Image 01 Image 03

Massachusetts voter mass mailing looking like pro-Elizabeth Warren set-up

Massachusetts voter mass mailing looking like pro-Elizabeth Warren set-up

The lawsuit by Demos (an ACORN successor), which resulted in Massachusetts voluntarily taking the unprecedented step of mailing registration forms to almost 500,000 welfare recipients and other steps in welfare offices not required by law, is looking more and more like a pro-Elizabeth Warren set-up.

The Chairwoman of Demos is Warren’s daughter.  But Demos says Warren’s daughter was not involved in the decision making.  She didn’t need to be, Demos is a big Warren supporter as an organization.

Warren was the 2010 recipient of Demos “Transforming America” Award, as reflected on the Demos Flickr page (h/t):

The Washington Free Beacon described the organizational ties back in May:

Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s political career has been boosted by her daughter’s connections to left-wing groups, which could damage her standing with independent voters, observers in Massachusetts and outside experts say.

Warren’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, chairs the George Soros-funded progressive think tank Demos as well as the board of directors of the liberal magazine the American Prospect, which is a “partner publication” to Demos. Both organizations have been extremely supportive of Warren’s political rise and have helped cultivate her image as a champion of the left.

Demos employees include far-left activists, veterans of the Obama and John Edwards presidential campaigns, and a former fellow at George Soros’ Open Society Institute….

Van Jones, 9/11 Truther and founder of Color for Change and Green for All, serves on the Demos Board of Trustees. Demos senior fellow Benjamin Barber was a “longtime adviser to Saif al-Qaddafi,” son of the late Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and Open Society Institute-Brussels provided funding for the organization in 2011.

Demos president Miles Rapoport issued a press release in July 2010 supporting Warren’s bid to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and another in July 2011 praising her “leadership” in designing the CFPB.

“Demos has long been a vocal supporter of Elizabeth Warren and commends her for working tirelessly to set up the CFPB all while defending it from unrelenting and unfounded attacks,” Rapoport wrote.

Rapoport did not mention Elizabeth Warren’s personal ties to Demos in either statement.

The Demos blog celebrated the launch of Warren’s Senate campaign in August 2011, calling her “a figure of rare integrity” and proclaiming, “she and this republic are better served by Warren making the Senate run.”

Demos presented Warren with a “Transforming America” award in 2010 at its 10th anniversary gala.

Elizabeth Warren also promoted her book The Two-Income Trap at a December 2003 event at New York’s Drum Major Institute co-sponsored by Demos.

Demos is attempting to portray this lawsuit as simply part of a broader national effort.

Yet the timing has to be more than coincidental.  The best evidence is that the claim that Massachusetts was not in compliance with the so-called Motor Voter law was not even raised by Demos until late last year, after almost all other Democrats had dropped out of the Senate primary race and it was clear that Warren likely would be the nominee.

Even then, as detailed in a March 6, 2012 letter from the Massachusetts Secretary of State which was filed in court (embedded at bottom of post), after meeting with Demos representatives, Massachusetts laid out all the steps it had taken to cure any alleged deficiencies.   The state offered to meet with Demos again to address any additional concerns, yet as detailed in the letter, the state heard nothing until Demos filed suit in May.

None of the ultimate remedies agreed to, including the mass mailing, appear to have been raised by Demos prior to the lawsuit.  Exhibit A to the court Complaint was Demos’ demand letter from December, in which no demand for a mass mailing was made.

A mass mailing is not even requested in the court Complaint, which simply requested that the Court order the state to provide welfare recipients with an opportunity to register to vote:

(iii) Directing defendants, under a court-approved plan with appropriate mandatory reporting and monitoring requirements, to take all actions necessary to remedy the past and continuing violations of Section 7 of the NVRA, including, without limitation, ensuring that all persons affected by defendants’ violations of Section 7 of the NVRA are provided opportunities to register to vote or to change their voter registration addresses to enable them to vote in the 2012 federal election;

Yet despite the March letter detailing how the state both was in compliance and had addressed the concerns of Demos, the state quickly capitulated to the mass mailing, which news reports indicate never has taken place in any other state in which Demos filed suit.

Rather than allow the case to follow a pre-trial schedule set by the Court which would have allowed the state to defend itself, the state entered into a Joint Motion cancelling the pretrial schedule based on the settlement which included the mass mailing and promotional activities at welfare offices in the fall.

The excuses given by the state for this capitulation don’t make sense.  The state asserted to The Boston Globe that the action was taken because of a Court decision:

Daniel Curley, commissioner of the state’s transitional assistance department, said the mailings had nothing to do with partisan politics.

“We’re responding to a court decision,” he said.

That explanation demonstrably is not true.  The state agreed to the mass mailing voluntarily as part of a settlement, not because of a Court decision.

What we have here is a pro-Warren organization run by Warren’s daughter and Warren supporters which times a lawsuit to the election cycle only after it is clear that Warren likely will be the nominee, and then convinces Democratic state officials to capitulate without a fight and contrary to the state’s legal position, resulting in unprecedented steps not required by the law to register a group of voters likely favorable to Warren’s big government agenda.

If that doesn’t say set up, nothing does.

Update:  Scott Brown demands Elizabeth Warren reimburse taxpayers for voter registration mailings.  As it should be.  The mass mailing was not required by law and the state should have defended itself since it was on record as being in compliance.

Delgado v Galvin _MA Welfare Voter Registration Case_ – Sec State Letter Exhibit a to Answer (1)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Henry Hawkins | August 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Excellent. Pour it on.


If we had a Justice Department, I bet they could investigate this as transparent election fraud.


If Warren is a Transformer of America she’s of the Decepticon type.

Thanks for staying on this senatorial candidate, Professor. Vetting her now may well save the country from the damage she would,otherwise, inflict later.

I am a bit confused, if the court did not order the state, and the state legislature did not authorize this expenditure of funds for this activity, on what grounds would they have to enter into a settlement that involved in the expenditure of said funds? Its like the Dems basically consented to give the democratic party money out of the treasury as well as turn welfare administrative offices into campaign arms of the democratic party. That does not seem legal.

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. Lenin.

A variant, The taxpayers will give us, okay, be forced to give us through the tax laws, the money with which we will then use to hang them even further.

So tax money is used to give jobs to welfare workers (who are largely Democrats). These “workers” then go out to enlist as many welfare recipients as possible which in turn is used to justify their jobs even more. Then some of the compulsorarily-taken tax funds can be used to elect even more politicians who will then perpetuate the legislation that ensures the huge welfare class as of now and who will try to increase it even more.

And if I object, then it’s because I hate the poor and I want them to fail. Yikes.

When America was a nation of self-reliant, hard-working, patriotic individuals, a key phrase of the democracy was “No taxation without representation.” Under the socialist policies of the failed entitlement state of OBOZO and the left-wing extremists, that phrase has been replaced with “Representation for NO taxation,” for the 100+ MILLION slugs, slackers, deadbeats, liars, freeloaders, losers, taxpayer-leeches, cheaters, ILLEGALS and potheads who do nothing but suck on the teat of the BIG GOVERNMENT NANNY-STATE of OBOZO’

It’s Ye Olde EPA Scamme, applied to registration.

When environmental groups want rules that could never pass Congress and that EPA lacks the authority to issue on its own, they sue.

EPA, being comprised almost completely of environmental wackos, “settles” and enters a court-approved order to implement to rules the plaintiff group demands. Congress, the President, and the normal public hearing and review process are all bypassed.

For the Romney = Obama tin drum brigade…

Would the DoJ under Romney put up with this?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | August 10, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    In a word, yes. I mean, they’d jump all over it if state-level Democrats are pulling the trick, but if it were state-level Republicans, I have no reason to believe they’d do any different than has passed before – they’d avoid it, ignore it, as long as possible and move on it only if it became a political liability not to move on it. That’s the problem – in so many ways, the establishment GOP is no better than the establishment Democrat Party on this sort of thing, and both established parties routinely place party over principles once in power. This is a big reason why there is a Tea Party philosophy growing in this country and a big reason why these same people are leery of Romney and anyone else in the establishment GOP.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm

      Really?!?! Perhaps you can supply some history of that during the BOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooosh years.

      ‘Cause those were the APEX of eeeeeevvvvviiiiiillllllle.

      Seriously, dude…

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 4:20 pm

      Let me put this another way…

      Eric Holder is the…going away…MOST corrupt AG in modern history…maybe ever.

      I think the idea that you seem to promote that “one is as bad as the other” cannot be supported in OBJECTIVE experience.

      It is a Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy of AMAZING proportions.

      I’m simply astounded.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | August 10, 2012 at 5:43 pm

        All I’m saying is… what I said. I have no reason to believe a Romney DoJ would jump on this any sooner than the current DoJ will, which is never unless and until political pressure forces them too.

        All previous Republican administration DoJ’s have been pristine paragons of virtue?

        Naivete is no argument.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 6:06 pm

          “Naivete is no argument.”

          Neither is a handwave.

          I asked you for some HISTORY.

          I CAN provide you some. The “sides” are NOT remotely equal.

          If you assert they are, PUT UP YOUR SUPPORT.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 9:15 pm

          You’ve staked out a very narrow battlefield you believe you can defend despite the fact I spoke clearly in generalities regarding the two parties, i.e., you’re strawmanning it. I could list a great many examples of GOP DoJ’s that were less than virtuous, as anyone else here could, yourself included. I did not limit myself to the Bush administration – that is your need.

          Still, the Tobin case is notable to my argument – recall I asserted that, just like Democrat AGs, GOP AGs move on their own people only when they have to due to political pressure. The link you provide as evidence makes it sound like only the Bush DoJ investigated Tobin’s antics and curiously leaves out the fact it was New Hampshire Democrat Party officials who blew the whistle on Tobin’s phone-jamming tricks. The Bush DoJ only then responded – because it had to. The assorted charges were either dismissed or convictions overturned. New charges were brought and dismissed as vindictive. Heckuva a job, Brownie.

          Personally, I have zero doubt of Tobin’s guilt. Alas, success in prosecution was not the question.

          The Bush DoJ did indeed go after Tobin hard, but let’s not pretend it wasn’t in response to being outed by NH state Dems, nor that it was largely out of anger (final charges dismissed by fed judge as vindictive) because he got caught doing it just before the election, forcing the Bush DoJ to respond, and then later to cost the RNC a bundle of money for legal defense. Or maybe it reallyreallyreally was an example of a principles first, damn the damage to ourselves Bush DoJ initiative. (“Oh please. Who’s being naïve now, Kay?”)

          How about some trivia? Which GOP administration had not one, but two Attorneys General convicted of crimes? Nixon, of course. And it was the Nixon DoJ that was front and center on investigating and prosecuting Watergate. Er, wait… that’s not how that one played out at all.

          Next up, Reagan’s DoJ, which was front and center on the Iran-Contra scandal, right? The minute that Reagan became aware of what his team was doing I’m sure he ordered his DoJ to take the guilty out, right? Well, no. Too many of the incriminating documents were destroyed for proper prosecution. The illegal scheme was perpetrated by Reagan officials, if not with Reagan’s knowledge, but once Reagan found out, it wasn’t his DoJ that went to work on it. The US Congress and the Tower Commission investigated.

          I’ll repeat my assertion: the history of the DoJ is one of politicization regardless of what party controls the WH. It’s a large part of what is wrong with our country, of what needs to change.

          Holder is absolutely among the worst of the worst AGs, no argument there, and he’s still so fresh at it we likely don’t yet know the worst he’s done, but there have been others. Harry Daugherty comes to mind. Holder stands out because he is so brazen with it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 11:27 pm

          Oh, please!

          Let’s include Nixon, for crying out loud!

          Some of the leaders of the Watergate inquiry were Republicans, or have you forgotten (or are you pretending to forget)?

          You are simply wrong here, and you know it!

          Why keep up this pretense of “they are equally wrong”?

          Consider Bwany Fawrnk, Maxineimus Waters, Chawly Rangel, and etc., to name but a few.

          Against them Duke Cunningham and etc.

          Again, paaaaaalease…

          Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 11:42 pm

          “The Bush DoJ only then responded – because it had to.”

          Politely, BULLSHIT!

          They certainly had a duty under law to respond when the basis of an investigation was warranted, but they never “had to”.

          Witness the Holder New Black Panther case. They never “had to” do jack spit. Indeed, all they were required to do under law was simply take the default judgment. But they refused.

          Holder “had to” responsively provide Fast & Furious documents. He “had to” testify truthfully under oath. Has he done so, even today?

          Again, I could go on, but really, why? For someone I credit with some integrity, your position is untenable, yet you insist on maintaining it.

          Again, I am astounded.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 4:35 pm

      Please name a government maintained list of largely unregistered citizens who are potential Republican voters in a manner remotely similar to the way a list of welfare recipients represents a large pool of potential Democrat voters.

Get used to it. “Stacked for the Democrats” is the new normal.

I will let you all decide for yourselves how long it makes sense to stay locked in a blood match with these vicious criminals in the Democratic party, who intend to end liberty and the rule of law wherever and whenever they obtain enough power. From where I sit, however, it is long, LONG past time that we should secede and form a separate nation in which progressivism and its habitual criminality are strictly forbidden.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to philwynk. | August 10, 2012 at 4:21 pm

    The philosophies of Democrats and Republicans – and Libertarians – are so opposed to each other, as to be functionally hopelessly conflicted. Secession would be best, because no reconciliation of these opposing practices can be had.

    Basically, we engage in lurching from one side to the other. We’ll never get any freedom restored as long as we continue to be forced to lurch with the left each time they’re elected. Plus, the Republicans, as socialists lite, aggravate it.

    The Free State Project’s novel idea of emigrating to New Hampshire to render it a free state is great, except who wants to live in a place where snow is a regular occurrence?!

    It is time to accept this is war, and taking prisoners is no longer acceptable.

      Ragspierre in reply to Karen Sacandy. | August 10, 2012 at 4:34 pm

      Sadly, that may be where we are going.

      (Though I think it likely that Libertarians and Conservatives could live happily together).

      Contra some of the daft posters here, ideology is not a matter of vacant rhetoric. It is where we live, and the Collective cannot let us alone.

1. The Brown campaign’s emails are whining about this.

2. They ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Wait until all those newly registered people are offered rides to the polls and incentives (meals, cigarettes, etc.) to vote, possibly with public funds.

3. Gee, Scott, it was a brilliant move to give the Tea Party the cold shoulder after they worked their hearts out getting you elected. Cry me a river, Senator Nonpartisan.

4. The disaster represented by Warren’s unaccountable “consumer” agency is beginning to unfold. A juicy target for the Brown campaign, no?

No. Brown was the 60th vote for the Dodd-Frank bill that created the agency. Neither Left nor Right give him any credit for doing so because the Left and Warren accuse him of “undermining” the bill.

5. Warren is a dream President for the Left. If anyone could do a worse job than Obama has, Warren could. Mainly for that reason, it is important to continue deconstructing her.

6. But unless Scott Brown exhibits a major attitude adjustment before it’s too late—and it may already be too late—, I am inclined to let him take the consequences of his clueless arrogance.

7. I’ve been saying that it would take a pocketbook issue against Warren to change the dynamics of the campaign. The Left is going all-out even more than I expected. They have more riding on this race than a single Senate seat.

8. OT: Massachusetts has not been as screwed up as California is. I’ve attributed that to the lack of a border with Mexico. However, it seems that, by pandering to welfare recipients who lack a stake in the economy, our Democratic Establishment is determined to overcome that handicap.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to gs. | August 10, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Yes, Brown didn’t know which side his bread was buttered on. Naive lofty thinking, that he could jettison party and all would join hands and chant kumbaya to his re-election.


    logos in reply to gs. | August 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    “They have more riding on this race than a single Senate seat.”

    Soros selected the first Black President.

    Soros has selected the first Female President.

    Defeat her now!

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to gs. | August 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    If this isn’t a pocketbook issue what is?

    Even the intellectually lazy taxpayers who see little difference between the parties tend to have little tolerance for padding the voter rolls with those who will demand ever more services.

      If this isn’t a pocketbook issue what is?

      Mountain Girl, you know that and I know that, but a sizable number of MA voters, perhaps a critical mass, are in denial about it.

      Even the intellectually lazy taxpayers who see little difference between the parties tend to have little tolerance for padding the voter rolls with those who will demand ever more services.

      That’s not how many of them will think about it. IMHO they have to feel the money coming directly out of their income.

      Unfortunately, straight talk about the point will be met by the Left slamming down the Race Card, the Gender Card (single mothers), and the Compassion Card. The risk might be worth taking, but it requires forethought. (If Brown hadn’t alienated the Tea Party, they could be giving the straight talk on his behalf while he took the high road. sigh)

        Henry Hawkins in reply to gs. | August 10, 2012 at 6:21 pm

        A potentially complicating factor is that something like 20-40% of welfare recipients (nationally) are registered Republicans*. How do they approach the question of entitlement reform? Are they ideologically against the concept and manage to justify their own receipt of government help? We know plenty of folks genuinely need welfare assistance – are there more Republicans in this set?

        (Genuine, not rhetorical questions – I honestly don’t know)

        *According to this Maxwell Poll:

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 6:26 pm

          Which brings this to mind – I hope someone is checking to see if the MA welfare mailouts went to all recipients, not just those who are registered Democrats. If Republican registered welfare recipients were left off the mailing lists, ooooo-eeeee, now there’s a smoking gun.


          During the latest kerfluffle about the administration pushing food stamps, I checked and, to my surprise, found that I might be eligible.

          Without reciting a chapter of my life history, I’ll say that I embarked on a calculated risk which is tougher sledding than I calculated. Meanwhile, my fallback income has not materialized.

          Nevertheless, it strikes me as immoral to ask for public funds when I have reserves, and it strikes me as outrageous for the government to dangle public funds in front of me.

          Such is my small effort to walk my talk.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 10, 2012 at 9:24 pm

          At the risk of maudlin self-disclosure, I share your sense of morals on this and it led me to nine months of homelessness as a young man – but the experience and refusal to quit then led me to 30+ years of productive, responsible living.

Beginning with the dirty tricks (noted above), vote gathering, pandering etc, I must ask…

Is it me or is it real that ALL of the “below-the-belt” political ads are coming from the left?

If I’m correct in my observation, could it be that the only truth that you will hear between now and Eviction Day will come from the GOP?

I think that I’m right on this one…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to GrumpyOne. | August 10, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    Pretty much true up till now (Romney’s had a couple truth-stretchers, but nothing like Obama). As for the rest of the race, Romney certainly showed a willingness and ability to get down and dirty with political ads during the primaries.

One of the law firms that brought the suit against the state on behalf of Demos is Ropes and Gray, where Massachusetts First Lady Dianne Patrick is a partner. Reported in the Boston Herald. This smells to high heaven.

It was apparent from the story printed yesterday this was planned. This agency couldn’t just arbitrarily decide to send out almost $300,000 worth of material. However, with a court suit facing them they could say they had no choice. Someone needs to get a court order to stop this and challenge it, but who? Brown’s camp would be a good start. Warren is stomping in Ted Kennedy’s footsteps.

Posting this very late: This is the statement made by one of the Massachusetts officials being sued. If he felt this way why did he need to be sued to fulfill this obligation??? Because he couldn’t spend the money otherwise. What a piece of work.

From Fox News:

Daniel Curley, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance, also argues politics is not at play.

“This is ridiculous,” Curley said. “We need to fulfill our federal requirement to help people register to vote. This is real simple — we are complying with the federal law and helping people register to vote, and anyone who says otherwise is being ludicrous.

“This is solely about following the law and adhering to the National Voter Registration Act, nothing more, nothing less. The scope of our response in terms of mailings and other activities was required by the settlement … so that the state would be in compliance with long-standing and important federal law.”

Curley goes on to argue, “voting is one of the most important civic duties and ensuring that our agencies comply with the National Voter Registration Act is a top priority.”

I categorically reject the concept that “voting is a duty.” A privilege and a right, yes, but not a “duty.”

Those who choose to exercise their privilege and right have, in fact, a duty to the country to inform themselves before doing so. Those who choose to remain ignorant have IMHO a duty NOT to vote and pollute the electorate.