The “Wine Cave” Debate Was One of the Campaign’s Most Consequential Arguments

Juicy and acerbic, with hints of corruption.

Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg

Chris Carlson/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

It was always going to be the wine cave debate. It was just a question of when the subject would finally come up.

On Sunday, just a few days after caving to pressure and agreeing to release a list of campaign bundlers (incomplete, it turned out) and open his fundraisers to the press, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped by a wine cave in Napa Valley to raise money at a fundraiser hosted by a billionaire California couple. 

Not just any wine cave, either. ā€œThe Hall Rutherford wine caves,ā€ the Associated Press noted, ā€œboast a chandelier with 1,500 Swarovski crystals, an onyx banquet table to reflect its luminescence and bottles of cabernet sauvignon that sell for as much as $900.ā€

Photos of the event were catnip for supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, both of whom have sworn off high-dollar fundraisers during the presidential campaigns. Jeff Weaver, a longtime Sanders adviser, showed up to Thursdayā€™s Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles wearing a black t-shirt with the URL PetesWineCave.comā€”a Sanders fundraising site.

It took a while for the subject to come up, but when it did, it resulted in the most spirited exchange of the debateā€”and one of the most illuminating arguments about money in politics that weā€™ve seen this cycle. It started roughly an hour into the night’s proceedings when Warren boasted of taking 100,000 selfies with supporters over the course of the campaign.

ā€œThose selfies cost nobody anything,ā€ she said, contrasting those photosā€”and her lack of fundraisersā€”with expensive dinners where donors are giving money ā€œin order to maybe be considered an ambassador.ā€ (Whether to consider giving ambassadorships to donors is another area of recent disagreement between Warren and Buttigieg.) 

ā€œPeople who can put down $5,000 to have a picture taken donā€™t have the same priorities of people struggling with student loan debt or struggling to pay off medical debt,ā€ Warren said.

Buttigieg, who understood perfectly well who she was referring to, spoke up in his own defense. Trump has already raised $300 million, he pointed outā€”if Democrats are going to put up a fight next fall, ā€œwe shouldnā€™t try to do it with one hand tied behind our backs.ā€

And thatā€™s when Warren brought up the wine cave. ā€œSo, the mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave, full of crystals, and served $900-a-bottle wine,ā€ she said. ā€œThink about who comes to that.ā€ 

ā€œWe made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States,ā€ she added. ā€œBillionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.”

Buttigieg pushed back, noting (as he has before) that he has the smallest net worth of anyone running. ā€œIā€™m literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire,ā€ he said. By Warrenā€™s logic, Buttigieg continued, Warren herself was part of the problem.

ā€œNow, supposing you went home and felt the holiday spiritā€”I know this isnā€™t likely, but stay with meā€”and decided to go on peteforamerica.com and gave the maximum allowable by law, $2,800,ā€ he said. ā€œWould that pollute my campaign because it came from a wealthy person?ā€

Besides, he added, Warren herself wasnā€™t playing by her own rules. Though she hadnā€™t held high-dollar fundraisers as a presidential candidate, she had held them as a senator and had used some of that money to seed her current White House bid.

It went on a bit longer, and eventually Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) jumped in to talk aboutā€”and this feels weird just to typeā€”Wind Cave, but you get the picture.

Buttigieg is right on some levelā€”Warren did change her policy on fundraisers between her last Senate campaign and her current presidential one, though the idea that all millionaires and billionaires are created equal doesn’t really pass the (excuse me) sommelier test. Warren’s argument is about transactional politicsā€”rich people giving money for access and influence, not just rich people donating unsolicited on the internet. And her comments werenā€™t coming out nowhere. Though Gordon Sondlandā€™s name never came up explicitly, her criticism came in the midst of an impeachment crisis in which the ill-qualified hotelier who bought an ambassadorship with political contributions ended up playing a starring role. To bring this full circle: Kathyrn Hall, the co-owner of the wine cave and co-host of the fundraiser, was appointed ambassador to Austria in 1997 after the couple gave generously to President Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign.

Given those circumstances, and the narrow margins separating these two candidates, it’s probably not the last we’ll hear of this argument in the weeks and months to come.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate