David Bernstein has the story. EMILY’s List sent out a mailer for Katherine Clark that can only be read to mean one thing: Elizabeth Warren has endorsed Katherine Clark [even though she hasn’t. -ed.]. There probably isn’t another endorsement available (Obama’s probably wouldn’t help all that much during these few weeks) that would carry as much weight in this district.
From Bernstein:
“We’re frankly stunned to see these kind of tactics in the final days of the campaign,” Eric Hyers, campaign manager for Karen Spilka, said in a statement.
Scott Ferson, consultant for Will Brownsberger, quipped: “Have you seen our mail piece with Will between Mother Teresa and Gandhi?”
The pictures. [Images added, linked directly from Bernstein’s post. -ed.]
I think this is tough to explain away, and it must be noted that this was not from the Clark campaign. EMILY’s List should be ashamed.
Amazing that Emily’s List thinks it will or could get away with such a thing.
When a PAC of any stripe uses misleading tactics to boost their candidate it reflects badly on the source and the candidate.
Clark’s campaign needs to declare if they approved the ad and prove their transparency. Or, if they didn’t approve the ad then they need to state that Clark is NOT IN FACT endorsed by Senator Warren and regret that the implication was made by EMILY’s List.
Any candidate that does not distance themselves from these types of false images is part of the problem. Clark gets to show if she has integrity…….or not.
This is just comical. Leave aside the minor detail that Sen. Warren did not endorse anybody:
Didn’t the candidates sign the People’s Pledge, forswearing advertising from “…third party organizations that endorse any of the candidates (or are directly affiliated with or a subsidiary of an organization that has endorsed a candidate)”?
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c0111be598bdb0643a7e09c73&id=ab70ccdf63
the Pledge the candidates agreed to does not include direct mail for some reason. It covers only broadcast or online advertising. So EMILY’s List (or anyone else) can’t spend $100 on an ad on BMG, but they can spend thousands printing up and mailing direct mail. Weird.
While I agree with David that it is odd that direct mail is not part of this or previous peoples pledge arrangements, I recall seeing several third party mailers on doors when I was canvassing for Warren late in 2012. And I never thought less of Warren or Brown based on third party efforts on either of their behalfs because by law they were not allowed to coordinate. Same case here, in my opinion. Third parties will do what they do under the parameters of the pledge.
David, I see your point if I delve into the fine print of the pledge.
Yet the summary of the pledge, in an official press release of the MA Democratic Party, includes any advertising expenditures, including mail:
“Third party organizations that endorse any of the candidates (or are directly affiliated with or a subsidiary of an organization that has endorsed a candidate) are prohibited from advertising expenditures in support of or in opposition to any of the candidates. “
that it’s the pledge itself that the candidates signed onto, not a press release sent out by the party. Mail is not included, like it or not. The press release is inaccurate.
Even if Clark’s campaign does everything you’ve asked, the clarification won’t reach as many people as the mailer.
Personally, I think it’s pretty dirty. Christopher says below, “It does look like they are running as a ticket on the same ballot so that’s a little weird.” That to me is the problem. People running on the same ticket generally have endorsed each other, and in many cases are coordinating their efforts to some extent.
Of course Senator Warren’s not on the ballot, but the clear implication of the mailer is that Katherine Clark is on Elizabeth Warren’s “ticket” and the other candidates are not. Emily’s List, though, has long fallen out of my favor for supporting exclusively women regardless of policy differences.
Sen. Warren should make a statement that she is not endorsing a candidate in the Democratic primary and that she did not give her permission to be used in a political mailer that gave the impression that an endorsement existed. it’s the right thing to do. I am disappointed with Katherine and with EMILY’s list for employing this deceptive tactic…i thought they were better than that, but…actions speak louder than words.
Emily’s List sent the mailer, and by law the Clark campaign cannot coordinate at all with third party groups, it’s illegal. So why are you disappointed in Clark? I get why you would be disappointed in Emily’s List, completely. It was their decision. But the Clark campaign had nothing to do with this.
n/t
But that’s up to her campaign, not me.
Won’t affect my support, since the mailer was not sent or authorized by her campaign.
When a candidate gets “Swift Boated,” or attacked in a blatantly false way, they have an ethical (admittedly not legal) responsibility to disavow it. Otherwise, everyone would use independent expenditures to make shit up about their opponents.
I think that this doctrine should apply to deliberately misleading material as well.
Sorry, meant that their opponent has an ethical obligation to appologize and disavow.
My reaction was the same. Of course it doesn’t say on it that an endorsement was made, but the implication is very clear. Poor judgement (and a cynical one if they think that is the only way she can win).
It does look like they are running as a ticket on the same ballot so that’s a little weird, but I think an outside party is just trying to say if you like Warren you’ll also like Clark.
These ads simply state Katherine has the same beliefs as Liz, 2 peas in a pod. Nowhere does it say Warren endorsed Katherine, does it? Unless Warren issues a statement condemning the flyer, nobody should complain.
The news only came out last night. Warren has been put in a tough spot because she can’t condemn too vigorously because of support from EMILY’s List and also having to work with the nominee, who very well may be Clark. I suspect that she will say something like “I have not endorsed any candidate in this field of five qualified candidates. I look forward to working with the nominee to ensure yadda yadda yadda.”
That situation it puts Warren into against her wishes is also part of EMILY’s List’s bad tactics here, in addition to how they misled voters.
It may be smart, but it’s still incredibly shady.
Katherine hasn’t stood out in the debates, policy positions, major endorsements like DeLeo, but this is a great final push. Dems love Warren and those two on the same mailers give the voters, mostly undecided, a reason to vote for her.
The only way it could backfire is Warren scolding Emily’s list and making it absolutely clear she has not endorsed Katherine. I doubt she will.
I worked very hard for Elizabeth Warren, and I am proud that she is my Senator. I am not supporting Katherine Clark, and I am infuriated that Emily’s List is using Warren’s picture in such a misleading manner.
And, what about Katherine Clark? Why hasn’t she publicly rebuked Emily’s List for this misleading tactic?
Shame on you, Katherine!
If Peter or Will ran this flyer, would she or her spokesperson already have spoken out against it? Liz may not officially endorse a candidate, but she, like anyone, has a candidate she is rooting for. Unless she condemns the flyer and Emily’s list, which I doubt she will do, then read between the lines……
channeling Liz Warren. Priceless.
Comment of the day from heartlanddem. Exceptional!
Dirty seems too strong to me. Since it’s Emily’s List and they’re both women, I would necessarily inter that Liz Warren endorsed Clark.
Sen. Warren hasn’t endorsed Rep. Clark, hence the mailing is at the very least misleading and at the worst very dirty politics.
It may imply that, but I think some people are overreacting. It doesn’t say endorsed, and it absolutely would, if Liz did.
that Sen. Warren supports Rep. Clark. I would even go so far as to say that it is intentionally misleading. Seriously, how many people will just see the photo of the two of them together and the very vague language saying that Clark will “stand with Elizabeth Warren” and not infer an endorsement.
Although this is a federal race and likely governed under federal campaign finance law, there’s actually a Massachusetts criminal statue regarding this very issue:
M.G.L. c. 56 sec. 41A: Unauthorized use of endorsements
Section 41A. No person shall, in order to promote his success or the success of another as a candidate for nomination or election to any public office, or in connection with any question submitted to the voters, include or cause to be included in any political advertisement, circular, poster or publication, the name of any person as an endorser or supporter except with the express consent of such person. Violation of any provision of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
One circle is people who care about endorsements …
The other is those who are undecided between Clark and someone else and could be swayed by Liz Warren’s endorsement …
And the third is people who are convinced by this flyer (that means they saw it) and fooled to think Warren endorsed Clark …
That middle circle is pretty small.
But hey, go for it. Book ’em.
that it would be successful. But with the timing and the appearance of the ad, someone down in DC thinks that it will help Clark, otherwise they wouldn’t have spent the money sending it out.
They endorsed Clark.
The flyer says, in effect, “Clark will fight for you just like Warren does.”
Had Clark’s campaign sent this, it would strongly imply an endorsement. Bit since it’s Emily’s List, they’re grouping two candidates they like. I think it’s pretty harmless.
actually it doesn’t in effect say that “Clark will fight for you just like Warren does.” It says that Clark “will stand with Sen. Elizabeth Warren” (implying that the other candidates may not) and that “They will: Protect Social Security and Medicare”.
Language matters, and this was clearly crafted to imply that Rep. Clark is Sen. Warren’s candidate in the race. You may disagree, but in a low turnout special election, don’t think that this wasn’t purposefully developed to influence voter who haven’t been paying much attention to the race.
Beyond making the language opaque enough to mislead potential voters who haven’t paid much to the race, they’re banking on a picture being worth a thousand words. A fair number of people are not even going to flip over the mailer to read the other side. They’ll just assume the endorsement because of the photo juxtaposition.
The sad part of this is that it works. Marilyn Petitto Devaney got herself elected to the Governor’s Council after putting out an ad that made it look like Joe Kennedy was endorsing her. No amount of denial or condemnation is going to reach the people that this mailer hooks.
First, you’re right that Massachusetts law certainly wouldn’t apply to this federal campaign. And I can’t find a similar federal law on the unauthorized use of endorsements. Can anyone?
Second, though, you’re wrong that the Massachusetts law regards “this very issue.” Strongly implying something, even “very” strongly, just isn’t the same thing as naming someone explicitly as “an endorser or supporter.”
Laws are carefully written and need to be interpreted as such.
The remedy here is not the law but in a public response from Senator Warren. As Patrick did with Timilty (see: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/09/patrick_says_go.html )
Such a statement from Warren would get widespread media coverage and likely doom Clark’s campaign. Meanwhile, if Senator Warren does not make such a public rebuke of this ad, then (and this pains me to say) danfromwaltham is right and Warren is endorsing Clark.
the statute could be read to include an ad like this, since it’s pretty clearly written to make people think that Sen. Warren supports Clark. That said, I agree with your assessment that Warren should follow the Governor’s lead, similar to the Timilty situation.
I hate to call my own fouls, but since the editors choose not to moderate, I have to.
Disagreement is not generally considered grounds for downrating. Nor does uprating necessarily indicate agreement.
For the record. Just saying.
corrected myself later. No offense meant to Sen. Clark.
I remember Scott Brown’s ads that showed JFK. Brown tried to associate himself with President Kennedy in misleading ads. These types of misrepresentations are commonly used by shifty politicians like Scott Brown and Katherine Clark.
From the various candidates’ lit I’ve seen the only person in this race who’s compared themselves to a Kennedy (3 of them, actually) is Paul John Maisano. Just sayin’. 🙂 Also as an aside, Scott Brown comparing himself to JFK was the very *least* of his flaws, in my humble opinion, when you consider the racism, mysoginy, outright lies (asbestos victims), his lousy voting record, etc etc. So what if he has an insanely healthy ego? The reasons to vote against him were legion.
But back to the Emily’s List flyer — Again, it was produced by Emily’s List, not in coordination with any campaign or office holder. By law Emily’s List can do whatever they want and the Clark campaign cannot coordinate with them. So impugning a candidate and calling her shifty based on the actions of a third party with whom it is illegal to coordinate seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Where I think many/most of us can agree is that leaving direct mail out of the People’s Pledge seems arbitrary and it would be good to get that fixed — I’m all for that.
None of the above precludes Senator Warren from making a statement and she may well do so. My immediate reaction, frankly, when I saw the flyer, is that if it harms anyone it may harm Senator Warren the most by implying that she is taking sides in a Democratic primary, which she obviously knows it is wise not to do and she has studiously avoided, as has Senator Markey. Senator Warren didn’t take sides, rightly, in any way during the primary between Markey and Lynch — so why on earth would she do so now? It just runs the risk of angering certain segments of active Democrats. Exhibit A: this thread.
And for what it’s worth, one of Warren’s key aides Roger Lau, has made a statement on Twitter, about this issue:
https://twitter.com/RogerLau/status/388063189382217729
Shouldn’t Clark be issuing a statement in which she distances herself from that mailing? Shouldn’t Clark also ask Emily’s List to stop sending it?
Clark’s silence speaks volumes.
Just my opinion, as a Clark supporter, speaking only for myself, I do think it would be helpful for Sen. Clark to make a quick statement that this mailer was not sent by her campaign, obviously, and she had nothing to do with it and has not been endorsed by Senator Warren. And then move on to the fact that she was endorsed by the Boston Globe this morning. 🙂
However, as stated above, it is illegal for any candidate to coordinate with a third party group in any way, so the Clark campaign cannot contact Emily’s List to complain, to ask them not to send more of this flyer or other fliers. As much as you or I or anyone else might like that to be the case, it is illegal.
As an aside, when Senator Markey was running earlier this year, there were some actions by a third party on his behalf that were not appreciated by his campaign staff and volunteers — these actions by the third party group in fact made our jobs harder by upsetting voters (I experienced the blowback from voters several times. It made my job as a canvasser much harder at times, it may have lost us some votes, and it certainly changed my point of view re: this particular advocacy group, which had formally endorsed Markey). However, the campaign was not allowed in any way to communicate with the third party about these actions, to tell them to stop, etc. Period. That’s just the way it works, unfortunately.
No, not at all. There is no reason Clark can’t complain publicly to Emily’s List about this mailer and to ask them to stop sending it, or to disassociate herself from it, or whatever. Happens all the time. That’s not what “coordinating” means, either in common parlance or under FEC regulations.
Disassociating yourself publically is one thing — obviously that’s fine. But contacting the group formally, I’ve been told that such contact is illegal by staff on previous campaigns, so I based my statement on that. Not being an elections attorney, I assume they’re correct. But if I’m wrong so be it. That said, even if the Clark campaign could legally contact Emily’s List and say stop it, Emily’s List can do whatever they want, I assume, regardless of the Clark campaign’s wishes.
Yes, that’s correct.
There was a fundraising reception for Emily’s List at 168 Brattle St. just 10 days after the group endorsed Clark. Are you saying that Clark did not attend the Emily’s list reception on her behalf?
http://emilyslist.org/content/donation-template-cambridge-reception
Anyone disagree?
You’re right on this one, dan. So far. I imagine that the four other candidates will demand a more public rebuke from the Senator. Absent one, this is a tacit endorsement of Senator Clark.
The tweet simply restates that Warren hasn’t endorsed anyone. I’d not expect a tweet from Roger Lau to be the platform for any stronger statement. Warren may be considering if it’s worth the trouble of getting any more involved in this drama.
He didn’t even respond to the mailers, that says it all. What you call drama, I call doing the right thing. She either cares or doesn’t care. Appears she doesn’t care, which is fine. But dot pretend anything else.
There is a middle viewpoint and at this point it’s mine.
Exchange was thus: “Got this mailer, confirming Warren’s not endorsed anyone” “Correct, hasn’t endorsed anyone, they’re all good.”
Warren may not go beyond that because she likes Clark best, as you say. Or because she’s decided to stay above the fray in a local intra-Democratic squabble. She might not like her face being used but decide getting involved will make things worse and pull her in. It may be that silence seems like tacit support of Clark, but speaking out would seem like antipathy toward Clark.
Yes I disagree. Otherwise Lau would have posted “We’re fine with these mailers because secretly we’re rooting for one candidate over the others.” He didn’t say that.
Again I ask: What benefit is it to Senator Warren to in any way be seen as favoring or endorsing one candidate in this field and thus angering/alienating any active Democrat? Answer: none. She didn’t take sides in the Markey/Lynch race and she hasn’t in this race. On purpose.
And you know what, it’s okay. Warren, out of professional courtesy, is not “officially” endorsing a candidate. If she comes out condemning the mailers, it would hurt Clark. She hasn’t. The twitter response says it all, as if the mailers didn’t exist, not a word about them.
Now Warren can claim neutrality, her favorite gets a shot in the arm with the direct mailers. Everyone wins, nobody is guilty, etc.
I am serious. We disagree. Shocking, I know LOL
I agree that this is kind of a shifty move, but I’ve gotten so much mail from 5th district candidates in the past week that I’m curious as to whether any particular piece will break through. I’m following the race with great interest and even I just put the mail I get from these candidates in a pile without really looking at it. If a even a political junkie like me can’t be bothered to sort through the daily deluge, can we expect the average voter?
There is a science behind these mailings. The messages are poll-tested, in advance. Because most people don’t read the document, the pictures are extremely important. In the Brown-Warren campaign, Warren had a mailing that showed her picture between Obama and Clinton, for example.
Also, the mailings are targeted, also based upon polling. It’s possible to purchase mailing lists for certain groups of people, like independent voters, women, people over-65, middle income, etc.
In a vacuum they might be noticed and sure the message is likely poll-tested (although in this case the poll numbers are Elizabeth Warren’s approval rating among Democrats). This isn’t rocket science. Most of the ‘science’ behind these mailers is actually rehashed conventional wisdom — I doubt they’re doing anything as sophisticated as what we saw the Obama campaign do in 2012.
The fact is, this mailer arrived at my house in the middle of a pack of similarly message tested and ‘scientifically designed’ mailers for three other candidates along with the usual mix of bills and junk. I would not have even noticed Elizabeth Warren was on it if it weren’t pointed out on this blog.
If mailers weren’t effective, campaigns would not use them. You might not read the mailer, but other people look at them. Most people are not as well-informed as you. In fact, a large percentage of voters make up their minds a few days before the election. Mailers and last-minute TV ads can make a big difference, especially in a close election.
That’s not ‘science’, that’s rehashed conventional wisdom. There’s very little experimental evidence that robocalls do anything, yet campaigns use them. Mailers & TV ads are the sorts of things you have to do because if you don’t do them and your opposition does, then you are at a huge disadvantage, but if everyone is saturating the field, they more or less neutralize each other.
Mailers certainly do have their place in an election and Katherine Clark’s strategy of starting early with mailer after mailer is probably a big factor in her high name recognition. But in a crowded election with multiple mailings coming in daily, the value of any individual mailing — whether it has Elizabeth Warren on it or not — is relatively low.
is that this is a close race and that the eventual standard bearer will win with a plurality as did Ed Markey originally back in 1976. Hence almost any last minute gimmick or gambit is worth a shot with so many imponderables at play in this race.
We will likely see other such things in the days ahead.
Elias N.
Charlie Baker and Katherine Clark are helpless, can’t saw a word about these outside groups.
I did not receive the first mailer – but was very surprised to receive a second different mail piece with Clark and Warren on it. “At Bat for the middle class” with banners that say “All Star” across one picture of each of their pictures.
Obvioulsy they could not pull this one as it was likely in the mail before the brouhaha over the first piece. But I was still somewhat shocked!