Press Releases

 

Entries in Negative Campaigning (310)

Saturday
Aug302014

NHDP - ICYMI: Week-Long Coverage of Brown’s Paycheck From Outsourcing Company & Refusal To Resign 

Nashua Telegraph: “Brown, a candidate for U.S. Senate, has earned $270,000 sitting on the board of directors of a Massachusetts company that capitalized on cheap foreign labor in places such as China while shielding millions of dollars in profits from U.S. taxes.”
 
Concord Monitor: “The outsourcing of jobs emerged as a hot topic yesterday following a report last week that linked U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown to a company that has sent jobs abroad…Brown earned $270,000 from a Massachusetts company that has outsourced jobs to China and Mexico…The company has four manufacturing operations in the United States and 14 abroad, which in part allowed it to avoid paying millions of dollars in income taxes”
 
NHPR: “Brown has been on the board of directors of Kadant Incorporated, which supplies equipment for the pulp and paper industry, since February of 2013. The company’s annual report, which Brown signed off on, says it plans to grow in the US market by ‘using low cost manufacturing bases, such as China and Mexico.’”
 
Huffington Post: “a trio of labor groups are calling on GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown to resign from a company that outsourced U.S. jobs.”

 Union Leader: "Scott Brown's service as a board member for a company that has outsourced some jobsoverseas has U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen crying foul even as Republicans claim Shaheen did likewise as governor." 

Nashua Telegraph Article That Started It All: "since February 2013, he has earned $270,000 sitting on the board of directors of a Massachusetts company with a penchant for exporting jobs to cheap foreign labor alternatives such as China while shielding millions of dollars in profits from U.S. taxes...In the company’s 2014 annual report, Kadant said it legally avoided paying $146 million in U.S. income taxes by 'indefinitely' reinvesting profits made in overseas operations."

WATCH: NHDP Web Ad on Brown Endorsing The Offshoring of American Jobs As Business Strategy Just Two Days Before Entering U.S. Senate Race 

 

Manchester, NH—After 72 hours, Scott Brown continues to refuse calls for him to resign from the Board of Directors of a company that outsourced American jobs. Media outlets across New Hampshire, meanwhile, have reported on Brown’s leadership role with this controversial company as he dodged questions and shirked responsibility, even though he personally endorsed Kadant’s business plan, which included moving manufacturing facilities and jobs overseas.
 
"Scott Brown has a history of doing what's best for his bank account. That's wrong for New Hampshire families," said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Julie McClain.
 
In the Senate, Brown voted to protect tax breaks for companies that offshore American jobs, helping to pad the bottom line of companies just like Kadant.
 
Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12th, 2014 show Brown signed documents that endorsed "using low cost manufacturing bases such as China and Mexico" to increase the company's bottom line. Brown began his run for the U.S. Senate just two days later on March 14th.  
 
McClain added, "The facts are clear: Brown voted to protect tax breaks for companies that outsource, personally profited from a company that shipped jobs to China and Mexico, and even personally endorsed these controversial business practices. Instead of doubling down on these types of reckless business practices that hurt New Hampshire families and workers, Brown should do the right thing and finally resign." 
 
###
Friday
Aug292014

Innis For Congress (CD1) - Stella Scamman statement on "inappropriate" Guinta TV ad 

innis_bumper_email2

Frank Guinta's First TV Ad Highlights Prominent Dan Innis Supporter

Manchester, NH - Today, Dan Innis supporter Stella Scamman released the following statement in response to Frank Guinta using footage of her in his first television commercial for this election cycle.

"Frank Guinta knows very well that I am a strong 100 percent supporter of Dan Innis for Congress. Using this footage of me from an old campaign ad is inappropriate," said Stella Scamman. "Dan Innis is a solutions based Republican with a solid business and education background who will use his leadership skills to grow our economy and tackle the challenges we face in Washington. Dan is a fresh voice that our Republican Party needs to win the election in November. That is why I am asking Frank to remove me from his advertisement."

Stella Scamman served 3 terms in the New Hampshire House and is active with the Seacoast Republican Women. Her husband Doug Scamman served 13 terms as a New Hampshire state representative, including 3 terms as Speaker of the House.

The Scammans endorsed Dan Innis in April.


guintaAf
(Screen grab from Guinta ad)
Thursday
Aug282014

Martin For US Senate - U.S. Senate candidate condemns Scott Brown/Jennifer Horn for lies about Shaheen 

Republican U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin condemns Jennifer Horn and Scott Brown for “despicable behavior” in accusing Jeanne Shaheen of de facto anti-Semitism

 

Andy says Brown and Horn are disgracing the Republican Party locally and nationally

 

Andy says he is extremely reluctant to defend Shaheen but his sense of “public integrity” compels him to do so

 

Andy suggests Horn's real target may be New Hampshire’s Lebanese-American community, which resides in both political parties

 

It is time to state the obvious: New Hampshire GOP leaders have a grossly inflated sense of their role and competence

 

(Manchester, NH) (August 27, 2014) 

 

Dear Granite Stater:

 

The last thing I want to do is defend Jeanne Shaheen. But in a lifetime in politics that spans almost fifty years, I have always put public integrity, not politics, first. I believe in the truth and I believe in truth-telling politics, not false accusations of anti-Semitism.

 

Scott Brown and Jennifer Horn have brought politics in this state to a new low. (Brown is using one of his “off the books,” so-called “independent,” committees to smear Jeanne Shaheen with a web video (see link # [5] below). Brown’s use of such anonymous attacks is a sham and fraud.)

 

1. The origins of Jeanne Shaheen’s alleged “anti-Semitism”

 

Jeanne Shaheen is being accused of taking “anti-Semitic” money from a PAC in Washington called “J Street.” J Street is a pro-Israel group with an independent position on the Middle East crisis. I neither endorse nor condemn J Street. I am aware of J Street but I don’t pay great attention to the group’s views. Jennifer Horn and Scott Brown are accusing J Street of being a “fringe” group when J Street merely reflects a competing view of Middle East politics.

 

2. The “old guard” and the “new guard” in pro-Israel politics

 

The “pro-Israel” movement is no different than any other aspect of our society. There is a generational gap and a generational challenge between those who unquestioningly support Israel’s policies and others who do not give unquestioning support. The Republican Party is not immune from this hydraulic pressure.

 

Governor Chris Christie was recently chastised by a potential supporter for saying the West Bank was “occupied.” Only in the United States would Christie’s remarks be criticized. Indeed, there are many more shades of nuanced opinion, and much more “freedom of the press,” in Israel than in the United States when it comes to debating the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

 

In my opinion all sides of the contentious Middle East dispute are entitled to make bona fide arguments (even denying the West Bank is “occupied” if that’s what they believe) without being branded as anti-Semites.

 

“J Street” in an independent-thinking pro-Israel group that sometimes says provocative things about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. But by no stretch of the imagination are J Street supporters “anti-Semites” and backers of competing organizations allege. Scott Brown and Jennifer Horn have tried to portray Jeanne Shaheen as a de facto anti-Semite because her campaign has accepted contributions from J Street and J Street donors.

 

Brown’s and Horn’s behavior is pure gutter politics.

 

3. Is Horn’s attack is really one on Lebanese-Americans

 

Is Brown’s attack on Shaheen really an anti-Semitic accusation or is there a back story? Perhaps Brown and Shaheen are trying to draw attention to Shaheen’s Lebanese-American name. I assume Bill Shaheen, Jeanne’s husband, has a Lebanese-American background. Horn and Brown may be trying to stir up hostility to Bill Shaheen as part of their attack on J Street. Who knows what lurks in the deranged minds of Jennifer Horn and Scott Brown? You tell me what you think.

 

4. Horn lodged the same lies against me

 

A third of a century ago (yes, century) I was involved nasty litigation with a cocaine-crazed judge (yes judges did go crazy with cocaine in the 80’s, along with a lot of other people). Horrendous attacks were lodged by all sides in the series of lawsuits. Ultimately two judges (Cabranes and Neumann) were very likely denied appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court because of their misconduct involving me. Out of millions of words in the lawsuits, most of them vitriolic, especially on the part of “Cocaine Cabranes,” my political opponents have sought to take a few sentences out of context to suggest I am anti-Semitic. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I grew up in a philo-Semitic home, with a spiritual parent that was a refugee from Nazi Germany. I was being schooled in the Holocaust when most kids my age were studying baseball standings. Nevertheless, we all know that in lawsuits (where husbands and wives routinely accuse each other of “extreme cruelty” before counting out the cash) Horn has tried to pretend I am an anti-Semite to undermine me politically. Horn’s tactics have backfired. Instead of letting voters make up their own minds, Horn has tried to harass me and ended up making a sworn enemy who is dedicated to her removal from party office.

 

Now Horn is using false accusations of anti-Semitism against Jeanne Shaheen. I hope you will agree with me that Brown’s and Horn’s behavior is an embarrassment to the Republican Party.

 

5. I demand that Shaheen and Brown apologize,

 

Brown and Horn should apologize for their misconduct, withdraw their dirty ads, and stop demonizing the Democrats. Telling the truth and proffering the facts about Shaheen are more than enough to defeat her without dragging the state GOP into the gutter.

 

6. What’s wrong with this picture?

 

So far as I am aware Jennifer Horn has no meaningful professional distinctions or accomplishments. We have a problem in New Hampshire. Because of our national prominence in the presidential primary process a lot of our Republican “leaders,” who are actually third raters, suddenly believe they are first rate politicians who can spout off as though they really know something.

 

The New Hampshire Republican Party has been in decline for decades. I do not expect that process to stop in 2014. Brown may slip into the senate if he wins the primary, but he has yet to pass the primary bar. It behooves people of limited accomplishments and intellect such as Horn and her posse to act cautiously when they are participating in politics at a level far beyond their competence.

 

Brown's loose mouth is also legendary.

 

Horn’s loose mind is also painfully evident to anyone with minimum political experience at the national level.

 

You disagree with me? Well, tell me what you think about undermining the GOP brand by lodging dales accusations of anti-Semitism against the Democrats.

 

Please take a look at the links below. I have documented my views with references to all of the relevant issues. As always, and unlike Horn’s and Brown’s attacks, my accusations are evidence-based, not political hot air.

 

Loyally,

 

Andy

 

-----

 

News conference details: Manchester, NH August 27, 2014

 

WHO:     

 

New Hampshire U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin

 

WHAT:    

 

Andy Martin attacks Scott Brown and Jennifer Horn for falsely accusing Jeanne Shaheen of anti-Semitism

 

WHERE:

 

Manchester, NH, Northwest corner of Elm and Webster Streets

           

WHEN:

 

Wednesday, August 27, 5:45 P.M.

Thursday
Aug282014

NHDP - SHOCKING: Brown on Controversial Outsourcing Company: “Very Proud, Good Company" 

During Republican Debate, Brown Doubles Down on Serial Outsourcing Company that Pays Him $270K, Says He Won't Resign 
 
Manchester, NH— In his first comments after days of public pressure and scrutiny on his ties to a controversial outsourcing company, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown shockingly scoffed at Kadant’s proven outsourcing practices, instead doubling down on his support for anti-jobs policies and saying he would not resign from the Board of Directors of this “good” company.  No wonder--Brown voted to reward companies that outsource jobs, protecting their tax breaks and loopholes. 

Brown's comments came during a debate with his fellow Republicans this morning, and his out of touch sentiments further prove what we've known about Brown all along: Brown cares more about his bank account than jobs. 


Brown also confirmed that he would not resign from the company’s Board, instead continuing to profit off of the company that outsourced jobs ​and relies on low cost manufacturing bases in China and Mexico ​to pad its bottom line. When pressed further, Brown referred questions to the Board - ironic considering he in fact still serves on Kadant​'s​ board.  
 
“It’s an insult to American workers that Brown would shower praise on a company that so callously shipped jobs to China and Mexico to make a bigger buck, just because they're paying Scott Brown more than a quarter of a million dollars,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party Communications Director Julie McClain. “Now that he’s doubling down on his extremely lucrative gig, refusing to resign, and defending himself by referring questions to the Board, it's obvious that when faced with a choice between jobs here at home or his own bank account, Scott Brown's bank account wins.  That's exactly what New Hampshire can't afford.”

Scott Brown has previously refused to answer questions about his role with this company and others that are similarly controversial, including why he accepted $1.3 million in stock to become an ​advisor​ for ​a​ shady beauty supply company turned weapons manufacturer,​ GDSI. He still has refused to answer questions about his pre-election California paid speaking gig—including how much he is personally getting paid and who is paying him.
 

A transcript of Brown's remarks during this morning's debate are included below: 
 
“What Kadant did five years ago before I was even on the board, I would suggest that anyone who's interested should refer those questions to the Board.”
 
“With regard to my activities over the last year, sitting on a very proud and good company, no I'm not going to resign, obviously, until I get re-elected."
Wednesday
Aug272014

NHDP Asks Attorney General to Launch Immediate Investigation into Failed CEO Walt Havenstein’s Multiple Campaign Finance Violations 

Serious Violations Found in Havenstein’s August 20th Filing Come in the Wake of Havenstein’s Ongoing Maryland Tax Evasion Scandal 
 
Manchester, NH—The New Hampshire Democratic Party today requested that Attorney General Joseph Foster launch an immediate investigation into the multiple campaign finance violations committed by failed CEO Walt Havenstein and several of his major contributors. The serious violations found in Havenstein’s August 20th filing come in the wake of Havenstein’s ongoing Maryland tax evasion scandal, which is now in its 57th day. 
 
"Given failed CEO Walt Havenstein's history of doublespeak, tax evasion, and scandals, no one should be surprised by his hypocrisy when it comes to campaign finance," said New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley. "Havenstein's multiple violations of New Hampshire campaign finance law are just the latest example of his scandal-ridden failed leadership and lack of integrity. The only question now is: what will Havenstein say to try to avoid accountability this time?"
 
As detailed in the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s letter to the Attorney General, “the Havenstein campaign violated New Hampshire campaign finance law by accepting improper PAC contributions; by spending $24,000 on campaign activities prior to registering with the Secretary of State’s office; and providing inadequate contributor information contrary to New Hampshire campaign finance law disclosure requirements.”
 
“From pledging to repeal health coverage from 50,000 Granite Staters despite cashing in on contracts to implement thelaw as CEO, to his failure to stop a fraud scandal that cost taxpayers $500 million under his watch at SAIC, and now his multiple campaign finance violations, Havenstein has proved again and again that he can't be trusted to look out for the priorities of the people of New Hampshire," added Buckley.
 
The New Hampshire Democratic Party’s full letter to the Attorney General is included below or here:
 
August 26th, 2014
 
Dear Attorney General Foster:
 
            I write to bring to your attention three serious potential violations of New Hampshire campaign finance law by Republican gubernatorial candidate Walter Havenstein and several of his major contributors, and ask that you launch an immediate investigation.
 
            It appears, the Havenstein campaign violated New Hampshire campaign finance law by accepting improper PAC contributions; by spending $24,000 on campaign activities prior to registering with the Secretary of State’s office; and providing inadequate contributor information contrary to New Hampshire campaign finance law disclosure requirements.
 
            Specifically, the New Hampshire Democratic Party (NHDP) urges that the Attorney General’s Office find contributions by two, unregistered out-of-state Federal PACs to be in violation of RSA 664:4.The NHDP also requests that Mr. Havenstein’s campaign be ordered to comply with campaign finance disclosure requirements and for your office to find a violation on account of the strict prohibition on unregistered campaign spending, along with calling for an appropriate remedy to that violation.
 
            Mr. Havenstein’s campaign finance violations fall into three categories and each is summarized below:
 
1.     Acceptance of Contributions from Unregistered Out-of-State PACs.
 
                  Mr. Havenstein’s campaign report states that he has benefitted from unlawful contributions made by Rogers for Congress – a Federal PAC apparently belonging to a Michigan Congressman, and an entity called Fund for American Opportunity, a Federal leadership PAC affiliated with former Michigan U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham. See Attachment 1 – Havenstein for Governor Statement of Receipts and Expenditures dated August 20, 2014 at pages 5, 13.  Under New Hampshire law, both of these contributions by PACs that are not registered in New Hampshire are prohibited, and therefore the Attorney General should find these contributions in violation and issue a cease and desist order barring further unlawful contributions by these out-of-state PACs.
 
RSA 664:5 prohibits political committees from promoting candidates with expenditures and contributions unless they are registered with the Secretary of State under RSA 664:3, I.  “Political committee” is defined as any two persons who are working to influence elections and the law is not limited just to New Hampshire persons or PACs.  Out-of-state PACs must register if they are going to make contributions or expenditures here.  Neither Rogers for Congress nor the Fund for American Opportunity have registered as required. 
     
2.     Unlawfully spending $24,000 Before Registering a Political Committee.
 
                  Mr. Havenstein violated the campaign finance laws of New Hampshire when his campaign began to spend money without registering his political committee.  According to Mr. Havenstein’s report, the first installment of nearly $1.5 million of his own money which Mr. Havenstein has dumped into his campaign was made on March 1, 2014.  See, Attachment 1 at page 7.  Four days later, Mr. Havenstein’s campaign spent $24,000 for “strategic consulting.”   See, Attachment 1 – Expenditures at page 1.  According to the Havenstein for Governor registration at the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office, Mr. Havenstein’s political committee was not registered until April, almost a month after his campaign began spending tens of thousands of dollars on political activities in violation of the law.  
 
            Under RSA 664:3, political committees such as Mr. Havenstein’s “shall register with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after receiving any contribution in excess of $500 or before making any expenditure in excess of $500, but in no event later than 14 days after formation of the committee.”  While a contribution under New Hampshire law does not include spending a candidate’s personal wealth, political committees must register once they start expending any funds to influence an election — no matter the source of those funds.
 
            The voters of New Hampshire have a right to know who is spending money to get elected to public office and when.  Registration within 24 hours of spending is required so voters know almost immediately when a candidate begins to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a race. Mr. Havenstein’s covert campaign spending violates New Hampshire law.
 
3.     Repeated Failure to Document Required Information on Campaign Contributors in Violation of New Hampshire’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Law.
 
            Mr. Havenstein has violated New Hampshire campaign finance law by not disclosing the occupations or employers of dozens of his contributors or any information at all about the employment location of contributors who have made contributions of $100 or more.  See, Exhibit 1.  RSA 664:6 requires political committees to “file with the secretary of state an itemized statement, signed by its chairman and treasurer showing each of its receipts exceeding $25 with the full name and home post office address of the contributor in alphabetical order and the amount of the contribution, the date it was received, and the aggregate total for each election for each contributor of over $100.” For contributors who give more than $100, New Hampshire law also requires:
 
      Any listing which exceeds an individual's aggregate total of $100 for each election             shall be accompanied by the contributor's occupation including official job title, the           name of the contributor's employer, and the city or town of the contributor's                       principal place of business, if any.
 
            In the first five pages of his report alone, Mr. Havenstein fails to report employers or occupations and in most instances, both, of 45 contributions out of 135 that exceed the 100 dollar threshold for the more detailed reporting. This is just over a third. The numerous omissions go on for many pages.  Mr. Havenstein should be ordered to immediately resubmit his report in compliance with New Hampshire law.
 
            While admittedly even campaigns exercising due diligence will not be able to obtain on a timely basis the required disclosure information by the date of filing, the sheer scope of the Havenstein campaign’s omissions is indicative of massive neglect in following up with contributors and complying with the letter of the law.  The disclosure requirements are not empty formalities. The requirements are intended to insure transparency by providing information on where contributors work and what they do. The statute requires specificity for a reason.  Mr. Havenstein has shirked the disclosure requirements and he should be ordered to comply immediately so voters have a better picture of just who is funding Mr. Havenstein’s campaign.
 
            The NHDP looks forward to your investigation and rulings. 

Sincerely,
 
 
Raymond Buckley
 
Chair, New Hampshire Democratic Party
 
 
 
CC: Havenstein for Governor