As Democrats, we win when we stand up for our values.
We fight for immigrants, for the elderly, for low-income families, and for the disabled. It’s a grassroots fight for justice and equality, not profits.
That’s why clean elections have always represented an opportunity — a chance to choose our leaders based on the strength of their ideas and the power of their principles, without the pernicious influence of big money. I have been leading the fight for more open elections since my early days as a State Representative, when I fought to pass a major campaign ethics and finance reform bill that still is guiding our elections today. The Boston Globe liked my work so much, they called me “Mr. Ethics Pain-in-the-…” I think they meant it as a compliment…
I proudly wore that moniker for my eight years in the legislature because we needed more leaders to stand up for a clean and fair process.
In 2002, I ran the only ever certified statewide Clean Election Campaign in Massachusetts history. Had the legislature and Governor Romney not repealed that law in 2003, I would be running a Clean Election Campaign today.
But now, in the Citizens United era, when corporations are winning more Supreme Court decisions than women, we must create our own standards of ethics and campaigning to supplement where the current laws of our country fall short.
Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown set a great standard in 2012 with an historic agreement on the People’s Pledge. Where other races across the country saw floods of outside money pour across the airwaves defining candidates in unflattering terms, Massachusetts stayed safe and the candidates spoke for themselves. In 2013, Ed Markey and Stephen Lynch expanded the People’s Pledge to ban direct mail along with outside ads on TV, radio and Internet.
Today marks 60 days until our September 9 primary election and I believe it is time we reach an agreement on the People’s Pledge in the race for Attorney General.
This afternoon, I sent over a signed copy of the People’s Pledge, modeled exactly after the Markey-Lynch agreement from the 2013 Special U.S. Senate Primary race. As Ms. Healey and I have worked to find an agreement over the past few weeks, I have had reservations about including a ban on mail in the People’s Pledge, as they are difficult to quantify, track, and report in a timely manner. The Pledge can only be as effective as its ability to identify violations by third parties.
While I still believe there are potential enforcement issues with this aspect of the Pledge, the importance of getting an agreement in place is too great to allow this disagreement to interfere. As such, given my serious concerns about the ability to quantify direct mail expenditures, I pledge to notify the Healey campaign within twenty-four hours of knowledge that any proscribed direct mail activity has taken place and I hope Ms. Healey will do the same. I hope that over the final sixty days of this campaign, our campaigns can work together to make sure there are no violations of this agreement.
Once again, Massachusetts will lead on openness and accountability in our elections. I’m looking forward to a substantive campaign focused on the issues and values important to our Commonwealth, providing a real opportunity for voters to decide between our candidacies based on policies and ideals pertinent to managing the Attorney General’s Office.
Warren Tolman
Glad this got ironed out.
Sure.
I hate them almost as much as anyone, but they’ve become so ridiculously inexpensive that I’m not sure a People’s Pledge would do much to police them anyway. Direct mail costs actual money in printing and postage, but robocalling has become so cheap and simple that municipal candidates for minor offices in small cities and towns can easily use them, and in the last election cycle in my small city often did. Since the People’s Pledge mechanism only works if the money spent is enough to make a difference when the campaign diverts resources to compensate for an outside expenditure, both sides may have felt that robocalling wasn’t a mechanism it could address well enough to make it worth including.
…so that it hurts. 200 times the money spent on the calls might deter them, no?
Nt
Set up fake group to run lame attack ads against your candidate, then nick the other candidate at 20k%.
While it would work in theory, I think that it would backfire in practice
…strikes me as not being willing to accept yes for an answer. If I had to choose I’d take robocalls over mailings anyday. I much prefer to hear Bill Clinton’s voice on the other end of the phone than receive a mailer making the target out to be the son of Satan.
trying to overcome a funding deficit with candidates who are ahead of you. You want to disarm candidates who have an advantage over you, while at the same time not giving up any weapons you feel are critical to your candidacy. This has nothing to do with running a principled race.
Now that this matter is out of the way, I wonder if the two candidates or their campaigns will respond to my many repeated questions about their respective stances towards:
1. Protecting the privacy of Massachusetts residents from surveillance (especially government surveillance).
2. Protecting Massachusetts residents from abuse by government authorities (police, “tactical” units, FBI thugs like Aaron MacFarlane, and so on).
3. Halting or reversing the increasing militarization of our local law enforcement authorities (like state and local police, transit police, tactical units, swat teams, and so on).
4. Protecting the right of Massachusetts residents to see, hear, videotape, report, and complain about abusive behavior by law enforcement authorities.
n/t
Engaging real issues in the Attorney General race
I would also like to see/hear how the candidates plan to use the office to expand a wide range of Consumer Protections an arena that I feel is greatly needed and under-utilized by the AG’s office.
The office can be a force for education on rights for people who are often not informed or have access to information about the protections that should be accessible to them. I will jump over to your post on these important issues and follow-up there.
My only reflection on candidate Tolman’s handling of this matter is that it was messy. At this stage it is not an issue of importance to me – it just became a pissing contest.
Bob, chances are there will be groups that support both candidates that send out robocalls.
Are you going to skip voting in the race in total?
Here’s an idea for people so vehemently against robocalls. If you get one, hang up. Or erase the message. They’re not really a big deal.