To recap the ongoing saga of the People’s Pledge in the race for Attorney General: early on, both candidates made generally supportive statements about signing a People’s Pledge. Then, last Thursday, Maura Healey signed the version of the Pledge used in the Ed Markey/Steve Lynch Senate primary (which covers direct mail) and sent it off to Warren Tolman, asking him to sign it. Tolman, to my knowlege, did not directly respond to Healey’s overture. Instead, on Monday, he signed his own Pledge, this one based on the earlier Elizabeth Warren/Scott Brown version (which does not cover direct mail), and sent it off to Healey.
Healey rejected Tolman’s offer thusly in a comment here on BMG (posted Monday evening) that went beyond the statement released to the press:
Having seen bans like this fail over posturing and disagreements, our campaign decided when we proposed the pledge last week to take the strongest recent use in Massachusetts – the one used by Senator Markey and Congressman Lynch. All we did was sub out the names and office sought. We’d be glad to include robocalls to make it even stronger and will put that on the table as we discuss.
This new proposal by Warren Tolman is disappointing and I hope he changes his mind. Copied below is our statement to the media this evening.
“I’m disappointed that Warren Tolman is choosing a skim milk version of the People’s Pledge over the stronger version I signed and sent him last week. It’s more than a little surprising to see this gamesmanship from a candidate who never fails to mention his clean elections history from a decade ago. Voters want the real deal, not clean elections lite. Our campaign for Attorney General deserves nothing less. Senator Warren’s pledge was good, Senator Markey and Congressman Lynch improved on the original agreement and made it stronger. Banning direct mail by outside groups is a critically important element to any pledge. The stronger version already has my signature on it. I hope Warren Tolman will join me.”
Personally, I found the “skim milk” and “clean elections lite” comments to be a tad over-the-top, but I continue not to understand why Tolman doesn’t seem to want to include direct mail in a Pledge, and as far as I know he’s made no public comment on that question.
Anyway, today saw the inevitable battle of the press releases (email, no links). First Tolman:
Representatives from the Tolman campaign and the Healey campaign met on Tuesday to discuss keeping outside independent expenditure groups off the airwaves in the Democratic primary for Attorney General. Tolman released a statement following Maura Healey’s refusal to sign the People’s Pledge.
“I am very disappointed that Maura Healey has refused to sign the People’s Pledge, which effectively dissuaded outside independent expenditure groups from airing negative ads in both the 2012 U.S. Senate race and the 2013 Democratic primary in the Fifth Congressional District. It’s unfortunate that the Pledge, which worked so well for U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and great progressives like U.S. Rep. Katherine Clark, Carl Sciortino, Peter Koutoujian, Will Brownsberger, and Karen Spilka, will not work for Maura Healey. I hope she reconsiders so we can lead the way on this issue.”
OK, on the one hand, it is technically true that Healey has refused to sign the Brown/Warren/MA-5 version of the Pledge, which didn’t include direct mail. But on the other, she has signed a stronger version that includes direct mail, and that was signed by Ed Markey and Steve Lynch in their primary, and Tolman’s statement does not mention that fact. So, on balance, Tolman’s statement gets a “half true at best” rating.
And then Healey (via her campaign manager, Mike Firestone):
“Throughout this campaign and in her career, Maura has set the standard for transparency and openness – challenging Warren Tolman to a series of five debates, publishing her candidate questionnaires on our website, and being the first to call for and sign a strong People’s Pledge to ban outside money. The Tolman campaign talks the talk on transparency but is trying to build in a million-dollar loophole. That’s not walking the walk. The pledge from Warren Tolman’s campaign is modeled on the first one ever written and is clearly weaker than the one used by Senator Markey and Congressman Lynch in the most recent statewide campaign to adopt a pledge. Maura knows we can do better. She signed a pledge that bans direct mailing by outside groups and supports adding a provision to ban robocalls by outside groups as well. The Tolman campaign has refused to sign this stronger pledge and won’t explain their objections, hiding behind vague statements and bluster. The voters deserve better and we hope Democrats will join us in pressuring a candidate who claims to be on the side of clean elections not to hide behind rhetoric or his well-funded outside backers.”
So this is an interesting update: apparently, at a meeting between the campaigns, Healey proposed added robocalls to the Pledge (just as she said she would here on BMG), which would represent the first time they have been included. That strikes me as a clear improvement, because really, everyone hates robocalls. Some of the language in Firestone’s statement is unhelpfully strong (“million dollar loophole,” “well-funded outside backers,” and the like), but for the most part, the statement appears to accurately state what has happened so far. Rating: “mostly true.”
A couple of things are clear to me: first, both candidates support keeping third party advertising off TV, radio, and the internet. Hurray. Second, Healey has offered a stronger proposal that would include direct mail and robocalls. Third, Tolman has so far refused to sign that version, but he has not explained why, and I don’t understand what his objection would be.
So, as of now, advantage Healey. She’s put a stronger proposal on the table, and Tolman hasn’t explained why he won’t sign it, instead putting out a statement that seems designed to encourage the reader to think that Healey is against signing any sort of pledge. That, of course, would be misleading the reader.
Seems to me that Tolman ought either to make the case publicly why including direct mail and robocalls is a bad idea, or just sign the thing and move on. The percentage of voters that care who first floated the ultimately-successful proposal is tiny, but the percentage that will benefit from a signed agreement is approximately 100.
This makes both candidates look bad. Tolman a bit more than Healey, but both overall. It looks exactly like what it is: public grandstanding in order to score points. It isn’t scoring any points with this voter.
So do what you should have done in the first place: Work this out in private, hold a joint presser when you are ready to sign, and quit trying to make it a wedge issue. There are way more important issues that could be using the newspaper and blog space.
It’s like watching two kids have a mudfight when there is a fort to be built.
the last thing Tolman should do is take his case publicly. He’ll keep the Warren/Brown version on the table and Healey can either decide to walk away from the pledge altogether which for all her posturing will make her look very bad, could you image if she didn’t sign to keep outside money out of the campaign now? Or she would agree and sign it.
I personally like robocall and mailers included in the pledge, but it doesn’t appear like that’s going to happen. So what do to? More press releases?
mostly because I genuinely don’t understand why Tolman seems unwilling to sign the stronger version. Shouldn’t he say why he won’t do so, instead of just stonewalling?
like Marty Walsh he would like unions to continue with the direct mailers.
It’s not a secret that Walsh aggravated me by rejecting the pledge altogether.
So now we know, both want the pledge, and keep radio and tv ads out. That’s great. Healey wants to include robocalls and mailers, Tolman doesn’t.
Elizabeth Warren is not stupid, she knew what she signed. Elizabeth Warren got BMGs support, Marty Walsh got BMGs support. I think it’s because of the total package of the candidate not the specifics of the pledge.
So we got it, what else are we going to learn here.
n/t
I certainly think that direct mail should be included. We have a model of a people’s pledge in a Democratic Primary that worked and was a clear improvement over the previous version.
n/t
Old school.
Maybe they could exchange a series of handwritten policy memos.
As David points out, Maura has not only proposed the strongest possible Peoples’ Pledge but she has put her candidate questionnaires up on her website. Now she has released her tax returns. The key thing for me, as a progressive, is that our candidates and elected officials do the right thing. Speculating about why they do those things may be interesting but it doesn’t detract, in my mind, from the actions themselves. A
As some people on this site have already pointed out, direct mail is a way for unions to get involved in a race like this. Now, I understand why Healey would want to keep unions out of the race (they’re almost entirely with Tolman), but union involvement worked well for Elizabeth Warren, and I think saying that a version of the People’s Pledge that excludes unions is ‘stronger’ is probably not something that we, as Democrats, want to do.
I think we should be careful about our terminology. Nothing about any People’s Pledge excludes any particular sort of outside group; they apply equally to all groups that aren’t the candidates themselves. So, sure, unions might find direct mail to non-members (communications with their members are a different matter, as explained elsewhere) a useful way to run political advertising; other groups might (and do) as well. And, in addition, unions can and do run TV ads and other forms of advertising (e.g., the race for Mayor of Boston saw lots of union-sponsored TV ads, and we are already seeing them in the race for Governor). So I think it’s not accurate to describe a pledge that encompasses direct mail as one that “excludes unions.”
The race for Mayor didn’t have a peoples pledge and neither does the race for Governor at present. Wouldn’t either version of the pledge the AG candidates are discussing ban t.v ads from unions? Are they not PACs or outside groups? If direct mail and robocalls were banned, what kind of advertising could unions direct towards non-members?
I think that last question might be what is holding this whole thing up.
Evertalen seemed to be arguing that the “strong” version of the pledge uniquely burdens unions. I’m saying I don’t think that’s really true. Either version of the pledge would apply to TV ads from unions or from any other outside groups; the Healey (“strong”) version would also apply to direct mail from unions and from other outside groups.
To answer your last question: if the strong version were adopted, and direct mail and robocalls were included, then presumably neither unions nor any other outside groups could direct any sort of mass media advertising to anyone (setting aside unions communicating with their members), without violating the pledge. Which would seem to be exactly the point. Of course, both unions and other groups can still go door to door, work on GOTV, etc.
I know that we Dems are supposed to love unions and I do, by and large. (They’re not perfect, mind you.) But I don’t understand why we as Dem voters should want to leave a loophole in a People’s Pledge that could be utilized by “education reformers” or The Chamber of Commerce or any other outside group that we don’t particularly like just so that said loophole can also be utilized by unions. Isn’t the point to limit outside money and force any attacks to come from the candidates themselves? How does leaving a direct mail loophole help in this regard?
There would be no way to do a loophole like that, and it’s doubtful Healey would agree to such a loophole since it’s not like she is getting any additional union voters by agreeing to it and what she is getting is significant advertising against her or for her competitor.
The best way for Tolman to move forward is to sign her version of the pledge, or insist that his version is better since it allows for unions to have a say and put Healey on the defensive over unions.
It’s a legitimate controversy. Walsh is a significantly more economically populist and progressive Mayor than Connolly would’ve been, and it is unclear if he’d have been able to beat Connolly’s big money connections without that union support. Until we adopt a public financing system like New York City’s, it is difficult for the candidate of labor to choose to unilaterally disarm in primary’s like this one. And I suspect that is what is holding up Tolman. Healey has basically backed him into a corner, forcing him to make a choice, that he views as a false one, between having the cleanest election possible and being the candidate of labor. He should frankly articulate the case in that manner.
It’s bilateral.
It in no way stop’s Tolman from “being the candidate of labor.” It just stops labor from pumping outside money into the campaign. But it stops every other outside group, including those acting as fronts for “big money,” from doing the same. And that’s the whole point.
What other big money groups will be investing in direct mail in the primary? I don’t think either candidate has the backing of any big money fronts, though I’m sure we can research their donors to find out. It seems that labor made a big difference for Walsh and could make a big difference for Tolman.
I am not suggesting he shouldn’t take Healey’s version-merely pointing out that his reluctance to do so is legitimate and doesn’t hurt his credibility as a clean elections candidate-unless we think unions and Emily’s List are dirty. Healey has played a brilliant tactical game with this so far, we will see how Tolman responds.
was a question from the Herald about a new SuperPAC that was formed to support LGBT candidates. So it’s not as if Tolman is the only one with anything to lose by signing a pledge.
Maura is clearly independent and not beholden. She is a first time candidate who is willing to do everything possible to be forthcoming. She didn’t have to release her taxes or what she told all those endorsement groups. She made everything public. She has nothing to hide. I am more and more impressed.
Why Tolman will not sign is beyond me. He should.
“I am very disappointed that Maura Healey has refused to sign the People’s Pledge….”? Really? You want us to vote for you after being fed that intentionally misleading pile of garbage? I don’t think so. You don’t want to sign the stronger pledge? Fine. But don’t let me catch you deliberately trying to mislead the public about your opponent. If you’re willing to essentially lie to us about this one, what else are you willing to lie us about?
I expected more from Tolman and had been leaning his way. Not any more.
Healey and Tolman both alluded to the People’s Pledge and noted they were going to discuss.
Then afterwards the Healey campaign put out a press release. With that I think is the version that they didn’t get positive feedback from the Tolman campaign. A little gamesmanship from the Healey campaign. The Tolman campaign responded in kind to Healey. I think that pretty close to what happened.
The takeaway here is both have feisty campaigns. This “I have lost all respect …” blah blah blah. Please.
Its wording is deceptive and would tend to lead a reader who was not following this subject closely to believe that Healey was refusing to sign any and all versions of the People’s Pledge rather than simply the version that the Tolman camp preferred. Hence David rating it as “half true at best” [emphasis mine].
And, as a matter of courtesy between fellow members of the BMG community, I would ask you to please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Nowhere in my previous comment will you find me saying that “I have lost all respect [for Tolman].” I’m simply no longer leaning in his direction. I really don’t like the way his team is choosing to handle this and it has turned me off. But that’s a far cry from having lost all respect for the man.
The Tolman release does strike me as somewhat misleading, as I noted in my post. In contrast, the Healey release, though overstated in places, seems basically accurate.
Tolman makes the claim here on BMG and on FaceBook. Please, she proposed a pledge that was more comprehensive than the one he proposed. Making statements like that cheapens Tolman and his campaign.
Healey is running incredibly transparent campaign. She released her taxes. She posted the answers to the questionnaires.
Healey will make an awesome Attorney General. She already has experience running half the office. She is smart, a leader, and she has a vision for what she can do as AG. She has never run for office before yet she is running an excellent campaign that she has a really good chance of winning.
I found Maura Healey’s work at the AG’s office to be truly inspirational (and humbling) – – taking on predatory lenders and DOMA with perfect poise and confidence. When I heard she was running for AG, I was thrilled. Had she run a mediocre campaign, I would have understood since she’s never run a campaign before (though she did run much of the AG’s office, which I suppose is a bit more demanding). But Maura hasn’t run a mediocre campaign. Instead, she assembled a lean but incredibly impressive team that has run precisely the type of bold, clean, and transparent campaign that reflects the tireless commitment to justice that she demonstrated while trailblazing at the AG’s office. Maura has certainly raised the bar regarding what we should expect from candidates in terms of their competence, dedication, and transparency. Bravo!
More mailers mean more coated stock to recycle, more trucks hauling heavy paper and putting more CO2 into the environment and more nasty messages for which a candidate can avoid responsibility.
Is anyone here in favor?
And frankly, Tolman referring to “the People’s Pledge that Elizabeth Warren stood up for” as the one he endorses without acknowledging the difference between it and the one Healey proposed is a misdirection. It may be part of campaigning, but I’m allergic to it.
or advertising or even negative advertising. It just creates a mechanism where 3rd-party attacks are costly to the unattacked candidate. So the campaigns have to do their own dirty work.
This seems to cut down on the dirty work pretty well. Maybe it also cuts down on mailers, but maybe not.
Spot on!
And appreciate her stronger version and the inclusion of robocalls. I do wish the campaign would cut some of the self righteous language that I see cropping up recently, like here. It’s off putting, and IMV, unnecessary. You can keep to fundamental principles without being self-righteous about it.
Per Common Cause email (no link)