This isn’t rocket science. Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey and Steve Lynch proved that the People’s Pledge works.
Yesterday I stood in front of City Hall to renew my call for all candidates running to replace Tom Menino to sign on to an agreement to prevent outside special interest groups from meddling in the race. Boston needs a mayor who is beholden to the people, not outside groups who care more about their own agenda than the City of Boston.
I’m calling it the Boston Pledge and it’s modeled after the groundbreaking agreement reached between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown last year. Senator-elect Ed Markey and Rep. Steve Lynch also agreed to ban on third-party advertisements in their primary earlier this year.
After studying the effect of the People’s Pledge on the Brown/Warren race, Pam Wilmot of Common Cause said “there is every reason for such a pledge to regulate Massachusetts elections from now on—and if popular support is strong enough, it will.”
I agree with Pam. Outside special interests pushing their own agendas shouldn’t get to decide who replaces Tom Menino, Boston voters should decide.
This is the first wide-open race for Mayor of Boston in this post-Citizens United world we live in and I’m worried that agenda-driven outside special interest groups will dump enough cash into this race to dominate it unless we all agree that Boston is not for sale.
Under the Boston Pledge, candidates who benefit from advertising by outside groups would agree to make a donation from their campaign to the One Fund for 50 percent of the amount spent by the outside group. If outside groups try to interfere with this election, proceeds from the Boston Pledge will go to the One Fund to provide continuing assistance to victims of the Boston marathon bombing.
Here’s the full text of the Boston Pledge that I am asking all of my fellow candidates to sign:
The Boston Pledge
Because outside third party organizations – including but not limited to individuals, corporations, 527 organizations, 501(c) organizations, SuperPACs, and national and state party committees – may air, and may continue to air, and/or deliver direct mail and/or print hand delivered independent expenditure advertisements and/or telephone solicitations and issue advertisements and/or telephone solicitations either supporting or attacking any or all of the certified candidates for Mayor of Boston signed below (individually the “Candidate” and collectively the “Candidates”); and
Because these groups function as Independent expenditure organizations that are outside the direct control of any of the Candidates; and
Because the Candidates agree that they do not approve of such independent expenditure advertisements and/or direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements and/or telephone solicitations and want those advertisements and/or direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements and/or telephone solicitations to immediately cease and desist for the duration of the 2013 Boston Mayoral election cycle; and
Because the Candidates recognize that in order to continue to make Boston a national example, and provide the citizens of Boston with an election free of third party Independent expenditure advertisements and/or direct mail, and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations they must be willing to Include an enforcement mechanism that runs not to the third party organizations but instead to the Candidates’ own campaigns:
The Candidates on behalf of their respective campaigns hereby agree to the following:
- In the event that a third party organization airs any independent expenditure broadcast (Including radio), cable, satellite, online advertising, and/or deliver direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations in support of a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate or Candidates, that candidate’s campaign .shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to One Fund.
- In the event that a third party organization airs any Independent expenditure broadcast (including radio), cable, or satellite advertising, online advertising, and/or deliver direct mail and/or printing off hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations in opposition to a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate or Candidates, the opposing Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to One Fund.
- In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast (including radio), cable, or satellite online advertising, and/or deliver direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations that promotes or supports a named, referenced (including by title} or otherwise Identified Candidate or Candidates, that Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to One Fund.
- In the event that a third party organization airs any broadcast (Including radio), cable, or satellite online advertising, and/or deliver direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations that attacks or opposes a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate or Candidates, the opposing Candidate’s campaign shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertising buy to One Fund.
- The Candidates and their campaigns agree that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf shall coordinate with any third party on any paid advertising and/or direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations for the duration of the 2013 Boston Mayoral election cycle. In the event that any Candidate or Candidates or their campaign or anyone acting on their behalf coordinates any paid advertisement and/or direct mail and/or printing of hand delivered advertisements, and/or telephone solicitations with a third party organization that Candidate’s campaign shall pay 50% of the cost of the advertisement buy and/or direct mail cost to One Fund.
Penalties For Breach
In the event that the undersigned Candidate fails to make the charitable donation within the three day time requirement, then the charitable donation shall double the required amount for an additional five days after which if the charitable contribution is not made, then the charitable donation shall increase an additional amount representing an increase of 50% to the immediately preceding required charitable amount.
The Candidates and their campaigns agree to continue to work together to limit the influence of third party advertisements and to close any loopholes (including coverage of sham ads) that arise in this agreement during the course of the campaign.
CANDIDATE SIGNATURE _____________________________________________________________________
– Rob
I don’t get it. If a third party attacks Elizabeth warren, we know it’s to help Scott brown, so he pays the price. If a third party attacks a mayoral candidate, how do we know who they’re supporting? Or does every candidate have to pay in? Seems unfair to those who aren’t well funded. If a third party destroys Connolly and consalvo gets most of the votes Connolly loses, walczak pays the price? This would be a great idea in the general or if it took out the part about opposition ads, but this particular proposal clearly was not well thought out.
While I don’t like the idea of outside parties influencing the race, is there any reason to believe that this is actually going to be a problem in this race? I don’t remember this being a big issue in any past elections.
I am disappointed that your first post here is devoted to a long call for people to take a pledge rather than to discuss your mayoral platform or to talk about issues that Bostonians care about. When there are so many people in the race, I don’t think this pledge is going to have much resonance with the voters and I don’t think this is a great way to differentiate yourself.
Evidence here.
I see nothing there. Please be more specific. I have better things to do than to fish through links to figure out what you are talking about.
The idea of charter advocates spending a gazillion corporate dollars on the race is truly awful and has the potential to distort this election in a big way.
On the other hand, the idea that one of our city’s unions wouldn’t be allowed to go door-to-door for an endorsed candidate, even with their members, seems odd. The idea that a group like (just a for instance) the Sierra Club couldn’t do a mailer on their favorite environmental candidate doesn’t seem to be a good thing. I would think we’d want to know who the environmental candidate(s) in the race are.
There is certainly no evidence of any negative campaigning being at stake. This somehow feels very different than a statewide race with national groups pouring millions of negative ads into our living rooms.
If there was an elected school committee rather than the current patronage system with the Mayor playing benevolent dictator over every aspect of Boston government with Rubber Stamps, then there would be no need for a pledge or a concern about undo influence.
that this is aimed at preventing Emily’s List from airing ads helping Golar Ritchie.
Emily’s List specifically assists prochoice Democratic women and this race is nonpartisan. Plus are we expecting abortion rights to be an issue in this particular campaign?
http://emilyslist.org/news/releases/emilys-list-endorses-charlotte-golar-richie-mayor-boston
emily’s list isn’t just an abortion group. They support efforts to get more women in politics. I don’t know if this is targeted at Charlotte. Probably more at Connolly.
Frankly I’d be far more impressed with Consalvo’s bold stand if he could prove in any way it’s boldness by informing us about which organizational support, mail, contributions, etc. he’s offering to sacrifice for the good of clean special-interest-free elections. If he’s unable to point to anything he’d be giving up, then this whole charade just seems far less about his cool new idea and much more about blunting his opponents potential advantages.