Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is a member of the Senate Banking Committee. She promised during her campaign last fall to hold the banks accountable and to be a voice for the American consumer. Over the past few weeks she has done just that. Wall Street reformers cheered as she confronted bank regulators over “too big to fail banks” becoming “too big to trial”:
Then they cheered again when she asked, “How many billions of dollars does one have to launder to drug lords until a company gets shut down?” This related to HSBC’s laundering of drug money:
She lashed out at the GOP’s continued delay of Richard Cordray’s confirmation to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), saying, “The American people deserve a Congress that worries less about helping big banks than regular people.”:
She’s tough. The regulators and Senate Republicans probably wish now that they had not worked so diligently to block her nomination to head the CFPB. Warren oversaw TARP (the Troubled Asset Relief Program) and has been very blunt about the structural changes and regulations necessary to safeguard American taxpayers from ever again having to bailout financial institutions. She advocates for the enforcement of regulations and transparency. Washington is awash in money, from the influence of high-paid lobbyists (and not all lobbyists are created equal) to campaign contributions.
In March of 2011, I participated in an EMILY’s List Political Opportunity Program to explore the requirements to run for political office. It was fascinating learning how to prepare for and manage a winning campaign. One bit of information that was striking is that candidates must be willing to fundraise and cannot be shy about asking for money.
A shocking fact is that once in office—this is for federal-level congressional and senate seats, although raising money is part of the process at any level—legislators spend anywhere from 30-70% of their week with donors, via phone or in meetings, asking for dollars. Those most adept at raising campaign funds are the ones the parties support. (No political party is going to put their weight behind a loser who can’t raise money.)
Senate –$10,476,451 (Candidate Warren hauled in the most at $42,506,349* to defeat Senator Scott Brown)
House of Representatives –$1,689,580
Democrats are not immune from the lure of corporate money to finance their campaigns either—it’s how the game is played. When both parties are participants in the money game, who in their right mind is willing to bite the hand that feeds them?
For example, New York’s senators, both Democrats, are recipients of Wall Street largesse, which is to be expected since New York City is the financial capital of the world.
When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens Unitedin 2010 there was an almost immediate, massive proliferation of Super Pacs, many sprouting offshoots claiming to be 501(c)(4) organizations. The result was unlimited donations and lack of transparency. These are two real threats to our democracy, especially when Americans have no idea who it is financing campaigns and what influence they may wield once a candidate is in office. A $100,000 donation will give someone access to a policymaker that a $100 donor would never be granted.
Over the coming weeks, my focus will be on money and how it has and continues to influence legislators. Super Pacs, 501(c)(4) organizations, the revolving door, and campaign finance will all be examined in depth—what they are, how they have been used and abused, and solutions that have been proposed to make sure all citizens have a voice, not only the wealthiest among us.
Yes, it will be extremely difficult to enact real financial reform—legislators influenced by financial lobbyists have been chipping away at Dodd-Frank since President Obama signed it into law July 21, 2010. Reform is even harder now than in the past because of the Citizens United ruling, but it’s not impossible. Today, Wall Street is a cash cow for legislators on both sides of the aisle. Until money is no longer a major factor in campaigns, little will change. We need more senators like Elizabeth Warren who are willing to fight for the American people and not be afraid to take on the financial elite.
In December 2003, I discussed with my acting teacher the need to take time off from class to work and earn money. He pushed back on that idea, suggesting I ask my parents for financial help. At thirty-seven, the thought of a handout from my parents so that I could continue acting classes was repugnant. “I want to do this on my own,” I protested.
“No one accomplishes anything alone,” he replied. “Do you think Edward Norton (who had studied with him) got where he is without the help of teachers, agents, casting directors, etc?” Point taken, but I wasn’t referring to my hoped-for trajectory to success, but rather the ability to support myself without turning to my family.
He was right though, about seeking assistance from others. The more I see who gets ahead in this world, the more I’m convinced they must have incredible support systems, were born in the right place and time, and are well prepared for when that big opportunity comes along, even if that opportunity manifests from some form of government assistance.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave a speech last fall, as a candidate for office, about the budget deficit and fair taxation. It quickly went viral.
Warren was not discounting the importance of individual initiative and hard work nor was she suggesting they should not be rewarded and recognized. However, she was adamant that the social contract is a part of succeeding in this country, paying it forward to help the next person climb up the ladder.
Still, there are many talented, hard-working people who will never be the next Steve Jobs no matter how hard they try. Malcolm Gladwellasserts in Outliers: The Story of Successthat chance plays a significant role in success. He provides case studies that reveal how and why certain people succeed where others do not. He analyzes the lives and circumstances that produce elite ice hockey players, people like Bill Gates and Bill Joy, why American pilots are better than Korean pilots at avoiding plane crashes, and the Beatles’ rise to worldwide fame, to name a few.
Gladwell writes:
“People don’t rise from nothing. We do owe something to parentage and patronage. The people who stand before kings may look like they did it all by themselves. But in fact they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot. It makes a difference where and when we grew up.”
“It’s not enough to ask what successful people are like, in other words. It is only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn’t.”
The modest successes I’ve enjoyed and opportunities I’ve had are in large part a result of the time and place I entered this world and who were my parents. I was born in the United States in the 1960s, during the women’s movement’s second wave. My parents, who lacked college educations, wanting a better life for their daughters were damn well going to make sure we received them. Pell grants helped finance that education.
The Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972, ensured that girls were not discriminated against in school. This law extended to athletics, in which I participated from junior high until graduating high school. The opportunity to compete athletically gave me confidence and a willingness to also compete in the world.
I began acting much later in life than many of my peers, at twenty-three. Had I been born in New York City instead of Tell City, Indiana, I may have taken acting, dance, and music classes as a child and been a dancer during my adolescence instead of an athlete. Had my parents been wealthy instead of working class, I may have attended an elite private school followed by years at Harvard or Yale instead of a public school and a state college.
Intelligence, hard work, and talent are important, yet are often not enough. Success does not happen in a vacuum. Many A-list actors—not all—but many are children of already-established actors, producers, directors, people connected to the industry. Nepotism provides a definite advantage.
Granted there are those who work for years then are offered starring or co-starring roles in a movie or TV show, or a pilot is picked up and becomes a hit, and voilá, superstars are born, but they were given the chance. The vast majority of actors, many who excel at their craft, will never earn a living solely by performing because that life-changing opportunity won’t present itself.
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity, it has been said. Those fortunate outliers—and even those of modest achievements—mustn’t forget their roots, the advantages afforded them due to their life circumstances, and the support received. Some assistance is easily recognizable, yet others are invisible or taken of granted—perhaps even a government service, subsidy, or tax break—but they’re there. To me, luck is where preparation, “patronage and parentage” meet opportunity, but that shouldn’t stop one from striving to reach goals because who knows what will happen next.
Updated June 25, 2013—Malcolm Gladwell analyzed Canadian ice hockey players, not soccer players.
Everblog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.