For Immediate Release
Jan 13, 2010
EMILY's List WOMEN VOTE! to Mobilize Voters in Massachusetts Special Election
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- EMILY's List, the nation's largest financial resource for women candidates, today announced a new WOMEN VOTE! project in Massachusetts. As the nationwide voter education and mobilization project of EMILY's List, WOMEN VOTE! will mobilize key voters in the state through a targeted radio advertising program in the days leading up to the January 19th special election.
EMILY's List's Massachusetts WOMEN VOTE! program is spending approximately $250,000 on a heavy radio buy targeting women across Massachusetts with a strong emphasis on the Boston market. The 60-second spot, titled "Say Anything," highlights Scott Brown's record of voting with the Republican leadership 90% of the time and siding with special interests over Massachusetts families. The program will run through Election Day.
EMILY's List WOMEN VOTE! has worked for more than a decade to inform and engage women voters in the electoral process on the premise that when women vote, women win. "It’s important that women get to know the real Scott Brown," said Denise Feriozzi, EMILY's List WOMEN VOTE! Director. "Throughout his career, Brown has voted 90% with his Republican leadership on Beacon Hill and just last week introduced legislation to stop requiring insurance companies cover mammograms and maternity care."
EMILY's List is the nation's largest financial resource for women candidates. In the 2007-2008 cycle, EMILY's List raised more than $43 million to support its mission of recruiting and supporting women candidates, helping them build strong campaigns, and mobilizing women voters to turn out and vote. With more than 100,000 members across the country, EMILY's List is one of the largest political action committees in the nation. Since its founding in 1985, EMILY's List has worked to elect 80 pro-choice Democratic women to the U.S. House, 15 to the U.S. Senate, nine governors, and hundreds of women to the state legislatures, state constitutional offices, and other key local offices.
Listen to the audio clip and read the script below.
EMILY's List WOMEN VOTE! -- MA SENATE 2010
“Say Anything”
Radio :60
| Audio | Backup |
Some people will say anything to make sure you don't see who they really are.
Like Scott Brown. He says he's independent, but that just isn’t true. In the legislature, Brown voted ninety percent of the time with his Republican leadership. Brown thinks we've cracked down enough on Wall Street. Brown supports the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but voted to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in fees on middle class families, including the gas tax. And Scott Brown would even stop requiring that insurance companies cover mammograms and maternity care. |
From 1999 To 2008 Brown Voted With Republican Party Leadership 90% Of The Time During His Political Career On Beacon Hill. By comparing every Brown roll call vote to every roll call vote by the state Senate or House Minority Leader then serving throughout his ten years in the legislature, Scott Brown voted with Republican Party leadership 90% of the time. [Insta-Trac/The Advance Research Group Database].
Brown: "I've Been An Independent Vote...I'll Continue To Be That Way [In Washington]." In Sept 2009, Brown told WBUR: "I'm up against the machine in Massachusetts and I'm not part of that machine. I'm not going to promise to pander to anybody and I've been an independent voice in Massachusetts and the Legislature and I'll continue to be that way down there." [WBUR, 9/14/09] Brown: "We Had Plenty Of Regulations" On Wall Street. When asked if the financial crisis stemmed from problems created during Republican control of Washington, Brown said: "I don't think so… And I think a lot of the problems that we're having, we had plenty of regulations, what we needed was the proper federal agencies to make sure they enforce the regulations. And if there are problems, in certain parts of that, then we should try to fix them." [MA Senate Candidate Debate, 12/21/09] Brown Attacked Coakley's Support Of Letting The Bush Tax Cuts Expire. Brown said: [Coakley is] in support of having the tax cuts, 2001, 2003 tax cuts actually expire. And what that means is an across the board tax increase for businesses and families. You're talking about the child care tax credit gonna be cut in half. The marriage penalty will be coming back. And when you're talking about, with all due respect, Martha, you know, you're, I think you're wrong when it comes to the fact that many of these people making 250 thousand, they're sole proprietors and they're the bread and butter of the businesses that are trying to stay in business in Massachusetts and these expiring tax cuts make it very, very difficult." [WBZ-TV Debate, 12/22/09] Brown Voted For 2004 Budget That Contained "Hundreds of Millions Of Dollars In Fee Hikes." On May 8, 2003, Scott Brown voted for passage of the House version of the FY 2004 state budget, described as containing "hundreds of millions of dollars in fee hikes." Media estimates of the total amount of fee hikes in the House budget backed by Brown ranged from $390 million to $700 million a year. [H. 4001. RC #110, HJ, 5/5/03; Associated Press, 5/2/03; Boston Herald, 4/23/03] Brown Voted For 2004 Budget Containing What Citizens For Limited Taxation Condemned As "2.5 Cent Per Gallon Gas Tax Increase." The House budget that Brown voted for in May 2003 contained what Citizens for Limited Taxation condemned as a "2.5 cent per gallong gas tax increase disguised as an environmental 'assessment'" and the American Automobile Association labeled a "backdoor tax." Following the Romney Administration's lead, House budget writers eliminated a special fund once reserved for combating the environmental threat of leaking underground fuel storage tanks while retaining the 2.5 cent a gallon levy on fuel sales that had once been earmarked solely to fund it. The effect, anti-tax activists said, was to transform a user fee into a tax. [H. 4001. RC#110, HJ, 5/5/03; Chip Ford’s CLT Commentary, CLT Update, 4/25/03; Macero, Boston Herald, 4/25/03] While Running For US Senate, Brown Introduced State Legislation That Would Not Require Insurance Companies To Cover Mammograms, Minimum Maternity Stays, In Vitro Fertilization. On December 28, 2009, Brown "proposed state legislation to ease regulations on insurance companies, rules he said have driven up costs. He said companies should not be required to cover so many different medical services, including in vitro fertilization and chiropractic care. State law also mandates that every health plan include coverage for mammograms, minimum maternity stays, hearing screenings for newborns, and alcoholism rehabilitation. 'I'm not opposed to having these available to people, but we should give the providers the ability to look at their consumer and say, 'What do you need covered?' '' Brown said." He did not specify exactly how his proposal would decrease costs; he also did not say whether insurers should have to provide some basic level of coverage." [Boston Globe, 12/29/09; emphasis added] Brown Called For The Removal Of "Burdensome Regulations That Drive Up The Price Of Insurance" Including Coverage Of In-Vitro Fertilization. According to WBUR, "State Senator Scott Brown is sponsoring legislation that would release health insurance plans in Massachusetts from covering some health care. He also said if he is elected to the U.S. Senate, he will vote against the health care reform making its way through Congress. The Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate said he opposes the health care plan passed by the Senate last week because Massachusetts already covers almost everyone. Brown also said Massachusetts should contain costs in its state health insurance program. 'One way to do that is ... by removing burdensome regulations that drive up the price of insurance policies,' he said. Brown is proposing to eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans cover in-vitro fertilization and chiropractic care....Attorney General Martha Coakley, said Brown's legislation would also threaten coverage for hospice care, mammograms and bone marrow transplants for cancer patients." [WBUR, 12/29/09] Brown On Health Care: Why Do We Older Men Need To Pay For Maternity Health Care Or Preventative Health Care For Children? On December 29, Brown told WRKO, "For example, Tom, why would we, for you and me for example, why would we need care regarding, lets say, I have the list right here, ok, maternity health care. Why would we need that? Certified nurse midwives? Preventative health care for children up to age 6? We don't need that as men, as older men quite frankly. So um, why, why? But we're paying for it. Shouldn't we allow the insurance companies to look at us as individuals and tailor the plans for what we need [WRKO,12/29/09, 4:36-5:03] |
|
Martha Coakley's the better choice.
Just like she took on the insurance companies and scam artists on Wall Street as Attorney General, she'll take on business as usual in Washington. Having a Senator on our side matters. And so does our vote. This Tuesday, January 19th, vote for Martha Coakley. Paid for by EMILY's List. Emily's List dot org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee. EMILY's List is responsible for the content of this advertising. |
Coakley Recovered The Largest Consumer Protection Settlement Against A Health Plan In Massachusetts History. "An insurer that allegedly misled people into buying low-cost health insurance policies and then denied coverage after they became ill will pay $17 million in what the state says may be the largest consumer protection settlement against a health plan in Massachusetts history. HealthMarkets Inc., of North Richland Hills, Texas, and its subsidiaries MEGA Life and Health Insurance and Mid-West National Life Insurance are also banned for at least five years from selling new health plans in Massachusetts and must exit the state health plan business completely, according to a judgment filed yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court and outlined by state Attorney General Martha Coakley. Of the $17 million payment, $11.25 million will go to consumers to cover claims that were illegally denied, and $3 million will pay a civil penalty; $2.1 million has already been paid for previous claims." [Boston Globe, 9/1/09; Office of the MA Attorney General, Press Release, 8/31/09]
Coakley Reached $60 Million Agreement With Goldman Sachs To Reduce Size Of Subprime Loans In Massachusetts. According to the Boston Globe, in 2009, Coakley reached a $60 million agreement with Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs Group to reduce the size of subprime loans for some 700 Massachusetts homeowners by up to 35 percent." As part of the deal, the Wall Street investment bank agreed to modify loans of more than 700 troubled borrowers. [Boston Globe, 10/9/09; CNN, 10/9/09] Coakley's Suit Was First Instance In The Country Where An Investment Bank Was Held Accountable For Role In Subprime Lending Crisis. According to CEO World Magazine, "Spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, Amie Breton, said the bulk of Goldman Sachs's subprime mortgages were found in Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, Springfield and Worcester. Breton said the settlement was 'the first instance in the country where an investment bank has been held accountable for their role in subprime lending crisis.'" [CEO World Magazine, 5/12/09] Coakley Won Suit Against One Of State's Largest Subprime Mortgage Lenders For Predatory Practices In Low Income Neighborhoods. According to the Boston Globe, "In June, Fremont Investment & Loan Co., once one of the state's largest subprime mortgage lenders, agreed to pay $10 million to settle charges that it offered predatory loans in low-income neighborhoods across Massachusetts. The state had sued Fremont, alleging that its loans included terms, such as 100 percent financing, 'no documentation borrowing,' that often resulted in borrowers defaulting and facing foreclosure." According to CNN, "The state will distribute $5 million to state residents with Freemont loans, and another $3 million will go foreclosure relief and homeowners' education. The rest will go to the state and to cover costs. The California-based lender agreed to do more loan modifications and not to foreclose upon up to 2,200 loans without notifying the attorney general's office first and seeking court approval in certain circumstances." [Boston Globe, 10/9/09; CNN, 10/9/09] |
