central Role in the 2008 Financial Crisis. Testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in July 2010, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler blamed over-the-counter derivatives for exacerbating the financial crisis of 2008. “Derivatives played a central role” in the financial crisis of 2008, said Gensler. [Testimony of Chairman Gary Gensler Before the Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission, 7/1/10]

Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission Investigated the Role of Derivatives in the Financial Crisis. The Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission, the special panel charted by Congress to investigate the origins of the financial crisis, devoted two days of hearings in June 2010 to the role of derivatives in the crisis. [AP, 6/30/10]

AP: Derivatives Have Caught a Big Part of the Blame for the Financial Crisis. Traded in an opaque global market valued at around $600 trillion, derivatives have caught a big part of the blame for the financial crisis that ignited in late 2008. The value of derivatives hinges on an underlying investment or commodity such as currency rates, oil futures or interest rates. The derivative is designed to reduce the risk of loss from the underlying asset. [AP, 6/30/10]

AP: Collapse of Derivatives Triggered Financial Crisis, Brought on Bailouts. After the subprime mortgage bubble burst in 2007, derivatives called credit default swaps, which insured against default of securities tied to the mortgages, collapsed. That brought the downfall of Lehman Brothers and pushed AIG to the brink. In response, the federal government infused AIG with $85 billion in federal bailout funds in September 2008. [AP, 6/30/10]

New York Times: Derivatives Were a Major Catalyst of the Financial Crisis. In September 2009, the New York Times editorial board blamed derivatives for triggering the financial crisis of 2008. “The multitrillion-dollar market in derivatives was a major catalyst of the financial crisis,” wrote the board. [New York Times, 9/14/09]

San Francisco Chronicle: Derivatives Were At the Center of the Financial Crisis. In April 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board blamed derivatives for triggering the financial crisis of 2008. “Derivatives are largely unregulated, and they were at the center of the financial crisis,” wrote the board. [San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21/10]

Narrator: Toomey has fought to privatize Social Security.

Visual: HEADLINE: “Toomey: Privatize Social Security”

Source: Allentown Morning Call, 4/25/03 Allentown Morning Call: Toomey: Privatize Social Security. In April 2003, the Allentown Morning Call ran an article on Toomey’s support for privatizing Social Security with the headline: “Toomey: Privatize Social Security.” [Allentown Morning Call, 4/25/03]

Philadelphia Enquirer: Toomey: We Can Play a Very Big Role in Pushing for the Partial Privatization of Social Security. “Former Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who now heads the conservative Club for Growth, said Friday, ‘We can play a very big role’ in pushing for the partial privatization of Social Security.” [Philadelphia Enquirer, 1/24/05]

Harrisburg Patriot News: Pat Toomey Changes Verb But Not Intent for Privatizing Social Security. “Pat Toomey appeared to be trying a little revisionist history this week when he claimed he never called for privatizing Social Security. Toomey made the statement at the end of his appearance at the Pennsylvania Press Club Monday, only to see a wave of critics calling Toomey out. That included the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which dug up a 2003 headline from Toomey’s hometown newspaper, the Allentown Morning Call, which read: ‘Toomey: Privatize Social Security.’” [Harrisburg Patriot News, 8/25/10]

Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Has Not Backed Away From Supporting Privatization. “When George W. Bush proposed privatizing Social Security during his presidency, one of the most vocal supporters of the plan was former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey… Toomey has not backed away from the idea, but it's not a central tenet of his campaign, as it was when he was a House member.” [Allentown Morning Call, 8/20/10]

Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Called for Social Security Privatization. “Toomey, who has represented the Lehigh Valley in Washington since 1999, spent much of his remarks criticizing Specter as too liberal for the state's GOP voters. He also sounded familiar themes, including calls for Social Security privatization.” [Allentown Morning Call, 2/24/04]

Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Supported Partial Privatization of Social Security. “Toomey, who won the GOP nomination over five candidates in the primary, campaigned in favor of reforming the tax code and preserving Social Security. He supported a 17-percent flat tax, elimination of the Internal Revenue Service as we know it and partial privatization of Social Security.” [Allentown Morning Call, 11/4/98]

Narrator: It would give billions to Wall Street…

Visual: Give Billions to Wall Street

Source: Social Security Chief Actuary, 1/31/02 Social Security Chief Actuary: More Than $1 Trillion into Private Social Security Accounts. In 2002, Social Security’s Chief Actuary performed an analysis of the proposals of President George W. Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), and estimated that between $1.08 trillion and $2.4 trillion would flow into private Social Security accounts in the first 75 years of the program. The Chief Actuary’s report analyzed three different private account models, as proposed by CSSS, as well as varying levels of participation. [Social Security Chief Actuary, “Estimates of Financial Effect for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 1/31/02]
Social Security Chief Actuary: Between $46 Billion and $101 Billion into Private Social Security Accounts in First Year. Social Security’s Chief Actuary estimated that, based on the proposals of President George W. Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), between $46 billion and $101 billion would flow into private Social Security accounts in the first year of the program. [Social Security Chief Actuary, “Estimates of Financial Effect for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 1/31/02]

Social Security Chief Actuary Estimated That 50% of Private Account Holdings Would Be Invested in Equity Stocks. In their analysis of CSSS’s reform proposals, Social Security’s Chief Actuary estimated that 50 percent of private account holdings would be invested in equity stocks: “Workers are assumed to maintain personal-account portfolios that would have an average distribution of 50 percent in equity, 30 percent in corporate bonds, and 20 percent in U.S. Treasury long-term bonds. Equities are assumed to have an ultimate real annual yield of 6.5 percent, and corporate bonds are assumed to have an ultimate real annual yield of 3.5 percent, or one half of one percentage point higher than assumed for long-term U.S. Treasury bonds…As mentioned above, the long-term ultimate average real yield on stock investments made in the future is assumed to be 6.5 percent.” [Social Security Chief Actuary, “Estimates of Financial Effect for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 1/31/02]

Merrill Lynch: $54 Billion Per Year Into Stock Market Under Private Social Security Accounts. According to a study conducted by Merrill Lynch in 2004, $54 billion per year would flow into the stocks under a system of private Social Security accounts, like those proposed by President George W. Bush. Merrill Lynch also estimated that an addition $16 billion would flow into corporate bonds under a system of private accounts. [Newsday, 2/20/05]

Newsday: Wall Street Would Pull In Big Bucks Under Private Social Security Accounts. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks. From mutual fund managers to brokerage firms to investment advisers, financial-services companies could in time earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees and other revenue if workers were allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes in the stock market, as President George W. Bush is proposing.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]
Financial Industry Analyst: Privatization Is a Huge Potential Revenue Stream for Wall Street. Robert Hegarty, vice president of securities and investment at TowerGroup, a financial research firm in Needham, Massachusetts, told Newsday, “Financial firms would be crazy not to look at this as a new business opportunity,” referring to proposals to create private Social Security accounts. “It’s a huge potential revenue stream over the long term.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]

Mutual Fund Industry Trade Association Spokesperson Called Privatization a ‘Business Opportunity’ for Wall Street. Greg Ahern, a spokesman for the Investment Company Institute, a mutual fund industry association, told Newsday that Wall Street could benefit under a system of private Social Security accounts. “There would certainly be business opportunities in managing large pools of funds,” said Ahern. [Newsday, 2/20/05]

Narrator: …but put your Social Security at risk in the stock market.

Visual: Put your Social Security at risk

Source: Allentown Morning Call, 8/28/02 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: Privatization Transfers Risk to the Individual. “Privatization places much of the risk of a secure retirement on the individual. Young people will not only ‘own’ their accounts, but they will ‘own the risk’ of retirement. Markets go up, and markets go down. Woe be to the person who retires in a falling market. From 1999 through 2002, near-retirees saw the value of their market-invested 401(k) retirement accounts drop an average of 25 percent. A decline such as that puts a big dent in one's projected monthly retirement income.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 9/30/04]

Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Advocates Allowing Workers to Invest Social Security in Stock Market. “Because he sees more imminent trouble, Toomey advocates giving younger workers the option of investing a small portion of their Social Security tax in the stock market or government securities.” [Allentown Morning Call, 10/30/02]

Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Would Permit Workers to Invest Their Social Security Funds. “Toomey said he advocates changes in Social Security laws that would permit younger workers to make decisions about how their Social Security contributions would be used. ‘They would be able to control and invest and save some of their own money and the government wouldn't get it all,’ he said.” [Allentown Morning Call, 7/14/02]

Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Advocated for Allowing Younger Workers to Invest a Portion of Their Social Security Taxes in the Stock Market. “But Toomey isn't running away. He has continued to advocate for allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.” [Allentown Morning Call, 8/28/02]

Harrisburg Patriot News: Toomey Supports Allowing Younger Workers to Invest Their Payroll Tax in a Professionally Managed Account. “On Social Security, [Toomey] said he supports giving younger workers the option of taking a portion of the payroll tax they pay and putting it into a regulated, professionally managed account -- an idea similar to one advanced by Bush that failed after Democrats opposed it as a step toward privatizing the nation's retirement security.” [Harrisburg Patriot News, 8/1/10]

Narrator: Privatizing Social Security. Helping Wall Street.

Visual: Pat Toomey. Privatizing Social Security. Helping Wall Street.

Narrator: Pat Toomey. He’s not for you.

Visual: Not for you.

Narrator: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

Visual: Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

WITH PRIMARY LOOMING, BAD NEWS PILING UP FOR KELLY AYOTTE

First, Ayotte Failed To Stop The Largest Ponzi Scheme In State History…

…Now Front-Page Concord Monitor Story Shows Ayotte Accepted More Than $10,000 From Firm Charged With Illegally Deceiving Customers

With the New Hampshire Senate primary less than two weeks away, the bad news keeps piling up for establishment candidate Kelly Ayotte. First, a report from the state attorney general’s office found that Ayotte significantly failed to protect consumers from a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme resulting from the closure of Financial Resources Mortgage (FRM). The report revealed that the attorney general’s office, under Ayotte’s leadership, missed repeated indications of fraud, and could have done more to protect New Hampshire consumers.

Now, a front-page report today in The Concord Monitor shows that Ayotte accepted $10,000 from officers and employees of Tax Masters, a firm which has been “charged with illegally deceiving customers.” This May, Tax Masters and its CEO were charged with multiple violations of consumer protection laws in Texas, where the company is located, after receiving in excess of 1,000 complaints from consumers. According to the Monitor “the complaints allege the company misled clients about its services and took clients’ money without working on their cases.”

“Kelly Ayotte must have a soft spot for companies who scam customers,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “After her role in failing to stop the largest Ponzi scheme in New Hampshire history was exposed, a new report shows she’s accepted thousands of dollars from a firm charged with illegally deceiving customers. With the primary less than two weeks away, New Hampshire voters are quickly learning ‘scandal’ is Kelly Ayotte’s middle-name.”

Ayotte has been hammered from the right and the left over her role in failing to stop the largest Ponzi scheme in state history, and is increasingly coming under attack from Bill Binnie, her well funded primary opponent. The New Hampshire press has taken notice of the Republican infighting and has been urging voters to look past Binnie and Ayotte to fellow Republican Senate candidates Jim Bender and Ovide Lamontagne. Ayotte was dealt another blow this past Sunday when another opponent, Ovide Lamontagne was endorsed by the influential New Hampshire Union Leader.

Concord Monitor A1: Charged business gave to Ayotte
Shira Schoenberg
September 3, 2010
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/214899/charged-business-gave-to-ayotte?page=0,0

Officers and employees of a "tax resolution" firm charged with illegally deceiving customers have donated more than $10,000 to U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte.
In May, the Texas attorney general charged the Houston-based company Tax Masters and Chief Executive Officer Patrick Cox with multiple violations of Texas's consumer protection laws after receiving more than 1,000 consumer complaints. The complaints allege the company misled clients about its services and took clients' money without working on their cases.
According to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Cox donated $4,800 - the legal maximum - to Ayotte. Tax Masters Vice President of Sales Alex Clamon also donated $4,800. Jeffrey Welch, who works in sales at Tax Masters, donated $1,000. All of the donations were received Dec. 31, 2009.
Ayotte spokesman Jeff Grappone said Ayotte would not return the money until the legal process is complete.
"We will watch the legal process and await an outcome," Grappone said. "If they're found to have violated the law, we'll return the contributions immediately."
The case is scheduled for trial Nov. 15.
Previously, Ayotte called on U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, the Democratic Senate candidate, to return donations given to him by Charlie Rangel, a New York congressman facing ethics charges for allegedly soliciting donations from people with business before the House Ways and Means Committee, which he chaired. Ayotte called on Hodes to return the money after a House subcommittee found Rangel violated congressional ethics rules but before the panel held a trial.
Tax Masters, which was started in 2001, claims to help taxpayers facing difficulties with the Internal Revenue Service. Cox is a regular presence on cable TV ads nationwide.
The state of Texas is seeking restitution for customers and civil penalties. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in May that the company "routinely misled customers about the nature of their tax resolution service agreements - and worse, attempted to enforce those improper agreements through unlawful debt collection tactics."
According to court documents, as described in a press release from the Texas attorney general's office, Tax Masters's ads encouraged taxpayers to call a toll-free number for a free consultation with a "tax consultant." Instead, taxpayers were connected to a salesperson who recommended a solution that could cost $9,000 or more, according to prosecutors.
The Texas attorney general's office described the alleged scam as follows:
Callers were offered installment plans. They were required to give a credit card number before Tax Masters would give them a written contract. As a result, callers did not know that payments were nonrefundable and that the entire service fee would have to be paid - even if they canceled their contract. Tax Masters also did not tell customers it would not work on a case until it had received the entire payment - which meant customers missed IRS deadlines and accrued additional fees while they were paying the company. When customers did not pay, or tried to get their money refunded, Tax Masters threatened to take them to court. In many cases, Tax Masters did not provide the "tax resolution" services - it failed to consult with the IRS, to appear at hearings or to stop the IRS from garnishing people's wages or placing liens on their property.
The Better Business Bureau gives the company an F rating, citing 760 complaints in 36 months.
Two lawsuits have also been filed in federal court against Tax Masters and Cox. One names Clamon, as well. In both lawsuits, employees said the company failed to pay them overtime.
Cox and Clamon have donated large sums of money to Republican U.S. senators and candidates, mostly in 2009. In addition to Ayotte, Cox and Clamon donated to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and South Dakota Sen. John Thune.
Cox also gave money to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas and Senate candidates Roy Blunt of Missouri, Charlie Crist of Florida and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Clamon gave $30,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and also gave to U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas. Welch gave only to Ayotte and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. It is unclear what connection if any Cox or the others have to Ayotte.
Cox did not return a call for comment yesterday. A public relations firm working for Cox told the Houston Chronicle in July that Cox was cooperating with the attorney general's office "to provide all information necessary to negate any wrongful charges and continue serving its clients as the nation's largest tax representation company."
Cox previously responded to complaints about him by saying his company was targeted because it was successful.
"Tax Masters is not a scam. We are not a fraud. We do not cheat people. We never help anyone cheat the IRS," Cox said, according to the Houston Chronicle.

SATURDAY: JOHNSON’S MENTOR VISITS SHEBOYGAN, LAKE GENEVA TO PROMOTE GROUP THAT SUPPORTS AMERICAN JOBS BEING SHIPPED OVERSEAS

Johnson’s Political Mentor Dick Morris To Attend Rallies For Pro-Outsourcing Group, Americans For Prosperity

Senate Candidate on Wisconsin Radio Network: “The Climate For Business Investment Is Far More Certain In Communist China Then It Is In The U.S. Here"

Extremist Ron Johnson is getting some out-of-state reinforcements this weekend, as his political mentor Dick Morris flies into Wisconsin for two Americans for Prosperity events in Sheboygan and Lake Geneva. Americans for Prosperity, which is sponsoring the events Morris will be speaking at, called an effort to end tax breaks for outsourcing a “bailout” and has opposed previous efforts to end tax breaks for outsourcing. Earlier this week Johnson praised the business climate in communist China saying “the climate for business investment is far more certain in communist China then it is in the U.S,” and lauded an American casino entrepreneur for starting businesses in Macau, China.

Johnson has repeatedly cited Dick Morris as the reason he’s running for Senate saying “I was sitting home, watching FOXNews, and Dick Morris came on and said...’If you’re a rich guy from Wisconsin, step up to the plate.’ I kind of looked at Jane and go ‘Is he, like, talking to me?” There is no word yet on if Johnson will be attending the Americans for Prosperity sponsored events with Dick Morris.

“The same week Ron Johnson was caught praising the business climate in communist China, his outsourcing allies are staging events in Wisconsin,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “Americans for Prosperity has opposed efforts to end tax breaks for outsourcing and is now sponsoring two events with Johnson’s political mentor Dick Morris. Ron Johnson should tell Wisconsin if he stands with these far-right allies who support shipping Wisconsin jobs overseas.”

Hypocrite Ron Johnson, who has claimed that he’s “never lobbied for special treatment or a government payment," has been exposed three times in recent weeks for hypocritically bashing government aid on the campaign trail, even though he’s accepted millions of dollars in government aid behind closed doors. As WKOW first reported, Johnson sought and was granted a $2.5 million bond in 1985 to expand his business. The next day, the same Madison television station reported that a 1979 federal Urban Development Action grant worth $75,000 was awarded to build a railroad line to Johnson’s factory. Finally, the Associated Press reported that Johnson’s company was on the receiving end of a $1.5 million Industrial Development Revenue Bond in 1983.

Americans for Prosperity Funded, Run by Koch Industries Executives. Americans for Prosperity was founded by David H. Koch, one of the wealthiest men in America and the executive vice president and board member of Koch Industries, which was founded by his father. Recently, Koch gave $5 million to Americans for Prosperity. The recent President of Americans for Prosperity is a former lobbyist for Koch Industries.   In 2009, AFP President Tim Phillips said Koch “launched our organization.” The executive Vice President of Koch Industries said, “What we have done is support the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which has been active in various forms for nearly 30 years.” [New York Times, 7/10/08; MSNBC, 3/31/10; Politico, 10/14/08, Washington Examiner, 7/18/10; Washington Independent, 10/5/09]

Americans for Prosperity Called Effort to End Tax Breaks for Outsourcing a “Bailout” and Opposed Previous Efforts to End Tax Breaks for Outsourcing. Americans for Prosperity called an effort to fund kids education by ending tax breaks for companies who ship Americans jobs overseas. AFP also opposed an effort to close tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing of Americans jobs. [AFP, 8/4/10; AFP, 6/24/10]

Key Koch Industries Subsidiary Received an Award for Shipping American Jobs to China. In 2006, Invista, a key subsidiary of Koch Industries, received the “Outsourcing Excellence Award” for their work shipping American jobs to China. [Freeborders Release, 6/1/06]

Major Koch Industries Subsidiary is On List of Companies “Exporting America.” Koch Industries is the owner of Georgia Pacific, a company on Lou Dobbs’ list of “companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers.” [CNN; Koch Industries]

EXTREMIST JOE MILLER ON KILLING SOCIAL SECURITY:“ABSOLUTELY”

In CNN Interview Joe Miller Confirms He’d Like Alaskans Born Tomorrow To Not Have Social Security

Miller Already On Record Wanting To Phase-Out Medicare For Alaskan Senior Citizens

As extremist Joe Miller continues to soak up the national media spotlight, Alaskans are learning more and more about his extreme, out of the Alaska mainstream agenda, which would devastate the Alaska middle-class. In an interview with CNN last night, Miller said he thinks its “absolutely” fair to end Social Security, and if he had his way, Social Security would not be available to an Alaskan born tomorrow. This comes on top of an ABC News report showing Miller doesn’t think federal unemployment insurance is “constitutionally authorized,” and Miller telling the Anchorage Daily News that he would like to phase-out Medicare for Alaska senior citizens.

“Extremist Joe Miller may be basking in national attention but middle class Alaskans are no fools and they know his extreme agenda would devastate them and their families,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “Joe Miller’s dangerous scheme to end Social Security for Alaska’s kids is just his latest affront to middle-class Alaskans.”

If extremist Joe Miller had his way, Social Security as we know it would be gone for 75,000 Alaskans now and for tomorrow’s children, seniors would no longer be able to rely on Medicare, and Alaskans struggling in this still recovering economy would no longer get assistance as they continue to look for jobs.

Anchorage Daily News: Miller Would Phase Out Medicare And Social Security. In July 2010, the Anchorage Daily News reported, “Miller has called for across-the-board cuts, phasing out government Medicare and Social Security, and getting rid of the federal Department of Education because it is not in the Constitution, leaving the function to the states.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/7/10]

Miller Does Not Believe Unemployment Benefits Are Constitutional. In July 2010, Miller stated his opposition to extending unemployment benefits because he does not believe the benefits are constitutional. He said, “The unemployment compensation benefits have gotten -- first of all, it's not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that's gotta be looked at, so I do not favor their extension.” [ABC News, 7/19/10]

TOOMEY DOESN’T BACK DOWN ON HIS SUPPORT FOR ELIMINATING ALL CORPORATE TAXES

PolitiFact: ‘We gave the Toomey camp the opportunity to say the candidate opposes zero corporate taxation, but the campaign did not do so'

Wall Street derivatives pioneer Pat Toomey has finally given in -- and admitted his repeated support for eliminating corporate taxes. After a TV ad showed Toomey saying that “the solution is to eliminate corporate taxes altogether,” Toomey’s campaign complained to the Pennsylvania media, claiming that Toomey’s support for eliminating corporate taxes was, of all things, an “intellectual exercise” and an “intellectual policy position.”

But as the website PolitiFact pointed out in a fact-check piece, “We gave the Toomey camp the opportunity to say the candidate opposes zero corporate taxation, but the campaign did not do so.”

“Pat Toomey’s stunning silence says everything Pennsylvanians need to know about his long-held support for eliminating all corporate taxes,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “While Toomey’s support for eliminating all corporate taxes might please a select few of his old Wall Street buddies, it does nothing to help Main Street Pennsylvanians, who are still suffering due to the reckless Bush/Toomey economic policies. Pennsylvanians need a Senator who will get up every day and fight for them, not a politician like Pat Toomey whose ‘intellectual exercises’ only help Wall Street.”

Evidence shows that Toomey advocated for this so-called “intellectual exercise” as recently as last year. In his 2009 book The Road To Prosperity, Toomey wrote: “For little more in lost revenue than was spent in that single bill, Congress could have eliminated all corporate income taxes for nearly three full years. America would have become by far the most tax-advantaged country in the world. We would have attracted a flood of new capital investment, new start-up ventures, and expansions of existing businesses.”

Wall Street derivatives trader Pat Toomey has been fighting for Wall Street his entire adult life, often advocating for policies that have been disastrous to Main Street. Toomey made a career as a derivatives trader on Wall Street, where he made money engaging in the same reckless behavior that contributed to the collapse of the economy in the first place. After being elected to Congress, Toomey carried water for the same corporate special interests he worked for on Wall Street, compiling a far-right legislative record, even further right than former Senator Rick Santorum. After leaving Congress, Toomey served as President of the Club for Growth, a far-right political organization dedicated to pro-Wall Street, anti-Main Street policies.

DSCC IE “Listen”
Date: 8/27/10

Copy/Visual	Documentation

Narrator: Listen to Ken Buck on social security. Buck: “Fundamentally Against What I Believe.” Source:Buck Remarks Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10	Buck Said That Government Running Healthcare and Retirement “Fundamentally Against What I Believe.” At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10]
Narrator: He’d put Social Security in the stock market billions for Wall Street. Source:9News Debate, 7/22/10	Buck Said He Would Consider Privatizing Social Security. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Buck said he would consider some privatization of Social Security but wanted to be sure needy seniors retain a safety net.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/10] Buck: Individuals Should Invest Their Own Social Security Funds. Buck told 9NEWS during a debate with his Republican primary opponent Jane Norton, “We’ve got to peg Social Security to individuals so those individuals have the ability perhaps to invest in various funds that are approved by the government. But those individuals also own that fund.” [9News Your Show Debate, 7/22/10] Buck Suggested that Government Should Not Be Running Health Care or Retirement, and That The Private Sector Runs it Better. At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10] Securities Industry Association: Wall Street Would Reap Between $279 Billion and $39 Billion from Private Social Security Accounts. According to a study conducted by the Securities Industry Association (SIA) in 2004, Wall Street would stand to reap between $279 billion and $39 billion in revenue under a system of voluntary private Social Security accounts, like those proposed by President George W. Bush. [Securities Industry Association, 12/8/04] Wall Street Would Make $39 Billion Under ‘TSP-Style’ Private Social Security Accounts. One system of private Social Security accounts explored by the Securities Industry Association (SIA) in their 2004 report was modeled after the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), a retirement plan for federal employees and military personnel: “As President George Bush’s 2001 Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) set out, any model for individual Social Security accounts would be likely based on a system of centrally administered contributions, using the existing payroll tax system and run by a federal agency…In effect, any new system would resemble the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).” SIA concluded that Wall Street would likely gain $39 billion in revenue under a system of “TSP-style” private Social Security Accounts.” [Securities Industry Association, 12/8/04] Wall Street Would Make $279 Billion Under ‘Two-Tiered’ Private Social Security Accounts. Another system of private Social Security accounts explored by the Securities Industry Association in their 2004 report was modeled after a “two-tiered” approach: “In its 2001 report, the CSSS also set out the possibility of a two-tiered structure for individual Social Security accounts. As before, there would be a centralized approach to collecting and administering contributions. Contributions initially invested in ‘Tier I’, which would office a limited set of index funds, along the lines of the TSP as outlined above. When workers’ contributions exceed a certain threshold - $5,000 was suggested by CSSS – they would then be allowed, but not compelled, to invest that balance and additional contributions into a wider range of ‘Tier II’ funds. It is likely that these Tier II funds would include actively managed funds with higher total fees.” SIA concluded that Wall Street would likely gain $279 billion in revenue under a “two tiered” system of private Social Security accounts. [Securities Industry Association, 12/8/04] Newsday: Wall Street Would Pull In Big Bucks Under Private Social Security Accounts. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks. From mutual fund managers to brokerage firms to investment advisers, financial-services companies could in time earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees and other revenue if workers were allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes in the stock market, as President George W. Bush is proposing.” [Newsday, 2/20/05] Financial Industry Analyst: Privatization Is a Huge Potential Revenue Stream for Wall Street. Robert Hegarty, vice president of securities and investment at TowerGroup, a financial research firm in Needham, Massachusetts, told Newsday, “Financial firms would be crazy not to look at this as a new business opportunity,” referring to proposals to create private Social Security accounts. “It’s a huge potential revenue stream over the long term.” [Newsday, 2/20/05] Mutual Fund Industry Trade Association Spokesperson Called Privatization a ‘Business Opportunity’ for Wall Street. Greg Ahern, a spokesman for the Investment Company Institute, a mutual fund industry association, told Newsday that Wall Street could benefit under a system of private Social Security accounts. “There would certainly be business opportunities in managing large pools of funds,” said Ahern. [Newsday, 2/20/05]
Narrator: Listen to Buck on whether he’d rewrite the Constitution and our right to vote for our own Senators. Buck: “The short answer is yes.” Source:Buck Remarks, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09	Buck Supported Repeal of the 17th Amendment Question: “Would You Be In Favor of Repealing...the 17th Amendment in Order to Bring Back the Legislature’s Voice in the National Congress?” Buck: “The short answer is yes.” [Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09] Buck Thought 17th Amendment Had a “Horrendous” Effect, Wanted to Repeal it. Buck said, “I don’t know that we get [repeal] tomorrow, but I think we get there in the very near future when people understand just what a horrendous effect the 17th amendment has been oni the federal government’s spending.”[Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09] Buck Thought it Would be Better to Let State Legislatures Elect United States Senators Instead of the American People. In June 2009, Buck told the Pikes Peak Economics Club that the American public needed to be educated “about the populist nature of the 17th Amendment and how it has taken us down the wrong path. How states could very well pass amendments and the same types of protection of women and victims that the federal government has forced on the states and wouldn’t force on the states with senators who are elected by the state legislatures and not by the people in a process that involves a lot more politicization of those elections.” [Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09] Before 17th Amendment Was Passed State Legislatures Elected Senators, Led to Vacancies, Infighting. According to the United States Senate website, until 1913 United States Senators were elected by the state legislatures. Prior to the amendment passing disagreements in several states had caused there to be vacant seats, including an Indiana seat being left vacant for two years, and a seat in Delaware being left vacant for four years. [Senate.gov, Direct Election of Senators] The 17th Amendment To The United State Constitution Allows For Direct Election of Senators By The People. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. [17th Amendment to the United States Constitution] The 17th Amendment Was Ratified and Added to the Constitution in 1913. The required ¾ majority for ratification of the 17th amendment was achieved in 1913 when the State of Connecticut ratified it. [Senate.gov, Direct Election of Senators] Before 17th Amendment Was Passed State Legislatures Elected Senators, Led to Vacancies, Infighting. According to the United States Senate website, until 1913 United States Senators were elected by the state legislatures. Prior to the amendment passing disagreements in several states had caused there to be vacant seats, including an Indiana seat being left vacant for two years, and a seat in Delaware being left vacant for four years. [Senate.gov, Direct Election of Senators]
Narrator: Ending our right to vote. Threatening social security. Ken Buck the more you hear, the more you wonder.	Buck Called Social Security a “Horrible Policy”, Questioned Its Constitutionality. At a Constitutionalist Today forum in March 2010, Buck was asked about the constitutionality of Social Security and responded, “I don’t know whether it’s constitutional or not, it is certainly a horrible policy. What happened in the LBJ Administration back in the 60s when they took the money out of the trust fund to use to fund general fund programs. And what we ended up with is a system that will bankrupt anywhere from ten to twenty-five years from now. It is bad policy.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10] Buck Suggested that Government Should Not Be Running Health Care or Retirement. At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10] Buck Said He Would Consider Privatizing Social Security. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Buck said he would consider some privatization of Social Security but wanted to be sure needy seniors retain a safety net.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/10] Buck Proposed Raising the Retirement Age. At a meet and greet, Buck said “One of the things that I’ve already told my 19 year old and my 22 year old is, they are not going to retire at age 62, or age 65, or age 67. We’ve gotta be realistic as the, as the life expectancy in this country continues to rise, the age of retirement for social security has to continue, and Medicare has to continue to rise. And so people are gonna be working longer. We may have 2 careers, 3 careers in our lifetime. But we are not going to be able to sustain a model where we pay people in retirement longer and longer.” [Summit County Meet and Greet, 5/17/10]
Narrator: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. Visual: Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

DSCC IE “Bailout”
Date: 8/13/10
Copy/Visual	Documentation
Narrator: Roy Blunt's Washington. Visual: ROY BLUNT’S WASHINGTON
Narrator: A culture of corruption and special interests. Where Missouri gets left behind. Visual: ROY BLUNT’S WASHINGTON Visual: MISSOURI GETS LEFT BEHIND
Narrator: And, when our economy collapsed – Washington is where Roy Blunt took the lead and voted for the 700-billion-dollar Wall Street bailout. Visual: ROY BLUNT TOOK THE LEAD Visual: $700 BILLION BAILOUT Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/23/08; Vote 681, 10/3/08	Headline -- Blunt Leads House GOP In Bailout Talks. [Gannett News Service, 9/30/08] Headline -- Blunt Is Man in the Middle for Bailout Talks. [CQ Today, 9/26/08] Blunt Lines up Support for Another House Bailout Vote. [Gannett News Service, 10/2/08] Blunt Key Negotiator On Financial Bailout Package. Blunt was a key House negotiator on the financial bailout package, working closely with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. CQ reported that “Hoyer said he and Blunt, who has emerged as the GOP leadership's point man in trying to get a recovery bill passed, had spoken by phone ‘three, four five times today.’ Blunt also spoke to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House aides said.” [CQ Today, 10/1/08] Blunt: According to Secretary Paulson, Wall Street Rescue Bill Doomed To Fail Until Sen. Gregg And I “Stepped Up And Made It Happen.” During an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Blunt said Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had credited Blunt and Sen. Judd Gregg for making sure the TARP legislation passed. Asked “what would be a couple of high points as a leader,” Blunt said, “And then of course, I had (Treasury Secretary) Hank Paulson tell me on the phone last night that this rescue effort (for the $700 billion financial rescue) appeared not to be happening “until you and (New Hampshire Sen.) Judd Gregg stepped up and made it happen.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/23/08] Blunt Voted For Controversial $700 Billion Bailout For Banking Industry. In October 2008, Blunt sided with voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). [Vote 681, 10/3/08]
Narrator: Where Blunt has taken over 1.6 million dollars in contributions Wall Street. Visual: ROY BLUNT $1.6 MILLION FROM WALLSTREET AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS Source: Center for Responsive Politics	Blunt Has Accepted Over $1.6 Million from Wall Street Special Interests. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Roy Blunt has accepted $1,658,044 from securities, banks and financial interests over his career. Blunt’s contributions include $943,159 from securities and investment interests, $581,435 from commercial banks and $139,850 from finance and credit companies. [Center for Responsive Politics]
Narrator: And Washington is where Roy Blunt was named one of Congress's most corrupt politicians. Visual: ROY BLUNT “MOST CORRUPT” Source: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Press Release, 9/20/06	Blunt Named One of 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress. In 2005, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), named Blunt one of the 13 most corrupt members of Congress. CREW named Blunt because of his alleged “misuse of his position for the benefit of his family.” The report cites Blunt’s involvement in pushing legislation that it says benefit`ed Philip Morris and United Parcel Service. Blunt's wife, Abigail Perlman, is a lobbyist for the Altria Group, which owns Philip Morris, and a son, Andrew Blunt, lobbies for UPS in the Missouri Statehouse. [Joplin Globe, 9/27/05] Blunt Named One Of 20 Most Corrupt Members Of Congress. In 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) named Roy Blunt in the second annual “20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” report, a report documenting “the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress.” It marked Blunt’s second consecutive year to be included in the report. [CREW Press Release, 9/20/06]
Narrator: Roy Blunt. He isn’t just IN Washington… …he IS Washington. Visual: ROY BLUNT IS WASHINGTON
Narrator: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. Visual: Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

DSCC IE “Evidence”
Date: 8/30/10

Copy/Visual	Documentation
Narrator: The evidence is clear. Pat Toomey stands up for Wall Street, not you. Visual: Pat Toomey. Mr. Wall Street
Narrator: As a Wall Street trader, Toomey pioneered derivatives. Visual: Pioneered derivatives Source: Allentown Morning Call, 4/11/04	Toomey Did “Pioneering Work” With Derivatives. While working at Chemical Bank in the 1980s, Toomey did “pioneering work” with interest and currency rate “swaps,” which are a type of derivative. [Allentown Morning Call, 4/11/04; Financial Times, 5/23/97] 1986: Toomey Launched “Serious Derivatives Operation” at Morgan Grenfell. Toomey moved to the British bank Morgan Grenfell in 1986 to start a “serious derivatives operation.” He was later to describe his work to Derivatives Strategy: “We were dealing in various currencies, all kinds of interest rate and currency-related derivatives—options, swaps, forwards and so on.” Within a year of coming on, two senior directors would resign under accusations of insider trading in Guinness’ takeover of Distillers. In a discussion of how corporate culture affects a bank’s propensity to take risks, The Economist described Morgan Grenfell as “a merchant bank which had a more free-wheeling culture.” [The Economist, 6/25/88; Derivatives Strategy, 5/99] Toomey Worked on Chemical Bank’s Earliest Interest Rate Swap Transactions. After getting a political science degree from Harvard, Toomey landed a job in Chemical Bank’s capital markets group in 1984. In order to build its eurobond issuance business with American corporations, Chemical began offering interest rate and currency swaps, and Toomey was soon helping out with the bank’s earliest swaps transactions. [Derivatives Strategy, 5/99]
Narrator: And derivatives nearly wrecked our economy. Visual: derivatives... a major cause of the financial crisis" Source: New York Times, 5/14/09	New York Times: Derivatives Were a Major Cause of the Financial Crisis. “In its first detailed effort to overhaul financial regulations, the Obama administration on Wednesday sought new authority over the complex financial instruments, known as derivatives, that were a major cause of the financial crisis and have gone largely unregulated for decades.” [New York Times, 5/14/09] Warren Buffet Called Derivatives “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction.” In 2002, Warren Buffet referred to derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” During an interview on the Charlie Rose Show in October 2008, Buffet repeated the charge. “And basically I said they were possibly financial weapons of mass destruction and they have been,” said Buffet, referring to derivative trades. “I mean, they destroyed AIG. They certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Stearns and Lehman, although Lehman had other problems too.” [PBS, “The Charlie Rose Show,” 10/1/08; Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 9/21/08] Buffet: Derivatives Destroyed AIG, Bear Sterns and Lehman. During an interview on the Charlie Rose Show in October 2008, Warren Buffet linked the use of derivative trades to the financial crisis. “And basically I said they were possibly financial weapons of mass destruction and they have been,” said Buffet, referring to derivative trades. “I mean, they destroyed AIG. They certainly contributed to the destruction of Bear Stearns and Lehman, although Lehman had other problems too.” [PBS, “The Charlie Rose Show,” 10/1/08] Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman: Derivatives Played a Central Role in the 2008 Financial Crisis. Testifying before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in July 2010, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler blamed over-the-counter derivatives for exacerbating the financial crisis of 2008. “Derivatives played a central role” in the financial crisis of 2008, said Gensler. [Testimony of Chairman Gary Gensler Before the Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission, 7/1/10] Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission Investigated the Role of Derivatives in the Financial Crisis. The Financial Crisis Enquiry Commission, the special panel charted by Congress to investigate the origins of the financial crisis, devoted two days of hearings in June 2010 to the role of derivatives in the crisis. [AP, 6/30/10] AP: Derivatives Have Caught a Big Part of the Blame for the Financial Crisis. Traded in an opaque global market valued at around $600 trillion, derivatives have caught a big part of the blame for the financial crisis that ignited in late 2008. The value of derivatives hinges on an underlying investment or commodity such as currency rates, oil futures or interest rates. The derivative is designed to reduce the risk of loss from the underlying asset. [AP, 6/30/10] AP: Collapse of Derivatives Triggered Financial Crisis, Brought on Bailouts. After the subprime mortgage bubble burst in 2007, derivatives called credit default swaps, which insured against default of securities tied to the mortgages, collapsed. That brought the downfall of Lehman Brothers and pushed AIG to the brink. In response, the federal government infused AIG with $85 billion in federal bailout funds in September 2008. [AP, 6/30/10] New York Times: Derivatives Were a Major Catalyst of the Financial Crisis. In September 2009, the New York Times editorial board blamed derivatives for triggering the financial crisis of 2008. “The multitrillion-dollar market in derivatives was a major catalyst of the financial crisis,” wrote the board. [New York Times, 9/14/09] San Francisco Chronicle: Derivatives Were At the Center of the Financial Crisis. In April 2010, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board blamed derivatives for triggering the financial crisis of 2008. “Derivatives are largely unregulated, and they were at the center of the financial crisis,” wrote the board. [San Francisco Chronicle, 4/21/10]
Narrator: Toomey has fought to privatize Social Security. Visual: HEADLINE: “Toomey: Privatize Social Security” Source: Allentown Morning Call, 4/25/03	Allentown Morning Call: Toomey: Privatize Social Security. In April 2003, the Allentown Morning Call ran an article on Toomey’s support for privatizing Social Security with the headline: “Toomey: Privatize Social Security.” [Allentown Morning Call, 4/25/03] Philadelphia Enquirer: Toomey: We Can Play a Very Big Role in Pushing for the Partial Privatization of Social Security. “Former Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who now heads the conservative Club for Growth, said Friday, ‘We can play a very big role’ in pushing for the partial privatization of Social Security.” [Philadelphia Enquirer, 1/24/05] Harrisburg Patriot News: Pat Toomey Changes Verb But Not Intent for Privatizing Social Security. “Pat Toomey appeared to be trying a little revisionist history this week when he claimed he never called for privatizing Social Security. Toomey made the statement at the end of his appearance at the Pennsylvania Press Club Monday, only to see a wave of critics calling Toomey out. That included the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which dug up a 2003 headline from Toomey’s hometown newspaper, the Allentown Morning Call, which read: ‘Toomey: Privatize Social Security.’” [Harrisburg Patriot News, 8/25/10] Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Has Not Backed Away From Supporting Privatization. “When George W. Bush proposed privatizing Social Security during his presidency, one of the most vocal supporters of the plan was former Lehigh Valley Congressman Pat Toomey… Toomey has not backed away from the idea, but it's not a central tenet of his campaign, as it was when he was a House member.” [Allentown Morning Call, 8/20/10] Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Called for Social Security Privatization. “Toomey, who has represented the Lehigh Valley in Washington since 1999, spent much of his remarks criticizing Specter as too liberal for the state's GOP voters. He also sounded familiar themes, including calls for Social Security privatization.” [Allentown Morning Call, 2/24/04] Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Supported Partial Privatization of Social Security. “Toomey, who won the GOP nomination over five candidates in the primary, campaigned in favor of reforming the tax code and preserving Social Security. He supported a 17-percent flat tax, elimination of the Internal Revenue Service as we know it and partial privatization of Social Security.” [Allentown Morning Call, 11/4/98]
Narrator: It would give billions to Wall Street… Visual: Give Billions to Wall Street Source: Social Security Chief Actuary, 1/31/02	Social Security Chief Actuary: More Than $1 Trillion into Private Social Security Accounts. In 2002, Social Security’s Chief Actuary performed an analysis of the proposals of President George W. Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), and estimated that between $1.08 trillion and $2.4 trillion would flow into private Social Security accounts in the first 75 years of the program. The Chief Actuary’s report analyzed three different private account models, as proposed by CSSS, as well as varying levels of participation. [Social Security Chief Actuary, “Estimates of Financial Effect for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 1/31/02] Social Security Chief Actuary: Between $46 Billion and $101 Billion into Private Social Security Accounts in First Year. Social Security’s Chief Actuary estimated that, based on the proposals of President George W. Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), between $46 billion and $101 billion would flow into private Social Security accounts in the first year of the program. [Social Security Chief Actuary, “Estimates of Financial Effect for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 1/31/02] Social Security Chief Actuary Estimated That 50% of Private Account Holdings Would Be Invested in Equity Stocks. In their analysis of CSSS’s reform proposals, Social Security’s Chief Actuary estimated that 50 percent of private account holdings would be invested in equity stocks: “Workers are assumed to maintain personal-account portfolios that would have an average distribution of 50 percent in equity, 30 percent in corporate bonds, and 20 percent in U.S. Treasury long-term bonds. Equities are assumed to have an ultimate real annual yield of 6.5 percent, and corporate bonds are assumed to have an ultimate real annual yield of 3.5 percent, or one half of one percentage point higher than assumed for long-term U.S. Treasury bonds…As mentioned above, the long-term ultimate average real yield on stock investments made in the future is assumed to be 6.5 percent.” [Social Security Chief Actuary, “Estimates of Financial Effect for Three Models Developed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 1/31/02] Merrill Lynch: $54 Billion Per Year Into Stock Market Under Private Social Security Accounts. According to a study conducted by Merrill Lynch in 2004, $54 billion per year would flow into the stocks under a system of private Social Security accounts, like those proposed by President George W. Bush. Merrill Lynch also estimated that an addition $16 billion would flow into corporate bonds under a system of private accounts. [Newsday, 2/20/05] Newsday: Wall Street Would Pull In Big Bucks Under Private Social Security Accounts. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks. From mutual fund managers to brokerage firms to investment advisers, financial-services companies could in time earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees and other revenue if workers were allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes in the stock market, as President George W. Bush is proposing.” [Newsday, 2/20/05] Financial Industry Analyst: Privatization Is a Huge Potential Revenue Stream for Wall Street. Robert Hegarty, vice president of securities and investment at TowerGroup, a financial research firm in Needham, Massachusetts, told Newsday, “Financial firms would be crazy not to look at this as a new business opportunity,” referring to proposals to create private Social Security accounts. “It’s a huge potential revenue stream over the long term.” [Newsday, 2/20/05] Mutual Fund Industry Trade Association Spokesperson Called Privatization a ‘Business Opportunity’ for Wall Street. Greg Ahern, a spokesman for the Investment Company Institute, a mutual fund industry association, told Newsday that Wall Street could benefit under a system of private Social Security accounts. “There would certainly be business opportunities in managing large pools of funds,” said Ahern. [Newsday, 2/20/05]
Narrator: …but put your Social Security at risk in the stock market. Visual: Put your Social Security at risk Source: Allentown Morning Call, 8/28/02	National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: Privatization Transfers Risk to the Individual. “Privatization places much of the risk of a secure retirement on the individual. Young people will not only ‘own’ their accounts, but they will ‘own the risk’ of retirement. Markets go up, and markets go down. Woe be to the person who retires in a falling market. From 1999 through 2002, near-retirees saw the value of their market-invested 401(k) retirement accounts drop an average of 25 percent. A decline such as that puts a big dent in one's projected monthly retirement income.” [National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 9/30/04] Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Advocates Allowing Workers to Invest Social Security in Stock Market. “Because he sees more imminent trouble, Toomey advocates giving younger workers the option of investing a small portion of their Social Security tax in the stock market or government securities.” [Allentown Morning Call, 10/30/02] Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Would Permit Workers to Invest Their Social Security Funds. “Toomey said he advocates changes in Social Security laws that would permit younger workers to make decisions about how their Social Security contributions would be used. ‘They would be able to control and invest and save some of their own money and the government wouldn't get it all,’ he said.” [Allentown Morning Call, 7/14/02] Allentown Morning Call: Toomey Advocated for Allowing Younger Workers to Invest a Portion of Their Social Security Taxes in the Stock Market. “But Toomey isn't running away. He has continued to advocate for allowing younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.” [Allentown Morning Call, 8/28/02] Harrisburg Patriot News: Toomey Supports Allowing Younger Workers to Invest Their Payroll Tax in a Professionally Managed Account. “On Social Security, [Toomey] said he supports giving younger workers the option of taking a portion of the payroll tax they pay and putting it into a regulated, professionally managed account -- an idea similar to one advanced by Bush that failed after Democrats opposed it as a step toward privatizing the nation's retirement security.” [Harrisburg Patriot News, 8/1/10]
Narrator: Privatizing Social Security. Helping Wall Street. Visual: Pat Toomey. Privatizing Social Security. Helping Wall Street.
Narrator: Pat Toomey. He’s not for you. Visual: Not for you.
Narrator: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. Visual: Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, www.dscc.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.