» News
Shift in Massachusetts: Scott Brown leading while Elizabeth Warren’s campaign finances come under scrutiny
A new Boston Globe poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center shows Scott Brown is making a successful October push in Massachusetts to keep his seat in the United States Senate. The Globe now has Brown leading 47-45.
The poll is a reversal from a September Globe survey that showed Warren ahead 43 percent to 38 percent, as well as several other recent polls that have found Warren with a slight lead. The shift underscores the belief long held by both sides that the race, active for more than a year, would be competitive until the end.
[WAJ adds -- UNH have been overly friendly in its polling to Democrats, including Martha Coakley back in January 2010 and Warren in early September, so this is particularly surprising.]
On top of this good news for the Brown campaign is more bad news for the Warren Campaign as new details about the questionable source of a large chunk of her campaign contributions is raising eyebrows.
Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com reports:
A Breitbart News analysis of Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s recent October 15, 2012 filing with the Federal Election Commission shows that more than half of the $36.2 million Ms. Warren has raised for her campaign has come from online websites that are vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.
Ms. Warren has set several fundraising records that she doesn’t want voters in Massachusetts to know about. The two most alarming records are:
(1) Most money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate from online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations: $18.3 million ($15.8 million in “unitemized” donations and at least $2.5 million in itemized donations from conduit site ActBlue.org).
(2) Highest percentage of money raised in a single election cycle by a candidate for the United States Senate online sites vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations as a percentage of total funds raised: 50.5% (43.7% in “unitemized” donations and at least 6.8% in itemized donations from conduit site ActBlue.org).Warren’s 43.7% of receipts from “unitemized” donations is more than double the 15% of her opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown.
Brown’s website deploys industry standard security methods, and none of the 15% of contributions that come from “unitemized” donations are vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations. In contrast, all of the 43.7% of Warren’s contributions that come from “unitemized” donations. In addition, the 6.8% of her donations that have come through conduit website ActBlue.org are vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.
Boobie the Rocket Dog
October 30th, 2012
So now MASS has a GOP senator and soon a GOP President. When does whirling Derval Patrick get the boot and by whom?
Maudie N Mandeville
October 30th, 2012
It would seem that Republican congress might want to effect a bill making this illegal with all funds forfeited?
CrustyB
October 30th, 2012
Aren’t Elizabeth Warren’s campaign finances made up of beads, bags of sugar, boomsticks and whatever else she could trade for with the white settlers?
Tim
October 30th, 2012
A woman who would cheat a “minority” out of a “minority set-aside” certainly isn’t going to be above taking illegal campaign contributions.
Beauty may be skin deep, but criminality goes all the way to the bone.
moarkdave
October 30th, 2012
My gut tells me that Scott Brown and Romney have been doing better than the polls have shown in Massachusetts. I think that Brown will easily win. I also think that Romney will carry Massachusetts and New Hampshire. That is my hopes and prayers also.
By keeping the polls close, the dollars raised by the fundraising get pumped right back into the media outlets. TV, Radio and Newspapers have no reason to investigate the fundraising fraud, most of that money gets spent in their businesses.
even steven
October 30th, 2012
Lies! Racist republicans hate her because she’s Cherokee. (I’m just imagining what some Warren supporter would dream up to justify a vote for that crazy, lying hag.)
Callmelennie
October 30th, 2012
Wow, just wow.
This Elizabeth Warren has got to be the most ethically compromised candidate this side of any given, run of the mill Kennedy
kvn
October 30th, 2012
Hard to believe Mass. residents could be so racist as to vote against the Squaw Shitting Bull.
Bob M.
October 30th, 2012
Jeepers, guys! We gotta save the Jeep Commander! I mean, Compass! I mean, YJ! I mean, CJ-5! I mean…
… ‘Cherokee’…
dude
October 30th, 2012
Huh, a bunch of indian givers
even steven
October 30th, 2012
Woohoo! One of my comments awaits moderation. I’ve always favored intemperance, but moderation is okay, too, I guess.
Anonymous
October 30th, 2012
“Vulnerable to fraud and foreign donations.”
Sums the current administration as well.
PATH
October 30th, 2012
Since O’s fundraising sites work the same way, perhaps she had her sites set up by the same people.
Pickled Liver
October 30th, 2012
“Scott Brown leading while Elizabeth Warren’s campaign finances come under scrutiny!”
Honest Injun ?
scr_north
October 30th, 2012
In order to turn off credit card security process two things have to be done. The first is to swith off name, address and the 3 digit code found on the back of your card or a combination of all three. The second thing is that credit card authorizer (usually the bank or a third party) has to also turn off the checks at the direct request of the client. If the client requests this action then I think (can’t quite recall) the bank/authority takes a bigger percent of the transaction value and the client takes more responsibility on fraud transactions. The only reason this would be done is if the client (Obama) is expecting a lot of transactions where the only accurate thing is the card number and expiration date.
Extirpates
October 30th, 2012
Heap big chief outta wampum.