Challenging your opponent to swear off third-party spending is all the rage these days, and our humble Senate race is no exception. Scott Brown apparently sent some sort of challenge to Elizabeth Warren on that topic (despite already having been the beneficiary of some big spending by Karl Rove); in response, Warren one-upped Brown, calling for an enforceable agreement with actual consequences if the rules are broken. Here is Warren’s letter to Brown:
Dear Sen. Brown:
We have the opportunity to set an example for the rest of the country. Let’s do it. If you are serious about stopping the political games and getting to the hard work of keeping out third party ads and independent groups, I’m ready. My campaign manager is prepared to meet with your representative to begin immediately to craft an enforceable agreement.
Too often, candidates call for an end to third party influence but their words are just that, and their calls are just more empty promises and politics as usual. I propose that our agreement include television, radio and online advertisements from outside groups and third parties and further, that this agreement include consequences for the campaign that fails to honor this agreement.
We should not waste any time. I will call you this afternoon to discuss the first steps.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Warren
The Globe story reports that Brown’s campaign manager has agreed to talk, so that’s a good step. I really hope they do this. It would be a fine example to the rest of the country – and, frankly, at the moment it’s the only way to curb the SuperPACs’ influence. So come on, Scott – put your money where your mouth is.
Christopher says
This very cynically assumes that there are truly no independent groups. If I were a SuperPAC director or just a wealthy enough person to pay for ads on my own and I cut my own pro-Warren ad, what fault is that of Warren’s? Or if I wanted to play really dirty and found out the consequences for the offending campaign were bad enough, maybe I could cut a pro-Brown ad just to get him in trouble. When I was on the election committee for student government in college only the candidates could be penalized and the election rules said that anyone who acts on behalf of a candidate was considered an “authorized agent”. That meant that if another student, either supporter without permission or non-supporter trying to make mischief, put up a campaign poster in an unauthorized location, the candidate got penalized.
bluewatch says
It really isn’t possible to stop outside groups. I guess Warren is just doubling down to show that Brown’s stance is ridiculous.
David says
Yes, I suppose it does. But what’s playing out right now in the presidential race certainly seems cause for cynicism, don’t you think?
JHM says
We have the opportunity to set an example for the rest of the country. Let’s do it.
Happy days.
johnk says
it would be great if they do this.
But my feeling all along was that Brown was in it for political maneuvering. Rove, US Chamber, whatever groups would attack Warren and he would cry being a victim and then blame Warren as well.
You want Scott Brown to stand up and do something? Unfortunately, not in his makeup. I wish it was, but it’s not.
mski011 says
There are two groups that I foresee running pro-Warren ads in Massachusetts. That’s Rethink Brown & the PCCC. We might see Nat’l Priorities or American Bridge, too. However, all of them are the kind of group that would heed a Warren call to stand down because they know she’d mean it. Brown on the other hand would probably never actually make that demand or do so with a wink and then claim “There’s nothing I can do” However, the problem will be that the other groups will have actually stood down making Brown look like a fool.
Realistically, this is an unworkable situation that until and unless some half-baked solution is put together just show Brown hoisted by his own patoot.
mski011 says
The Fact-Check.org claim Brown makes that is referenced in the Globe article appears to refer to his vote on the Oil & Gas tax breaks. Factcheck does not appear to call BS on the whole Leauge of Conservation Voters ad. They just point out that Brown “qualified” his point by saying he’s open to it if rates are reduced across the board i.e. we take in no new revenue. So for Brown to try to hold up Fact Check as a shield against Warren’s claim that the LCV ads were fact-based is a flaky argument on his part.
Al says
that campaign donations should come strictly, and exclusively from the state or district where the election is being contested. Having said that, all the fundraising should be done on a equal footing with each candidate living up to the same standards. Brown already has tons of money from donors outside the state. I think he sees the fundraising potential that Elizabeth Warren has, and is afraid that his campaign war chest is not so overwhelming anymore, thus he is trying to shut off that source of funds to her.
stomv says
and all 100 make decisions that affect my life. Why shouldn’t my 1st amendment rights apply to all 100 of ’em?
hlpeary says
So much posturing without attacking the real problem that is undermining the whole political system…SuperPACs are just the lastest egregious development among the many “legal” ways that money (and those behind the money) are stealing our democratic system from the people.
Got a minute: check out Lawrence Lessing’s guest appearance on wbur radio discussing this very issue…he’s hit the nail on the head…
www. onpoint.wbur.org/2012/01/02/lawrence-lessig-on-money-corruption-and-politics
For any person running for office to take contributions from the very business interests they claim to want to regulate is a shame…no matter which side of the political aisle the candidate stands on. And bundling contributions from an industry or business or special interest group still goes on..just more discreetly.
The shrinking electorate is disgusted and feeling powerless but more and more people have figured out that both sides of the aisle are being bought and paid for simultaneously. These powerful individuals, interest groups and industries have covered all their bases so they need not worry who wins…they will always have access to the winner.
Waiting for the candidate who has the guts to really take on this issue rather than posturing as if they care about it…