TPMDC

Coakley, Dems Jump On Brown Staffers Story

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

MA Senate Candidates AG Martha Coakley (D) and State Sen. Scott Brown (R)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Last week, TPMDC reported that Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown (R) is paying his campaign staff as "independent contractors," meaning they're responsible for paying their own payroll taxes and health insurance.

Brown's opponent, Martha Coakley (D), and other groups have jumped on the story, attacking Brown for not providing health insurance to his staffers.

"We already knew that Scott Brown didn't want to make health insurance more affordable for Massachusetts families and businesses. Now we learn that he won't even make health insurance available for his own staff. If he won't stand up for the people he employs, how could we ever trust him to stand up for us?" Coakley said in a statement.

Brown defended himself to the Boston Herald, saying, "The people who are working for me, they're happy." He also called the whole story a "silly issue."

"The small group working on the Scott Brown campaign either has existing insurance or were compensated sufficiently to purchase it on their own," said a Brown spokesman.

But that hasn't stopped Democrats from piling on. The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also responded.

"We already knew that Scott Brown would be a vote against health insurance reform in Washington -- putting his allegiance to the national Republican Party over his commitment to serve Massachusetts -- but now we know that Brown values his own personal ambitions above everything else, even his own staffers. Unbelievable," wrote the DNC.

"Scott Brown's stunning disregard for the people who work for him tells you all you need to know about Scott Brown. Brown has hoarded campaign funds to spend on misleading ads while leaving campaign staffers to fend for themselves," the DSCC wrote. "Scott Brown has put his own personal ambitions ahead of the well-being of the young people who serve him. There's one word to describe someone who spends millions on false attack ads instead of health care for workers: shameful."

The SEIU also released a statement:

"If Scott Brown won't even provide health coverage for the 20-year-olds working day and night on his campaign, why would he help Bay State families? Scott Brown cares more about doing the bidding of his extremist right-wing Tea Party and Wall Street backers then the men and women who wake up and go to work to keep America running every day," the union said in a statement.

Comments (8) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 18, 2010 12:26 PM   

Well stated! Thanks TPM for opening up this can of worms. It is something we needed to know.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 12:46 PM    in reply to ottis

I don't understand why these attacks are focused on health insurance. Isn't the real issue here that the Brown campaign is cheating on its taxes? I mean, I'm no tax professional, but I have worked as both a W-2 employee and a 1099 contractor, and it was always my understanding that there were firm rules in place about which was which. Specifically, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it was absolutely illegal to classify someone as a contractor if the employer is the one setting the hours. And in this case (as reported at least) the Brown campaign is clearly setting hours for some if not all of these people.

So, am I just wrong on the law? Or is the Brown campaign really clearly and unambiguously guilty of tax evasion? And if so...why the hell are we acting like the sin is not giving the workers health insurance!?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 3:02 PM    in reply to hunter

You might be right about the tax law (I have the same general understanding as you), but with the front-and-center nature of health care/health insurance in today's political dialogue, the health angle is a much easier point to score than tax law violations. I'm pretty sure that if there wasn't a health care bill on the line with this election, the tax law angle would get some play, if not the majority of the ad time.

Also (you betcha), there's really no ambiguity to the claim "Scott Brown is not providing health insurance for his campaign staff." There is some ambiguity to the tax law claim. Even if significant evidence showed that Brown was violating the independent contractor laws, there'd be enough lawyering around it by Brown that it would be a muddle in Joe Sixpack's mind. "Brown doesn't care about his own workers" is much easier to sell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 7:48 PM   

The frustrating thing is this sort of stuff might have won the race if it came out a month ago. Maybe even two weeks ago. But the last couple days before the election? I can't believe more than a tiny number of people are swayable. This stuff might beat him when he runs for reelection. If he wins, he has to be in danger of being the next Harris Wofford. Remember Democrats thought his special election win was a big deal, and then came 1994?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 8:45 PM   

"The small group working on the Scott Brown campaign either has existing insurance or were compensated sufficiently to purchase it on their own..."

I small an ADA lawsuit ... if everyone on his staff can buy insurance, that means he has no one with a "pre-existing condition" on his staff. Must have discriminated mightily against the disabled. No one with high blood pressure? No one with high cholesterol? My god, he must have gone to extraordinary efforts to exclude EVERYONE who had some kind of medical problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 8:49 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

SMELL, not small. Sheesh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 18, 2010 8:47 PM   

I want to know what Democrats did not push poll about this guy posing nude and maybe just go ahead and imply that he must be a closeted gay. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a hot button that could keep Christianists home on Tuesday.

Dems are wimps.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 19, 2010 2:19 AM   

I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about. Nearly everyone is an independent contractor, including the politicians. Our contracts have beginning dates and ending dates. And, every since we were told that we didn't have a job for life, any implication that we might have a career in any one place disappeared completely.

Some of the comments here focus on what this individual has "lost." How about what he's gained? All of his work related expenses become deductible, including his car. As for health insurance, we seem to be on course to rectify that. In the meantime, there are plenty of professional associations, of which we all of us are members or should be, that provide access to coverage through group plans.

Instead of castigating someone for treating those he "hires" as independent contractors, let's commend him for it. At least he's among the few who actually recognize it to be true, and are acting accordingly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on