As he was departing from last night’s Republican Governors Association fundraiser – hilariously relocated at the last minute because of “unwanted attention from reporters” – presumed Republican nominee for Governor Charlie Baker had this to say about why he was willing to be seen in the company of scandal-ridden Republicans like Chris Christie:
“It was more a conversation just about how important it is for our campaign to do well in ’14 and make sure we have adequate resources to compete, because there will certainly be plenty of money coming in from the outside on the other side.”
Huh – sounds like Baker is super worried about outside money playing a big role in the Governor’s race. Now, if only there was a proven way to keep outside money from flowing into statewide races in Massachusetts …
Oh, right, of course there is. Baker could do what Scott Brown did in 2012: declare that he does not want outside money to back his campaign, and pledge that, if it does, he will pay a financial penalty, as long as the Democrats are willing to make the same pledge. It worked brilliantly in the Brown/Warren race, despite all the detractors who were sure it would collapse, and it can work again.
Come on, Charlie, put your money where your mouth is. Challenge the Democrats to refuse outside money in this race for Governor. The people of Massachusetts will be the winners.
UPDATE: The excellent hesterprynne reminds us in the comments that Baker’s spokesman is on record as being open to some sort of People’s Pledge. From the Globe on Sept. 18, 2013:
A spokesman for Republican candidate Charles D. Baker said in an e-mail, “When the time comes, we expect that we’ll sit down with the Democratic nominee to discuss the influence of outside money and how we might be able to limit its impact on the race.”
A promising sign. Here’s hoping Baker actually meant it.
After last night’s event, Charlie Baker is waaaaay ahead in fundraising from outside groups. By attending last night’s event, Charlie made it clear that he wants to help outside groups like the Republican Governors Association (RGA). So, there is no chance that he will want agree to any limitation on outside spending.
Here’s a comparison. Of all the Democratic candidates for Governor, Steve Grossman has the most cash-on-hand. Steve has about one million dollars, which he raised with a lot of individual contributions of $500 or less. In one single night, with one single event, Charlie Baker raised that same amount of money from fifty donors. Incidentally, Chalie’s donors to the RGA are anonymous.
Less dark money. Less wealthy donor influence. Less negative advertising. My study with Common Cause on the effects of the Peoples Pledge, click here.
$1 million was raised.
Charlie Baker isn’t a candidate of the 1%…. he’s the candidate of the .001%.
Boston Globe 9/19/13:
When the time comes, we expect that we’ll sit down with the Democratic nominee to discuss the influence of outside money and how we might be able to limit its impact on the race.”
Please post if so. Thanks.
(Meant to include this link in my earlier comment, but I hit “submit” too soon.)
If I think I’m going to be at a competitive disadvantage, I won’t do it. In the meantime, I’m not unilaterally going to disarm myself.
But the national GOP gives us a lot to run against. Taking outside money from some people may matter. The Kochs, for example. Dark money may also matter.
Candidates who can portray their opponents as receiving major outside support (implication — someone else’s agenda is at work on you, Mr. or Ms. voter), will have an edge with the famously independent Massachusetts voter, especially at the center, Baker’s sweet spot. See also the persistent Republican comments re: Elizabeth Warren that she was “Chosen in Washington and foisted on Mass voters.” I’ve observed that Mass voters can handle a lot, but they bristle and do strange things when they suspect they are being taken for granted (Martha Coakley 2010) or influenced from outside the state.
I’m not paying attention enough to know.
You can’t assign a beneficiary to negative ads.
There’s been chit chat but nothing more. I frankly doubt that outside money will be a major factor in the Dem primary, which might explain why there’s not much urgency to it. But everyone would benefit if all the Dems would agree with Team Baker to a pledge that covers both the primary and the general election.
Again, I don’t doubt the benefits of a pledge, but it does seem a bit unfair to ask the Republican nominee to refuse “outside money” when we have an overwhelming registration advantage. Should Natalie Tennant refuse outside money?
Why does the registration advantage enter into it? It’s not like GOP candidates for governors don’t have a pretty good track record in MA despite the Dems’ registration advantage. And in any event, the point is that candidates should speak up for themselves and not let outside groups do their dirty work.
As for Natalie Tennant, if the GOP will swear off outside money in that race, of course she should take the deal! IMHO, a People’s Pledge sort of arrangement will pretty much always help Democrats.
During the period when they held the governorship, they held no other statewide office. They lost Senate seats. They have become more marginalized. The best candidate they can mount is Richard Tisei. In the swingiest district (Keating’s, arguably), they nominated Jeff Perry. By what standard is this a good track record?
But forget that. Define “outside group.”
Any third-party group, independent of the campaign, spending money on the campaign’s behalf. This does not include individuals donating to the campaign itself from out of state.
n/t
Well, not quite true. They had the Treasurer during the Weld era. And of course they had the LG.
But I certainly don’t disagree that the recent track record is less than awesome. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t swear off outside money.
It’s a vague concept that means nothing, is my point. The pledge doesn’t really accomplish anything, except tie the hands of the underdog.
I don’t like the fact that we nationalize every race, but here we are, and the fact that the pledge benefits us here doesn’t make me comfortable having it there(s). Let it all flow.
Or publicly finance campaigns.