which originally said the mailer was “on behalf of” Katherine Clark. It’s supporting Clark, but it is from EMILY’s List, and the mailer is not authorized by Clark’s campaign.
danfromwalthamsays
Even guys will read this mailer, gives off a whiff of nostalgia when I collected cards back in the 70’s. It’s brilliant.
bluewatchsays
It’s deceptive. And, it represents continued deception.
Clark could have asked Emily’s List to stop these mailings. She also could have made a public statement. Her silence about these mailings speaks volumes.
Besides Clark, many other candidates have Warren supporters working for them. We are very, very, angry about these deceptive mailings and Clark’s silence.
JimCsays
No need for a downrating there.
And yes I know nobody cares.
Christophersays
“We are lucky to have a number of great candidates running in the fifth congressional district. I look forward to working with whoever wins the Democratic nomination in next week’s primary election. Let me be clear, I’m not endorsing any of these great candidates before Tuesday’s election.”
I disagree with bluewatch though. Since the ads come from a third party I don’t think a candidate needs to be accountable for or respond to something supporters say. If that were the standard it could get to the point that there is no room or time for anything else.
bluewatchsays
The ad implies an endorsement or, at least, a close relationship.
Many people who get this mailer won’t even notice that it came from a third party.
And, yes, candidates make statements all the time about actions of their supporters, especially when they are outrageous. This mailer is outrageous.
Christophersays
Ill-advised would be a better term. Elsewhere people are saying Clark should clarify the Globe’s statements in its endorsements regarding wiretapping. Really, the expectation that candidates babysit, handhold, and clean up the messes of supporters other than paid campaign spokespeole strikes me as ridiculous.
ryepower12says
The previous mailer they sent PO’d a lot of people for doing the same thing. The reaction? Rinse and repeat. Hence outrageous.
Christophersays
The famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result, so that sounds like the word you’re looking for. Outrageous is making insinuations about a persons character. Implying that liking one official will likely lead you to like another candidate as well, not so much.
ryepower12says
you just don’t screw around with endorsement stuff like this in mailers. It ALWAYS creates outrage when there’s a goof. Outrage on these matters is real and tensions are high.
Christophersays
Some people’s outrage may be real, but IMO grossly misplaced, and there is no “endorsement stuff” here as no endorsement was made by EW or claimed by EMILY’s List.
sabutaisays
This isn’t some random lone wolf using ill-advised tactics. This is a large, rich, national organization who did something tawdry and surely gained the notice of the campaign. The candidate said nothing, which tacitly signals approval to do it again.
I don’t blame Clark for the first time this happened. But the fact that it happened again is entirely, 100%, her fault.
Christophersays
It makes more sense for Warren to clarify her position which she has.
pogosays
…business as usual? I agree with your points, but it’s been done over and over again and, unless there is some huge shift in the status quo, it will continue to happen.
bluewatchsays
After all, this issue involves Senator Warren, and it implies a relationship that doesn’t exist. It’s pretty easy to issue a statement. All it takes is for her campaign manager to tweat something. It would take no more than one minute.
Christophersays
It should end there. Back to the issues please.
jconwaysays
Seems like it won’t end since it seems like Clark and Emily’s List will continue these ridiculous tactics. If Clark wasn’t your candidate you’d be outraged. I want to like Clark, a lot of activists I respect are supporting her, but actions like this and the incongruity of her positions on civil liberties give me pause. Sabutai is absolutely right, a leader would call this out and stop it, and she has yet to do that.
Christophersays
Sciortino is my preference with Spilka second and Clark down at fourth, though not being in the district I’m not involved in this race. I just think people are being terribly unfair to Clark and when I see unfairness I say so. EMILY’s List may continue to engage in these tactics, but this isn’t at all on Clark. It’s illegal to coordinate remember, and I have yet to see anyone proffer evidence of illegal coordination.
sabutaisays
If MA-5 wants to elect a leader, rather than a face in the crowd, this speaks volumes. A leader speaks up when wrong things are being done. In this case, something wrong is being done in the candidate’s name.
abs0628says
I’ve Ben out all day canvassing, so I haven’t been online until now. Thank you, Christopher, for posting Senator Warren’s very clear and appropriate statement.
HR's Kevinsays
While it does not seem that Clark had anything to do with these ads, she is absolutely responsible for managing the use of her own image. Failure to say anything about the mailers is a tacit approval. It is disappointing that she could not figure out a diplomatic way to respond to this.
JimCsays
I can understand why people would object to this, but I still think it falls shy of implying endorsement. No mailer would fail to note an endorsement explicitly, with no room for doubt.
dracutfiresays
The more research I do on Clark’s state house record, the more I am finding out some school funding stances she took which benefit mostly wealthy districts… and ironically would do little for the school districts that she purports to represent, and nothing for her home town of Melrose.
She introduced a successful amendment to divert large amounts of Casino revenue to Camridge, Woburn, Brookine, Newton, and Framingham but provide no money to Dracut, Revere, Malden, or her home town. The globe ran a list on which school districts would get a Chapter 70 casino windfall: http://www.boston.com/business/specials/casino_revenue
In the current legislative session, Clark has another bill S.211, which would also give no money to her home town but would benefit even a smaller select group of wealthy districts. I blogged about this on Friday and am seeking additional info for a followup article.
Pablosays
I sort of agree with dracutfire, but there are substantive points where I disagree.
First, the 1993 education reform act was based on the principle that an adequate education comes with a price tag that can be calculated through a formula that produces a foundation budget. In 1993, a school district could provide an adequate education at the foundation level, but the foundation budget failed to increase at the same rate the costs of providing an education increased. That’s why many school districts imposed and increased fees to support items that were in the initial foundation budget, including athletics, extra-curricular activities, and transportation. Fees really escalated after 2001, particularly after Mitt Romney slashed 20% from most districts’ Chapter 70 funds in his first year in office.
I am not supporting Clark*, but to be fair she is trying to find funding to support a commitment to fulfilling a promise to provide a minimum of 17.5% of foundation in Chapter 70 aid. It is just one of the unfunded commitments made to school districts, commitments that include 100% funding for transportation for cities and towns who join in a regional school district.
I would advocate fulfilling a plethora of commitments to the children of Massachusetts, from the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth to educate our children, to the legislative commitments that cities and towns received as partners in the work of providing that education. We need more money in Chapter 70, and we need to apply it to a foundation formula based on the true cost of providing an adequate education.
Would I advocate for sending more money to Lexington? Not at the expense of other towns. I also wouldn’t advocate targeting money to a town that has a track record of funding schools at less than the minimum local contribution established under education reform.
*I’m with Brownsberger, but I like the other folks in the race.
dracutfiresays
Still I wonder why Clark had to be the sole sponsor of that bill in 2011 and in the current session (S.211). I agree with you that towns should be held accountable too for underfunding their education. In fact Dracut should probably have to pay more and a lot of people in Dracut are willing to have their taxes raised.
However what was the state’s commitment to general local aid? That was cut by $1 million in my town and it wasn’t restored. Did the legislature have a commitment to restore the general local aid too? I would rather see my town get the local aid restored first which would free up funds for education… then see the restoration of aid that is earmarked for those wealthy towns that really are in no budget crisis to begin with.
Pablosays
The cowardly legislature would rather sit around and push the problem down to the local level, rather than take responsibility and generate enough level at the state level. Let the elected municipal officials get their teeth kicked in for asking for overrides instead.
annewhitefieldsays
I don’t make a lot of money, but I gave to Emily’s List. Never again. This makes me so angry and smells like Clark will do anything to win. That sounds desperate and like she can pretend to distance herself. I know her campaign can’t talk directly to Emily’s List, but her donors are involved with both.
My hunch, Carl Scortino is closing the gap and drawing from Clark and the establishment behind Clark is playing low and dirty. Carl is also more like
Elizabeth Warren than Clark. Both are real progressives. I bet EW is pretty angry about this. I wouldn’t ask her to headline an event at Emily’s
List anytime soon.
Christophersays
Maybe EMILY’s List is, but they are within their rights since the People’s Pledge doesn’t for whatever reason cover mailings. PCCC which endorsed Sciortino has made Clark their primary target so it may be that Clark appreciates the help. Really though, it sounds like a lot of people are forgetting the law and how to read. The law says they can’t coordinate and the mailer does not say Warren endorsed her. If her donors are involved with both then maybe they actually like what is happening.
dracutfiresays
What is the dollar amount spent on the 2 mailings? Assume they each went to 100K households, well that is going to cost at least $125,000. Meanwhile, no one has put a dollar figure on this online ad but we may be talking 2% of the cost of this recent mailer.
What is very clear to me is that Clark has made friends with some very wealthy philanthropists. It is very possible that one or two of them funded the entire mailing. Ambassador Swanee Hunt (see hunt alternatives fund) is most likely a billionaire, her web site says her donations thus far have exceeded $120 million. She is a daughter of oil billionaire HL Hunt and her brother was one of the major financial backers of George W. Bush. Her channeling of funds to feminist groups is a good thing, don’t get me wrong. But it is not really grassroots by any stretch. I attended a breakfast at her mansion a decade ago… at the time women who worked for her told me it was a crazy place to work, there was very little continuity and the staff was jumping at the whims of whatever their boss decided to need work on that day.
So presumably that is where the money for these mailings came from.
No doubt that Clark would be a progressive voice, but other candidates have a more solid grassroots record than she does, and more experience in the state legislature. She has been reelected twice… Sciortino and Spilka four times.
Just don’t overlook Clark’s position on Chapter 70 K-12 school spending. The first FY14 budget proposal was going to give $4,116,871 to Cambridge, which doesn’t need it as they already spend $25,000 per pupil within the district. Clark, former Melrose school committee chair, has been the point person for giving Cambridge these additional funds.
Belmont spends just over $11,000, Watertown just over $15,000, Waltham just over $18,000 by comparison. Melrose spends $10,777. Clark failed to deliver for her home town which had the lowest per pupil spending in FY12 in any town in Middlesex county. So how can we we expect her to deliver for Massachusetts?
Correct: Clark failed to deliver for her home town which had the lowest per pupil spending in FY12 in any town in the 5th CD
Trickle upsays
Not looking forward to Governor Baker, either.
Honestly, this bit of opportunism, jumping in at last minute to back the leading candidate with a butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-her-mouth lie, is the cleverest thing EMILY has ever done.
Christophersays
Did EMILY’s List call Scott Brown “Senator”? If so that’s perfectly appropriate as his highest ranking title and I use it too. I assume they did not call Baker “Governor” since he hasn’t been that yet and hopefully never will.
Trickle upsays
is beneath you, Christopher.
I’m not writing about Brown’s title, but about EMILY’s role in his winning it.
Brown was extremely fortunate in his choice of opponent, and it looks as though EMILY is hell-bent on giving Baker the same advantage.
I was asking for clarification, that’s all. I had no idea if it were a nonsequeter because I did not know what you were talking about. You said they lost you at Senator Brown and as you gave no background I interpreted it the way I did. If you had refered to Coakley in your original comment that would have been better, though as I recall Coakley was the only person who qualified for their endorsement in that election. Next time a simple restatement rather than attacking me will suffice.
Trickle upsays
I’d like to say that thinking faster than I type is beneath me, but apparently it isn’t.
I think Emily’s List’s tactics are unfortunate to say the least. This reminds me a little of the Scott Brown ad comparing himself to JFK. The point may have more to do with all the free publicity they hope to garner from the moral indignation of people like us.
For the less knowledgeable voters, “Emily’s List” is still a positive brand, and now more people know about their support of Clark than might have otherwise, since how many people actually even bother to look at political mail anymore?
Christophersays
Her statement about not endorsing anyone still holds of course, but if I were her I’d be kind of flattered that candidates want to be associated with me.
Emily’s List paid for mailings on 9/30, 10/4, 10/8, an 10/10 supporting Clark. Total money spent on the four mailings: $109,716
The FEC shows that Emily’s list doesn’t have to file its monthly report for contributions ending on September 30 until October 17. So much for finding out where money came from before the election. This is a nice way to get around the Massachusetts state law which requires candidates to disclose contributions 8 days before any election.
bluewatchsays
This page from OpenSecrets also shows money paid to an organization called “Brushfire Strategies”. According to their web-page, Brushfire does robo-calls, and specializes in get-out-the-vote activities. So, will we see some robo-calls telling voters that there is a link between Senator Warren and Katherine Clark?
Christophersays
Federal law governs campaign finances while state law would for state offices.
dracutfiresays
What I should have probably said is that the use of a PAC could help a candidate get around contribution limits that apply to an individual candidate. I guess it is possible with Citizens United that a single person could fund these mailings.
That is, if we are to believe Open Secrets, which collects some but not all of the data – because reporting from PACs and candidates is not quite uniform. These big donors are not located in Mass. They were probably brushed for dollars with a promise that the funds will be spent fighting against Republicans in far away states.
That’s why we need transparency above all – and the kind of reporting done by Open Secrets needs to be done real time by the Federal Elections Commission. Also, strict limits on donations are needed to ensure that the free speech from the less affluent is not drowned out.
If you look closely at Citizens United, nowhere does it say that political donations can’t be regulated or constrained under a dollar limit as a matter of principle. It is up to Congress to legislate those limits, but the pols in Congress are too busy dialing for dollars to think of amending the federal election laws.
dracutfiresays
We may find out in a week or two if any new funds came in the last 2 weeks of the campaign as a result of this. The link you provided is good but does not yet cover the period from july to september.
elias-nugatorsays
I don’t rightly know if doubling down on women’s issues is the right call for Citizen Clark, however it is indicative that everyone with a shot at the MA 05 democratic nomination is bracing for a very very close race with a meagre plurality as the prize. A mere 1% could decide the whole thing which will be conditioned by low turnout and massive distractions political and otherwise…
I could be wrong though.
Elias N
woburndemsays
I had supported Katherine Clark initially but, have come to see that she has a side I never saw before, the ad is totally false and misleading and the fact that she has not come out and commented appropriately tells me something about here character. Allowing it to stand with all the speculation that swirls around it is to foster a Lie. Now bad enough we all say lying is rule one in Washington but for me to have the Candidate lie to my face through her own words or those of someone bankrolling her, well I have to wonder what else is a lie and why do I want some one who has lost my trust. No I will not support Katherine instead I will support a candidate who has really impressed me, I am supporting Carl Sciortino. I have posted as much last week on my facebook and here today. Katherine you lost my vote and 5 others in my family for lying. Its just that simple.
Christophersays
Did Clark say Warren endorsed her? No, neither did EMILY’s List for that matter. Lying is by definition a sin of commission not omission. Your comment is way off base even compared to others that have been critical of the mailer and Clark’s lack of response. An accusation of lying should only be used in the most extreme circumstances where you can prove the other person actually lied.
woburndemsays
When a candidate allows or approves a group to speak for them the content ultimately is the responsibility of the candidate. That concept has been blurred of late with so many groups running in with their money to support a given candidate. Katherine allowed this piece and others that inferred and endorsement. By the nature of this discussion and those on many other sights the pieces were taken that was. Further evidence to that fact is Senator Warrens posts on many sights ( Facebook) that has her statement that she has not endorsed any candidate. If Katherine was not trying to judge would it hurt her or help her so she has remained silent hoping to see a benefit then her silence is ultimately a lie. Knowing full well the piece has been perceived in a way that is factually untrue. If we refuse to hold a candidate who through silence does not set the facts straight then when will it be clear what is fact and fiction. Katherine could have come out and said that no one is endorsed by Senator Warren but I will make a true team mate for her in Washington. Simple easy and accurate. She did not do that (or something along those lines) which is just one key reason why she lost my support. Yes a candidate who allows fiction to persist is lying by omission and lying is lying no matter how you choose to nuance it.
is this mailer also from EMILY’s List? The photo doesn’t indicate who sent it.
Paid for by WOMEN VOTE! http://www.womenvoteproject.org. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s comittee.
Also, I fixed your link. đŸ™‚
which originally said the mailer was “on behalf of” Katherine Clark. It’s supporting Clark, but it is from EMILY’s List, and the mailer is not authorized by Clark’s campaign.
Even guys will read this mailer, gives off a whiff of nostalgia when I collected cards back in the 70’s. It’s brilliant.
It’s deceptive. And, it represents continued deception.
Clark could have asked Emily’s List to stop these mailings. She also could have made a public statement. Her silence about these mailings speaks volumes.
Besides Clark, many other candidates have Warren supporters working for them. We are very, very, angry about these deceptive mailings and Clark’s silence.
No need for a downrating there.
And yes I know nobody cares.
“We are lucky to have a number of great candidates running in the fifth congressional district. I look forward to working with whoever wins the Democratic nomination in next week’s primary election. Let me be clear, I’m not endorsing any of these great candidates before Tuesday’s election.”
I disagree with bluewatch though. Since the ads come from a third party I don’t think a candidate needs to be accountable for or respond to something supporters say. If that were the standard it could get to the point that there is no room or time for anything else.
The ad implies an endorsement or, at least, a close relationship.
Many people who get this mailer won’t even notice that it came from a third party.
And, yes, candidates make statements all the time about actions of their supporters, especially when they are outrageous. This mailer is outrageous.
Ill-advised would be a better term. Elsewhere people are saying Clark should clarify the Globe’s statements in its endorsements regarding wiretapping. Really, the expectation that candidates babysit, handhold, and clean up the messes of supporters other than paid campaign spokespeole strikes me as ridiculous.
The previous mailer they sent PO’d a lot of people for doing the same thing. The reaction? Rinse and repeat. Hence outrageous.
The famous definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result, so that sounds like the word you’re looking for. Outrageous is making insinuations about a persons character. Implying that liking one official will likely lead you to like another candidate as well, not so much.
you just don’t screw around with endorsement stuff like this in mailers. It ALWAYS creates outrage when there’s a goof. Outrage on these matters is real and tensions are high.
Some people’s outrage may be real, but IMO grossly misplaced, and there is no “endorsement stuff” here as no endorsement was made by EW or claimed by EMILY’s List.
This isn’t some random lone wolf using ill-advised tactics. This is a large, rich, national organization who did something tawdry and surely gained the notice of the campaign. The candidate said nothing, which tacitly signals approval to do it again.
I don’t blame Clark for the first time this happened. But the fact that it happened again is entirely, 100%, her fault.
It makes more sense for Warren to clarify her position which she has.
…business as usual? I agree with your points, but it’s been done over and over again and, unless there is some huge shift in the status quo, it will continue to happen.
After all, this issue involves Senator Warren, and it implies a relationship that doesn’t exist. It’s pretty easy to issue a statement. All it takes is for her campaign manager to tweat something. It would take no more than one minute.
It should end there. Back to the issues please.
Seems like it won’t end since it seems like Clark and Emily’s List will continue these ridiculous tactics. If Clark wasn’t your candidate you’d be outraged. I want to like Clark, a lot of activists I respect are supporting her, but actions like this and the incongruity of her positions on civil liberties give me pause. Sabutai is absolutely right, a leader would call this out and stop it, and she has yet to do that.
Sciortino is my preference with Spilka second and Clark down at fourth, though not being in the district I’m not involved in this race. I just think people are being terribly unfair to Clark and when I see unfairness I say so. EMILY’s List may continue to engage in these tactics, but this isn’t at all on Clark. It’s illegal to coordinate remember, and I have yet to see anyone proffer evidence of illegal coordination.
If MA-5 wants to elect a leader, rather than a face in the crowd, this speaks volumes. A leader speaks up when wrong things are being done. In this case, something wrong is being done in the candidate’s name.
I’ve Ben out all day canvassing, so I haven’t been online until now. Thank you, Christopher, for posting Senator Warren’s very clear and appropriate statement.
While it does not seem that Clark had anything to do with these ads, she is absolutely responsible for managing the use of her own image. Failure to say anything about the mailers is a tacit approval. It is disappointing that she could not figure out a diplomatic way to respond to this.
I can understand why people would object to this, but I still think it falls shy of implying endorsement. No mailer would fail to note an endorsement explicitly, with no room for doubt.
The more research I do on Clark’s state house record, the more I am finding out some school funding stances she took which benefit mostly wealthy districts… and ironically would do little for the school districts that she purports to represent, and nothing for her home town of Melrose.
The editor of the Melrose Patch was apparently onto this:
http://melrose.patch.com/groups/editors-picks/p/clark-sponsored-provision-in-casino-bill-won-t-boost-d5b2bbd76b
She introduced a successful amendment to divert large amounts of Casino revenue to Camridge, Woburn, Brookine, Newton, and Framingham but provide no money to Dracut, Revere, Malden, or her home town. The globe ran a list on which school districts would get a Chapter 70 casino windfall: http://www.boston.com/business/specials/casino_revenue
In the current legislative session, Clark has another bill S.211, which would also give no money to her home town but would benefit even a smaller select group of wealthy districts. I blogged about this on Friday and am seeking additional info for a followup article.
I sort of agree with dracutfire, but there are substantive points where I disagree.
First, the 1993 education reform act was based on the principle that an adequate education comes with a price tag that can be calculated through a formula that produces a foundation budget. In 1993, a school district could provide an adequate education at the foundation level, but the foundation budget failed to increase at the same rate the costs of providing an education increased. That’s why many school districts imposed and increased fees to support items that were in the initial foundation budget, including athletics, extra-curricular activities, and transportation. Fees really escalated after 2001, particularly after Mitt Romney slashed 20% from most districts’ Chapter 70 funds in his first year in office.
I am not supporting Clark*, but to be fair she is trying to find funding to support a commitment to fulfilling a promise to provide a minimum of 17.5% of foundation in Chapter 70 aid. It is just one of the unfunded commitments made to school districts, commitments that include 100% funding for transportation for cities and towns who join in a regional school district.
I would advocate fulfilling a plethora of commitments to the children of Massachusetts, from the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth to educate our children, to the legislative commitments that cities and towns received as partners in the work of providing that education. We need more money in Chapter 70, and we need to apply it to a foundation formula based on the true cost of providing an adequate education.
Would I advocate for sending more money to Lexington? Not at the expense of other towns. I also wouldn’t advocate targeting money to a town that has a track record of funding schools at less than the minimum local contribution established under education reform.
*I’m with Brownsberger, but I like the other folks in the race.
Still I wonder why Clark had to be the sole sponsor of that bill in 2011 and in the current session (S.211). I agree with you that towns should be held accountable too for underfunding their education. In fact Dracut should probably have to pay more and a lot of people in Dracut are willing to have their taxes raised.
However what was the state’s commitment to general local aid? That was cut by $1 million in my town and it wasn’t restored. Did the legislature have a commitment to restore the general local aid too? I would rather see my town get the local aid restored first which would free up funds for education… then see the restoration of aid that is earmarked for those wealthy towns that really are in no budget crisis to begin with.
The cowardly legislature would rather sit around and push the problem down to the local level, rather than take responsibility and generate enough level at the state level. Let the elected municipal officials get their teeth kicked in for asking for overrides instead.
I don’t make a lot of money, but I gave to Emily’s List. Never again. This makes me so angry and smells like Clark will do anything to win. That sounds desperate and like she can pretend to distance herself. I know her campaign can’t talk directly to Emily’s List, but her donors are involved with both.
My hunch, Carl Scortino is closing the gap and drawing from Clark and the establishment behind Clark is playing low and dirty. Carl is also more like
Elizabeth Warren than Clark. Both are real progressives. I bet EW is pretty angry about this. I wouldn’t ask her to headline an event at Emily’s
List anytime soon.
Maybe EMILY’s List is, but they are within their rights since the People’s Pledge doesn’t for whatever reason cover mailings. PCCC which endorsed Sciortino has made Clark their primary target so it may be that Clark appreciates the help. Really though, it sounds like a lot of people are forgetting the law and how to read. The law says they can’t coordinate and the mailer does not say Warren endorsed her. If her donors are involved with both then maybe they actually like what is happening.
What is the dollar amount spent on the 2 mailings? Assume they each went to 100K households, well that is going to cost at least $125,000. Meanwhile, no one has put a dollar figure on this online ad but we may be talking 2% of the cost of this recent mailer.
What is very clear to me is that Clark has made friends with some very wealthy philanthropists. It is very possible that one or two of them funded the entire mailing. Ambassador Swanee Hunt (see hunt alternatives fund) is most likely a billionaire, her web site says her donations thus far have exceeded $120 million. She is a daughter of oil billionaire HL Hunt and her brother was one of the major financial backers of George W. Bush. Her channeling of funds to feminist groups is a good thing, don’t get me wrong. But it is not really grassroots by any stretch. I attended a breakfast at her mansion a decade ago… at the time women who worked for her told me it was a crazy place to work, there was very little continuity and the staff was jumping at the whims of whatever their boss decided to need work on that day.
Hunt hosted a Cambridge reception at her 168 Brattle St. home on September 30, 2012, for Emily’s list.
http://emilyslist.org/content/donation-template-cambridge-reception
So presumably that is where the money for these mailings came from.
No doubt that Clark would be a progressive voice, but other candidates have a more solid grassroots record than she does, and more experience in the state legislature. She has been reelected twice… Sciortino and Spilka four times.
Just don’t overlook Clark’s position on Chapter 70 K-12 school spending. The first FY14 budget proposal was going to give $4,116,871 to Cambridge, which doesn’t need it as they already spend $25,000 per pupil within the district. Clark, former Melrose school committee chair, has been the point person for giving Cambridge these additional funds.
Belmont spends just over $11,000, Watertown just over $15,000, Waltham just over $18,000 by comparison. Melrose spends $10,777. Clark failed to deliver for her home town which had the lowest per pupil spending in FY12 in any town in Middlesex county. So how can we we expect her to deliver for Massachusetts?
The date was September 30, 2013 for the Hunt Emily’s List Reception. That was a typo, sorry. http://emilyslist.org/content/donation-template-cambridge-reception
[correction: I had said Middlesex county before]
Correct: Clark failed to deliver for her home town which had the lowest per pupil spending in FY12 in any town in the 5th CD
Not looking forward to Governor Baker, either.
Honestly, this bit of opportunism, jumping in at last minute to back the leading candidate with a butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-her-mouth lie, is the cleverest thing EMILY has ever done.
Did EMILY’s List call Scott Brown “Senator”? If so that’s perfectly appropriate as his highest ranking title and I use it too. I assume they did not call Baker “Governor” since he hasn’t been that yet and hopefully never will.
is beneath you, Christopher.
I’m not writing about Brown’s title, but about EMILY’s role in his winning it.
Brown was extremely fortunate in his choice of opponent, and it looks as though EMILY is hell-bent on giving Baker the same advantage.
Not a fan.
I was asking for clarification, that’s all. I had no idea if it were a nonsequeter because I did not know what you were talking about. You said they lost you at Senator Brown and as you gave no background I interpreted it the way I did. If you had refered to Coakley in your original comment that would have been better, though as I recall Coakley was the only person who qualified for their endorsement in that election. Next time a simple restatement rather than attacking me will suffice.
I’d like to say that thinking faster than I type is beneath me, but apparently it isn’t.
With this.
I think Emily’s List’s tactics are unfortunate to say the least. This reminds me a little of the Scott Brown ad comparing himself to JFK. The point may have more to do with all the free publicity they hope to garner from the moral indignation of people like us.
For the less knowledgeable voters, “Emily’s List” is still a positive brand, and now more people know about their support of Clark than might have otherwise, since how many people actually even bother to look at political mail anymore?
Her statement about not endorsing anyone still holds of course, but if I were her I’d be kind of flattered that candidates want to be associated with me.
Check this out:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?cmte=C00473918&cycle=2014
Emily’s List paid for mailings on 9/30, 10/4, 10/8, an 10/10 supporting Clark. Total money spent on the four mailings: $109,716
The FEC shows that Emily’s list doesn’t have to file its monthly report for contributions ending on September 30 until October 17. So much for finding out where money came from before the election. This is a nice way to get around the Massachusetts state law which requires candidates to disclose contributions 8 days before any election.
This page from OpenSecrets also shows money paid to an organization called “Brushfire Strategies”. According to their web-page, Brushfire does robo-calls, and specializes in get-out-the-vote activities. So, will we see some robo-calls telling voters that there is a link between Senator Warren and Katherine Clark?
Federal law governs campaign finances while state law would for state offices.
What I should have probably said is that the use of a PAC could help a candidate get around contribution limits that apply to an individual candidate. I guess it is possible with Citizens United that a single person could fund these mailings.
Yes it is possible for one person to fund all these mailings, but the onus is on Congress to close that loophole.
These are the big donors to Women Vote:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2014&cmte=C00473918
That is, if we are to believe Open Secrets, which collects some but not all of the data – because reporting from PACs and candidates is not quite uniform. These big donors are not located in Mass. They were probably brushed for dollars with a promise that the funds will be spent fighting against Republicans in far away states.
That’s why we need transparency above all – and the kind of reporting done by Open Secrets needs to be done real time by the Federal Elections Commission. Also, strict limits on donations are needed to ensure that the free speech from the less affluent is not drowned out.
If you look closely at Citizens United, nowhere does it say that political donations can’t be regulated or constrained under a dollar limit as a matter of principle. It is up to Congress to legislate those limits, but the pols in Congress are too busy dialing for dollars to think of amending the federal election laws.
We may find out in a week or two if any new funds came in the last 2 weeks of the campaign as a result of this. The link you provided is good but does not yet cover the period from july to september.
I don’t rightly know if doubling down on women’s issues is the right call for Citizen Clark, however it is indicative that everyone with a shot at the MA 05 democratic nomination is bracing for a very very close race with a meagre plurality as the prize. A mere 1% could decide the whole thing which will be conditioned by low turnout and massive distractions political and otherwise…
I could be wrong though.
Elias N
I had supported Katherine Clark initially but, have come to see that she has a side I never saw before, the ad is totally false and misleading and the fact that she has not come out and commented appropriately tells me something about here character. Allowing it to stand with all the speculation that swirls around it is to foster a Lie. Now bad enough we all say lying is rule one in Washington but for me to have the Candidate lie to my face through her own words or those of someone bankrolling her, well I have to wonder what else is a lie and why do I want some one who has lost my trust. No I will not support Katherine instead I will support a candidate who has really impressed me, I am supporting Carl Sciortino. I have posted as much last week on my facebook and here today. Katherine you lost my vote and 5 others in my family for lying. Its just that simple.
Did Clark say Warren endorsed her? No, neither did EMILY’s List for that matter. Lying is by definition a sin of commission not omission. Your comment is way off base even compared to others that have been critical of the mailer and Clark’s lack of response. An accusation of lying should only be used in the most extreme circumstances where you can prove the other person actually lied.
When a candidate allows or approves a group to speak for them the content ultimately is the responsibility of the candidate. That concept has been blurred of late with so many groups running in with their money to support a given candidate. Katherine allowed this piece and others that inferred and endorsement. By the nature of this discussion and those on many other sights the pieces were taken that was. Further evidence to that fact is Senator Warrens posts on many sights ( Facebook) that has her statement that she has not endorsed any candidate. If Katherine was not trying to judge would it hurt her or help her so she has remained silent hoping to see a benefit then her silence is ultimately a lie. Knowing full well the piece has been perceived in a way that is factually untrue. If we refuse to hold a candidate who through silence does not set the facts straight then when will it be clear what is fact and fiction. Katherine could have come out and said that no one is endorsed by Senator Warren but I will make a true team mate for her in Washington. Simple easy and accurate. She did not do that (or something along those lines) which is just one key reason why she lost my support. Yes a candidate who allows fiction to persist is lying by omission and lying is lying no matter how you choose to nuance it.