As you probably know, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) has endorsed Carl Sciortino. They’re fundraising and phonebanking for him, which is all well and good. But what’s not all well and good is this, from my inbox:
PCCC launches online ad campaign highlighting Clark’s record on cutting worker pensions.
…
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is launching ads in the 5th district highlighting Katherine Clark’s record. On Wednesday, the PCCC launched ads focused on Clark’s record of supporting expanded government wiretapping. Today, online ads focused on Clark’s record on worker pensions will be added to the campaign….
The ad campaign will run in the final week and the PCCC is aiming to have the ads seen over one million times by voters in the 5th district.
That’s a big no-no. From the MA-5 People’s Pledge, to which Carl Sciortino (as well as the other four major Democratic candidates) is a signatory (emphasis mine):
In the event that a third party organization airs any independent expenditure broadcast (including radio), cable, satellite or online advertising, in opposition to a named, referenced (including by title) or otherwise identified Candidate, and such third party organization has endorsed a Candidate, the campaign of the Candidate endorsed by that organization shall, within three (3) days of discovery of the advertisement buy’s cost, duration, and source, pay 50% of the cost of that advertisement buy to the One Fund.
An online ad campaign against Clark, by a group that has endorsed Sciortino, falls squarely within that language. PCCC is going to cost Sciortino a bunch of money he probably can’t afford if they go ahead with this. He’d be well advised to urge them to call it off.
UPDATE: I asked PCCC and the Sciortino campaign for comment on this. Here are their statements. From PCCC:
Our ads about Katherine Clark’s votes to expand wiretapping of Massachusetts residents and cut worker pensions are in-kind donations, by definition not an independent expenditure.
There is a candidate violating the first pledge any candidate makes above all else — to represent the people. Katherine Clark endorsed a ‘grand bargain’ that cuts Social Security benefits in today’s Boston Globe, previously voted to cut worker pensions, and proposed expanding the wiretapping of Massachusetts residents. She is the exact opposite of an Elizabeth Warren Democrat, yet has said nothing about an Independent Expenditure spending tens of thousands of dollars on her behalf to intentionally deceive local voters into thinking Warren would come anywhere close to Clark’s corporate positions. Voters who want a strong, reliable progressive working with Elizabeth Warren to represent them in Congress should support Carl Sciortino on October 15.
And from Sciortino spokesman Matt Larson:
This is not a violation because it is an in-kind contribution. We feel it is relevant that voters know about Katherine Clark’s bill to expand wiretapping before casting their votes for the next member of Congress.
This is quite the interesting wrinkle on the whole “independent expenditure” question – and one, I confess, that had not occurred to me. There is a small-print disclaimer on the online ads PCCC is running that looks like this:
If you can’t read it, it says “Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee; Authorized by the Carl Sciortino Committee.” That is quite different from the “not authorized by any candidate” disclaimer that usually appears on third-party advertising. So in this case, PCCC is working directly with the Sciortino campaign on these ads.
As far as I can tell, that is legal, as long as the value of what PCCC is doing for the Sciortino campaign doesn’t exceed its donation limit of $5,000, and it does appear to get around the letter of the People’s Pledge.
Now, is it consistent with the spirit of the People’s Pledge? I’d argue that it’s not. But reasonable people can differ on that, and in any event, the $5,000 limit would effectively serve to prevent any broadcast advertising or other major expenditures sneaking in through the in-kind donation loophole.
PCCC is making a good point about Clark’s support of wiretapping. It’s a reasonable issue to raise, and its honest politics.
David, have you asked PCCC how they are paying for these ads, or what they cost?
I thought that coordination was not allowed and am afraid that could be interpreted as such.
that he doesn’t want third-party ads running on his behalf. People do that all the time. That’s not coordination.
According to PCCC’s response, they have not violated the Pledge.
Perhaps, it’s more important to discuss the issues that they are raising about Katherine Clark. She wants law-enforcement to have expanded wiretapping privileges, and she is willing to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
do you support updating MA’s wiretap laws to make it possible to wiretap in order to investigate gang violence, as two SJC Justices did indeed request? Or is any change in the law a bridge too far?
Katherine Clark’s bill is not just an update. As stated by the ACLU: It’s a broad expansion of the wiretap law to allow law enforcement to listen in to private conversations for virtually any investigative purpose.
“The history of expanding this kind of power advises caution. When law enforcement seeks new ways to investigate people’s private activities, they talk about the need for a narrow ‘update’ and quietly propose major changes. In this case, there’s a lot of talk about guns and gangs, but the proposal would also allow police to eavesdrop when pursuing the most minor of drug offenses.”
I report in detail on why Sen. Clark’s and AG Coakley’s claim to be working on direction from the Supreme Judicial Court on this is weak:
“Clark and Coakley Push Wiretapping Law Update That Supreme Judicial Court Never Really Asked For”
Does that mean it’s no longer independent expenditure online advertising? Why can’t any independent expenditure later be called an in-kind donation?
And, to answer your second question, in-kind donations are subject to the same limits as donations of money. So PCCC can’t donate more than $5,000 worth of services to the Sciortino campaign.
There were a few instances of violations. Why wasn’t this classified as in-kind donation?
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/scott_brown_agrees_to_2nd_dona.html
It was $1,000. Nobody thought to do that?
(You mean Brown/Warren, of course.)
One counts toward campaign spending limits , the other doesn’t. 5k In kind means pccc can’t contribute anything else to carl’s campaign.
Seems like it could be a convenient number.
5k spent on an in kind contribution is not a violation of anything, much less a spirit.
Then again, I’m no fan of the people’s pledge as it violates the “spirit” of the first freaking amendment.
Limits on dollars spent is one thing… Limits on speech to begin with is an absurdity.
You think the Warren/Brown agreement was a bad idea?
This: “Limits on speech to begin with is an absurdity.”
I am constrained to point out that this is precisely the argument of Will Brownsberger and others who defend the Citizens United decision.
I might be wrong, but I think Ryan’s saying dollar limits are justified so deep pockets don’t get to do all the “speaking,” but a blanket restriction on any speechifying for a candidate by an outside group goes too far.
the Pledge does not actually restrict anyone from doing anything. It just creates a financial disincentive for outside groups to spend a lot of money “helping.”
in response to your Citizens United point. Ryan’s statement
suggests to me he’s not on Brownsberger’s page about the case’s sanction of unlimited independent spending in support of a candidate.
But my point is that these arguments very quickly head into slippery slope territory, and once you start decrying something like the People’s Pledge (which is a private agreement that imposes no sanction on any speaker) because it “violates the ‘spirit’ of the first freaking amendment,” you’re really quite close to the Brownsberger/Glenn Greenwald position on Citizens United.
The irony of this and the Clark/Warren flyer is that Brownsberger is meanwhile running a squeaky clean and transparent campaign without taking any PAC/lobbyist money. People may object to his stance on Citizens United, but he seems like sort of the opposite of a hypocrite on campaign finance.
What does the PCCC mean by claiming that Clark voted to cut workers’ pensions? Does that refer to our public pension reform legislation that Governor Patrick first filed? If so, that is a scurrilous accusation. Anyone know if that is what is is all about?
Would like to know what they’re talking about.
From ProgressiveMass’s scorecard:
good research. seems like a stretch to use that to run a dirty ad against an ally.
1. Clearly a violation of the spirit of the agreement.
2. There is no way you could even produce an add for $5K, nevermind actually run one in this market.
3. What’s Clark’s position on the People’s Pledge? Assuming she has signed it, is the Emily’s list mailing a similiar violation of the pledge? Is there expenditure below $5K?
4. Thoughts on the other night’s debate. Would rank the candidates’ impressions, from best to worst:
1. Sciortino
2. Spilka
3. Brownsberger
4. Koutoujian
5. Clark
Very disappointing for me. I am a fan of both Peter K. and Clark. I think Sciortino was aggressive and really captured the left flank, though he was a little over the top in terms of self promotion at times. Thought Spilka came off as accomplished. Thought Brownsberger came off as thoughtful, which he is and which will attract a certain segment, but thought that the 4 on 1 nature obviously hurt him some. Peter K. was just blah. Didn’t do anything to help or harm himself. I thought Clark, who again, I very much like, was attrocious. Debates are largely about appearance/impression, and her tone and misspeaking really hurt.
wow, the grammar in my post makes my cringe…..slow down…haha
If they are mainly FB ads, $5000 is actually quite a bit for a week. That could reach tons of targeted areas of the district multiple times with money to spare.
I am a Sciortino supporter and am a bit disappointed by the negative turn, although I understand it.
I still think he is without a doubt the candidate who will fight strongest for progressive values and also has the skills and personality to develop coalitions and get things done. Unlike the Globe endorsement, who casts him as an out to lunch idealist, he has shown to be a very effective and practical legislator while always staying true to progressive values. He won’t just be a safe D vote like some of the other candidates I think will be. He won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but he will sure fight to make sure that the good is the best it can possibly be.
I was talking about traditional media ads. I guess you could buy targeted internet ads for $5K. I must say, if their attack on Clark is in fact related to Pension Reform, it is absurd and disappointing. He is kind of an idealist, and something about ads like that being run on behalf of an idealist is really off putting.