On October 3, 2008, Congress enacted--and President George W. Bush signed—the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.  The legislation made available $700 billion dollars to help stabilize the nation’s financial system by buying up lenders’ so-called “toxic assets,” such as defaulted mortgages.  Later, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., who has wide discretion over how the money is allocated, decided instead to inject capital directly into banks in exchange for a stake in ownership.  Banks are just beginning to receive some of the money, and plans for the rest of the funds are still in flux.

Meanwhile, over the past couple of months, the Federal Reserve--the nation’s central banking system--has come to the rescue of several Wall Street firms, providing $29 billion dollars to shore up JP Morgan’s purchase of Bear Stearns, and another $85 billion to salvage insurance giant American International Group.  It’s also injected $230 billion dollars into global money markets and loan markets. 

All of this does add up to more than a trillion dollars.  But Summers’ contention that “politicians gave Wall Street” a trillion dollars doesn’t tell the whole story.  Though analysts agree that Wall Street greed and recklessness contributed to the crisis, lack of oversight of federally-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is also blamed for playing an important role.

By the time the scope of the crisis became evident, politicians were faced with a true Hobson’s choice:  commit taxpayer dollars to shoring up the nation’s financial system, or face the potentially dire consequences of failing to do so. Those consequences would not have been confined to Wall Street firms and their shareholders, according to New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman. While both Charlie Summers and his First District opponent Chellie Pingree argue that taxpayers should not be bailing out reckless Wall Street firms, Krugman is among those who believe that allowing the firms to collapse would have triggered more bank failures and stifled credit for ordinary “Main Street” Americans trying to borrow money to buy a car, finance a home or get loans for college. 

“Politicians,” in the context of the ad, would have to include members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.  Republicans and Democrats alike supported the so-called Commodities Futures Modernization Act,  a measure that eliminated Depression-era safeguards aimed at preventing exactly the kind of crisis that’s erupted.  The legislation was sponsored by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, a Republican, and widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats.  It was signed into law in 2000 by Democratic President Bill Clinton. 

It’s important to note that a big chunk of the trillion dollars—$300 billion--was provided to Wall Street not by politicians but directly by the Federal Reserve, much of it in the form of loans.  While politicians have influence over the Fed, it’s actually a public/private institution overseen by a board of governors appointed by the U.S. President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Summers was elected to the Maine State Senate in 1990 where he served two terms. In 1995 he was tapped by U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe to serve as her director in Maine, a constituent-service position which he held until 2004.  After two unsuccessful runs for Congress in Maine’s First District he became the New England Regional Administrator to the U.S. Small Business Administration. In that position, Summers was responsible for creating a favorable climate for small businesses in the region.  It’s hard to say how successful his tenure was—he only held the position for two years, resigning in 2007 after being called to active duty in Iraq.  The SBA, ironically, grew out of an agency created during the Hoover administration to lend money to businesses affected by the Great Depression.

Amy Fried

University of Maine

• Associate Professor of Political Science
• Associate Dean for Research in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

This ad opens and closes with Summers standing outside and speaking to the camera. In between, there is black and white footage showing Summers in various settings to illustrate portions of his biography. Likewise, the message of the ad focuses on policy and politics at the start and the end, while the middle portion is about the candidate himself. Summers has chosen the Wall Street bailout to be his policy theme. His language about it is highly populist and the language used could have come from either a Democrat or a Republican. With his statement that the financial bailout came “while we work hard and play by the rules,” I was reminded by then Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton’s repeated 1992 invocations of people “who play by the rules.” The end of the ad does not return to the bailout but reinforces populism by counterposing “special interests” with the people of Maine.

While the biography of Summers is used to promote the theme that he has long worked for Maine people, its large presence in a thirty-second ad implies that Summers believes he still needs to introduce himself to the voters of the first congressional district. The key elements of Summers’ life that he conveys are his work for Senator Olympia Snowe, his work for the Small Business Administration, and his service in Iraq. The first two of these are partisan appointments, but Summers presents them in a nonpartisan way. Of the three, the last, military service is not partisan and Summers highlights it as effort done “not as a Democrat or a Republican but an American.” Summers also talks about bringing “independence to Washington.” As a Republican running in a district that is increasingly Democratic, in a state that appreciates bipartisanship and independence, Summers seeks to define himself as independent and not beholden to particular interests.

Ron Schmidt

University of Southern Maine

• Associate Professor of Political Science
• Specialties: Political Theory, Racial and Ethnic Politics and Urban Politics.

Charlie Summers' new ad, "Play By the Rules," is essentially an exploration of two very different ways to interpret that title. In the beginning of the ad, Summers says that "politicians give Wall
Street nearly a trillion dollars, while we work hard and play by the rules just to make ends meet," and we are left with the question of who we are, and what we can do about this situation? We're not politicians, it seems, but it is possible we are something almost as bad: suckers. The rest of the commercial serves as a fairly combative response to this possibility. Summers tells us then that he has "been fighting for Maine for nearly twenty years," and in this ad, he is offering to continue this fight in a new venue. Summers identifies himself through the "fighting" images that follow: in good Maine fashion, he disdains partisan positioning, but he does tell us that he has worked with Maine's Republican senior Senator, Olympia Snowe, and he is shown in uniform, as part of an actual organized fighting force, the U.S. Army, in Iraq.

This brings us to the second reading of the ad's title. Having identified himself as a fighter, Summers seems to rebut the possibility that we, the audience, are people who have been taken in
by "playing by the rules." Rather, we are part of Summers' new fighting force, giving him our votes so that he can go to Washington and force politicians to play by rules they have ignored, that he will take his fight "to Washington and clean it up."

It is interesting to read this ad in tandem with Chellie Pingree's "Opportunity." Both set out to define a particular community and to promise that they will serve as a representative of that body of people. Pingree suggests that she can help Maine to succeed even in a "tough time" for the nation. Although she doesn't discuss her past as evidence of her political skills, it is implied by her promise that she can help Maine negotiate with all parties in Washington to benefit "us," as Mainers and Americans. Summers makes a very similar argument -- that, as a Congressman, his "only special interest" will be Maine -- but he intends to deliver on his promises through combat. The crucial difference here is in the anxieties that the candidates both raise and promise to contain. If, in "Opportunity," Mainers are a vulnerable community that can use smarts and skills to succeed, Summers' community begins with the fear that we've been taken advantage of, yet walks away with the assurance that, if we vote correctly, somebody out there is going to be forced to play by *our* rules.