I got a call today from Crossroads to make sure I knew how much federal government money Elizabeth Warren wasted. Is that PAC money being spent on the MA US Senate race?
…is that the agreement covers tv and radio ads, such that those will be limited to what the campaigns themselves produce and include the line, “I’m…and I approve this message. My ruling is that robocalls do not violate the letter, but they do violate the spirit, of the agreement.
Does the People’s Pledge set a precedent, similar to George Romney’s several years of tax return release started that as a presidential “requirement” (which his son disdains)?
Are we going to see this happen in all or most future statewide campaigns?
That would be awesome. And if it works here, it might spread…
As a practical political matter, robocalls are a waste of campaign money, for these reasons (among others):
As a matter of political psychology robocalls are perceived (accurately) to be a form of telemarketing, and repel far more voters than they recruit.
Caller IDs make people less apt to pick up the phone when they don’t know the caller.
Voicemail and answering machines make it likely that robocalls are deleted unheard (particularly if caller ID makes a pickup unlikely).
Many people’s sole means of communication are cell phones, and many of these people have plans where they pay for incoming calls. It’s difficult to underestimate the hostility generated by unsolicited political calls.
Based on the upstream comments, the robocalls haven’t been targeted to likely Brown supporters or undecideds; they will probably work to Warren’s net advantage by firing up her supporters and nudging some undecideds away from Brown (a small percentage, but important in the context of a neck-and-neck race).
On the Brown campaign site tab with the People’s Pledge there is also a link to a pdf memo which says in part:
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Jim Barnett, Campaign Manager
DATE: March 28, 2012
RE: Outside Spending in the Massachusetts Senate Race
It is widely known that Senator Scott Brown and Professor Elizabeth Warren have entered into an agreement, titled The People’s Pledge, that attempts to limit third party spending in Massachusetts by imposing penalties for such spending on the campaigns themselves.
The way it works is simple: if an ad supports a candidate or attacks that candidate’s opponent, the candidate who benefits from the ad must pay 50% of the ad’s cost to charity. The money comes from the candidate’s campaign account.
Therefore, under these terms, Senator Brown is liable for 50% of the cost of any independent expenditure ad or issue ad that supports him or opposes Elizabeth Warren.
Senator Brown has, from the day he signed the Pledge, been crystal clear: he will abide by it. To that end, he has paid a penalty on two separate occasions, in an amount totaling over $35,000.
He has also been clear that he has no intention of violating the Pledge, and expects Elizabeth Warren to do the same. Undoubtedly, since Senator Brown remains extremely popular in Massachusetts, and third party spending had to date favored Warren by a 3‐to‐1 margin, Warren will come under enormous pressure to break her word to the people she seeks to represent.
No one should have any doubt about Senator Brown’s commitment to the Pledge. End quote
So, it seems to me that the language “any independent expenditure ad or issue ad that supports him or opposes Elizabeth” pretty clearly covers mailers and calls. No?
Not to me, anyway. It depends on how you define “ad.” If you widen to mean “any advocacy at all” – sure. But by and large, the accepted definition is “advertising” – ie, media advertising…radio, TV, and we know it extends to internet advertising.
I suppose you could make a case for the direct mail, since they LOOK like advertising I get in the mail for pizza joints and chimney cleanings, but I don’t see that anyone else has made that case.
Certainly, I wish they had thought to explicitly include robocalls, as those can get just as nasty and invasive as ads do. Or moreso.
the AFL-CIO plans to send direct mail to Mass. union families on behalf of Warren. They are doing this in several other Senate races as well.
It appears they’re only sending them to households with a member of an AFL-CIO-affiliated union. As a result the AFL-CIO itself, rather than the PAC, is paying for the mailers.
.
I got one during dinner.
…is that the agreement covers tv and radio ads, such that those will be limited to what the campaigns themselves produce and include the line, “I’m…and I approve this message. My ruling is that robocalls do not violate the letter, but they do violate the spirit, of the agreement.
the campaign wants to hear from you.
Will report it. 🙂
Richard Howe, local Lowell blogger/historian/elected official (Registrar of Deeds), got a robocall, according to his tweet.
MRP (the state party), that’s not a violation right?
are violations. However, both state parties are included in the agreement – neither of them can run TV ads etc.
not part of the Pledge at all though, if’n I recall…
My dog chose THAT piece of mail to take a chunk out of that day. Hahaha.
Does the People’s Pledge set a precedent, similar to George Romney’s several years of tax return release started that as a presidential “requirement” (which his son disdains)?
Are we going to see this happen in all or most future statewide campaigns?
That would be awesome. And if it works here, it might spread…
As a practical political matter, robocalls are a waste of campaign money, for these reasons (among others):
As a matter of political psychology robocalls are perceived (accurately) to be a form of telemarketing, and repel far more voters than they recruit.
Caller IDs make people less apt to pick up the phone when they don’t know the caller.
Voicemail and answering machines make it likely that robocalls are deleted unheard (particularly if caller ID makes a pickup unlikely).
Many people’s sole means of communication are cell phones, and many of these people have plans where they pay for incoming calls. It’s difficult to underestimate the hostility generated by unsolicited political calls.
Based on the upstream comments, the robocalls haven’t been targeted to likely Brown supporters or undecideds; they will probably work to Warren’s net advantage by firing up her supporters and nudging some undecideds away from Brown (a small percentage, but important in the context of a neck-and-neck race).
I’d certainly like to believe that robocalls do not work. I’m willing to believe that they do not work on you.
But is there any research that suggests they do their candidates no good?
On the Brown campaign site tab with the People’s Pledge there is also a link to a pdf memo which says in part:
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Jim Barnett, Campaign Manager
DATE: March 28, 2012
RE: Outside Spending in the Massachusetts Senate Race
It is widely known that Senator Scott Brown and Professor Elizabeth Warren have entered into an agreement, titled The People’s Pledge, that attempts to limit third party spending in Massachusetts by imposing penalties for such spending on the campaigns themselves.
The way it works is simple: if an ad supports a candidate or attacks that candidate’s opponent, the candidate who benefits from the ad must pay 50% of the ad’s cost to charity. The money comes from the candidate’s campaign account.
Therefore, under these terms, Senator Brown is liable for 50% of the cost of any independent expenditure ad or issue ad that supports him or opposes Elizabeth Warren.
Senator Brown has, from the day he signed the Pledge, been crystal clear: he will abide by it. To that end, he has paid a penalty on two separate occasions, in an amount totaling over $35,000.
He has also been clear that he has no intention of violating the Pledge, and expects Elizabeth Warren to do the same. Undoubtedly, since Senator Brown remains extremely popular in Massachusetts, and third party spending had to date favored Warren by a 3‐to‐1 margin, Warren will come under enormous pressure to break her word to the people she seeks to represent.
No one should have any doubt about Senator Brown’s commitment to the Pledge. End quote
So, it seems to me that the language “any independent expenditure ad or issue ad that supports him or opposes Elizabeth” pretty clearly covers mailers and calls. No?
Not to me, anyway. It depends on how you define “ad.” If you widen to mean “any advocacy at all” – sure. But by and large, the accepted definition is “advertising” – ie, media advertising…radio, TV, and we know it extends to internet advertising.
I suppose you could make a case for the direct mail, since they LOOK like advertising I get in the mail for pizza joints and chimney cleanings, but I don’t see that anyone else has made that case.
Certainly, I wish they had thought to explicitly include robocalls, as those can get just as nasty and invasive as ads do. Or moreso.
the AFL-CIO plans to send direct mail to Mass. union families on behalf of Warren. They are doing this in several other Senate races as well.
It appears they’re only sending them to households with a member of an AFL-CIO-affiliated union. As a result the AFL-CIO itself, rather than the PAC, is paying for the mailers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/afl-cio-gop-candidates_n_1921163.html?utm_hp_ref=politics