One or more of you out there probably knows Martha Coakley, or someone with her campaign, or some media in the area that can get a thought to her, and I am writing this for you. Others may choose to amplify (or undermine) the message as they will.
There is a critical link between Martha Coakley's campaign for Senate in Massachusetts and the bonuses that Goldman Sachs plans to give to its executives. It's a link that could do real damage to her campaign -- or could turn a close race into a blowout in her favor.
You may be wondering what Coakley, as Attorney General for Massachusetts, has to do with Goldman Sachs. And you'd be right to wonder.
It may not be what you expect -- but it's not something she can ignore.
Here's the link:
Goldman Sachs is announcing its bonuses on January 18 (the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day holiday), according to economist Simon Johnson writing in "Baseline Scenario". (The article is worth reading for reasons beyond this mere prediction.) Let's assume for now that he might be right about the date.
Coakley's election is on January 19.
That means: the jabber on talk radio the day before the election, and the headlines in the papers the day of the election, are likely to be all about the Goldman bonuses, which reportedly may reach into eight figures.
That means that candidates for Senate have both an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity is for you to take a popular position on these bonuses. The threat is that your opponent will do so.
Now, I'd like everyone to raise your hand if you think that Teabagger Scott Brown, the Republican nominee, will not try to play a demagogue on the issue of the Goldman bonuses the day before the election. (Yes, I know, the solution is regulation and he's opposed to it -- it doesn't have to make sense.) Wait, let me count up all of your hands: OK, it looks like none of you would put this past him.
If she can be derailed, this is the issue that could do it. Ask Chris Dodd.
So, what should Martha Coakley be doing? How about staking out a populist position that for Goldman to be doing this is just wrong. What could that position be? Here's my diary presenting my homeboy Alain Sherter's column reviewing some law professors' proposals.
Whether it's this approach or something else, Coakley needs to get out in front of this issue.
She has a head start, but it's buried on her website when it should be way up front. This is from a link from her issues page:
Improving Financial Regulation
A lack of appropriate oversight - both on the private and public side - was a major contributor to the financial crisis. Fast growth with little regard for predicable risks set the scene for economic chaos. Martha’s experience as Attorney General has provided insight into the market infirmities and unscrupulous conduct that precipitated the financial crisis. As Attorney General, Martha took on Wall Street firms who helped cause our economic crisis. She recovered tens of millions for taxpayers and victims of Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and UBS for their deceptive activities.
In Washington, Martha will work to ensure that the government is no longer forced to choose between bailouts and a financial collapse. She will work with the business and financial communities as well as other stakeholders to develop and implement tough but fair regulatory reforms to prevent another economic failure and to give the government the necessary tools to protect investors, consumers, and the market in the future.
OK, that's decent -- she's not showing much teeth, but her heart's in the right place. Let's hear more about that recovering money for victims of financial company deception! Let's see some ANGER over it!
It's better than what Scott Brown has to say on his Issues page:
Economy
I am a free enterprise advocate who believes that lower taxes can encourage economic growth. Raising taxes stifles growth, weakens the economy and puts more people out of work. Our economy works best when individuals have more of their income to spend, and businesses have money to invest and add jobs. I have been a fiscal watchdog in the state legislature fighting bigger government, higher taxes and wasteful spending.
but we have to assume that he's willing to misleadingly whip up a populist frenzy if it helps getting the teabaggers out.
So, let's see Coakley get in front of the issue this week.
Note: if the big predictable action coming out on January 18 were, instead, some report that would put, say, the trade deficit or relations with Iran or heating oil prices at or near the top of the news voters might hear about leading into the election, I'd suggest that she get ready to pound on that issue. It so happens that it's Wall Street bonuses -- an issue where Democrats unfortunately seem to be vulnerable -- so she had better be making plans to take control of the message. Otherwise, her opponent will do it for her.
Simon Johnson says: "The bonuses they announce on January 18 and pay in early February will become the rallying point for real reform." I'd rather that they not become to rallying point for Brown's supporters.
Martha Coakley can do something to prevent that -- if she acts fast and chooses well.