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. “The Hall Rutherford wine caves,” the Associated Press noted, “boast 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.”

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 Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles wearing a black t-shirt with the URL PetesWineCave.com—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 debate—and one of the most illuminating arguments about money in politics that we’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.

“Those selfies cost nobody anything,” she said, contrasting those photos—and her lack of fundraisers—with expensive dinners where donors are giving money “in order to maybe be considered an ambassador.” (Whether to consider giving ambassadorships to donors is another area of recent disagreement between Warren and Buttigieg.) 

“People who can put down $5,000 to have a picture taken don’t have the same priorities of people struggling with student loan debt or struggling to pay off medical debt,” 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 out—if Democrats are going to put up a fight next fall, “we shouldn’t try to do it with one hand tied behind our backs.”

And that’s when Warren brought up the wine cave. “So, the mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave, full of crystals, and served $900-a-bottle wine,” she said. “Think about who comes to that.” 

“We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoke-filled rooms would not pick the next president of the United States,” she added. “Billionaires 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. “I’m literally the only person on this stage who is not a millionaire or a billionaire,” he said. By Warren’s logic, Buttigieg continued, Warren herself was part of the problem.

“Now, supposing you went home and felt the holiday spirit—I know this isn’t likely, but stay with me—and decided to go on peteforamerica.com and gave the maximum allowable by law, $2,800,” he said. “Would that pollute my campaign because it came from a wealthy person?”

Besides, he added, Warren herself wasn’t playing by her own rules. Though she hadn’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 about—and this feels weird just to type—Wind Cave, but you get the picture.

Buttigieg is right on some level—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 politics—rich people giving money for access and influence, not just rich people donating unsolicited on the internet. And her comments weren’t coming out nowhere. Though Gordon Sondland’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.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE ON MOTHER JONES' FINANCES

We need to start being more upfront about how hard it is keeping a newsroom like Mother Jones afloat these days.

Because it is, and because we're fresh off finishing a fiscal year, on June 30, that came up a bit short of where we needed to be. And this next one simply has to be a year of growth—particularly for donations from online readers to help counter the brutal economics of journalism right now.

Straight up: We need this pitch, what you're reading right now, to start earning significantly more donations than normal. We need people who care enough about Mother Jones’ journalism to be reading a blurb like this to decide to pitch in and support it if you can right now.

Urgent, for sure. But it's not all doom and gloom!

Because over the challenging last year, and thanks to feedback from readers, we've started to see a better way to go about asking you to support our work: Level-headedly communicating the urgency of hitting our fundraising goals, being transparent about our finances, challenges, and opportunities, and explaining how being funded primarily by donations big and small, from ordinary (and extraordinary!) people like you, is the thing that lets us do the type of journalism you look to Mother Jones for—that is so very much needed right now.

And it's really been resonating with folks! Thankfully. Because corporations, powerful people with deep pockets, and market forces will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. Only people like you will.

There's more about our finances in "News Never Pays," or "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," and we'll have details about the year ahead for you soon. But we already know this: The fundraising for our next deadline, $350,000 by the time September 30 rolls around, has to start now, and it has to be stronger than normal so that we don't fall behind and risk coming up short again.

Please consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

—Monika Bauerlein, CEO, and Brian Hiatt, Online Membership Director

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