The post by Bastien begins here [Ed.]:
Campaign reform is an issue we can all get behind. Until Beacon Hill stops limiting transparency and conducting the people’s work behind closed doors, we need to ensure that special interest groups and PACs are not having an unfair and outsized manipulation of the process. The line between legislators being informed by groups on issues they care about, and the appearance or outright establishing of quid pro quos and buying of legislators is being obscured by the lack of transparency on Beacon Hill. If the debate was out in the open, one could judge whether someone was in a group’s pocket or not. When it’s behind closed doors, the public is shut out about knowing what their elected officials are really saying or supporting.
Former State Representative Richard Bastien sent the below letter to his opponent Jen Flanagan asking her to agree to join with him in banning outside special interest donations in the race for State Senate. Tell Jen Flanagan to sign the People’s Pledge and keep special interest and lobbyist money out of candidate’s campaign accounts.
July 17, 2014
Flanagan Committee
XXXXXXXX Street
Leominster MA 01453Dear Jennifer,
As someone who believes that heavy outside special interest spending in campaigns, particularly since the Citizens United ruling can lead to the appearance of putting the needs of special interests above the needs of the citizens of our district, I ask you my fellow candidate, Jennifer Flanagan, to join me in agreeing to ban all campaign donations from lobbyists, PACS, Corporations, Unions, and special interest groups from our campaigns in the 2014 election for State Senate in the Worcester and Middlesex district. I believe that we can set a new standard that can show the Commonwealth and the nation that elections should be decided by the people, not by how much special interest groups can give to a candidate or candidates.In the interest of reaching that agreement, I have attached a signed Pledge, modeled on the agreement between Senator Elizabeth Warren and Former Senator Scott Brown from the 2012 United States Senate campaign. If you agree to it, please sign yourself. With our shared commitment to banning special interest spending in this race and your record and mine as candidates and legislators in support of Clean Elections, I am confident we will have a signed Pledge in a matter of days.
We can together make this campaign about the needs and interests of the people of the Worcester and Middlesex district. Together, we can make this a campaign about our experience and vision for the Worcester and Middlesex District and avoid a campaign dictated by the spending of outside special interests. I look forward to you joining me in making this campaign about the needs of the people, not the needs of special interest groups.
Sincerely,
Richard Bastien
The pledge that I signed and sent follows
THE PEOPLE’S PLEDGE
Because each of the undersigned candidates agrees that this campaign should be decided by the people of the Worcester and Middlesex District, not by how much special interest groups can give to a candidate or candidates; and
Because special interest groups, including but not limited to PACS, lobbyists, corporations, or unions, may attempt to exert an outsized influence on the Massachusetts election for State Senate in the Worcester and Middlesex district by donating to candidates’ campaigns while the PAC, lobbyist, corporation, or union has legislation or appropriations before the legislature; and
Because each of the undersigned candidates agrees that taking direct campaign donations from PACS, lobbyists, corporations or unions could be perceived as a quid pro quo for an expectation of support for favorable financial legislation or appropriation for the special interest group that might run counter to the needs of constituents, taxpayers, and working families in the Worcester and Middlesex district; and
Because each of the undersigned candidates agrees that given the recent probation trial involving Speaker DeLeo as an unindicted co-conspirator, the convictions of the three most recent Speakers of the House Salvatore F. DiMasi, Thomas Finneran, Charles Flaherty, and the recent conviction of State Senator Diane Wilkerson on tax-evasion charges from accepting bribes over an 18-month period that totaled $23,500, a culture of corruption has existed on Beacon Hill; and
Because each of the undersigned candidates agrees that they do not want any such donations from PACS, lobbyists, corporations or unions to lead to an outsized voice of special interest groups over the people’s voice in the Worcester and Middlesex district; and
Because the undersigned candidates recognize that in order to continue to make Massachusetts a national example, and provide the citizens of Massachusetts with an election free from outside special interest groups, they must be willing to include an enforcement mechanism to the candidates’ own campaigns:
Therefore, the candidates on behalf of their respective campaigns hereby agree to the following:
1. In the event of a donation from a registered PAC, lobbyist, corporation, or union to the candidate or their campaign, the donation shall be returned immediately and not deposited in the campaign account.
2. In the event that a donation from a registered PAC, lobbyist, corporation, or union has been deposited in a campaign account since July 17, 2014, the campaign shall, within three business days of discovery of the donation, notify the other undersigned candidate’s campaign, Sentinel and Enterprise, Telegram and Gazette, and other newspapers and media in the district of a violation of the People Pledge and pay an amount equal to 100% of that donation to The One Fund.
3. In the event that the undersigned candidate fails to make the charitable donation within the three day requirement, the contribution shall double and be payable immediately.
4. The candidates and their campaigns agree to continue to work together to limit the influence of PACs, lobbyists, corporations, or unions during the course of this campaign.
Signed:
July 17, 2014
__________________________ _____________________
Richard Bastien Date__________________________ _____________________
Jennifer Flanagan Date
Hopefully she doesn’t take as long to respond as Tolman.
Otherwise the special interests, PAC’s and corporations are going to be all over this race!
Seriously. All this is, is something to get a few spots higher with SEO. Yawn.
Campaigns go back and forth on these things and settle on a Pledge agreeable to both.
If no PACs pay attention to the race then no harm in signing the Pledge.
So a $500 contribution from working women and men is prohibited but a $500 check from a wealthy contributor from outside the district is fine. What a crock.
The members of my union voluntarily contribute to their organization’s PAC through a .15 cents per hour work checkoff. Most can’t afford to write a $500 check but they can, cooperatively, offer support to candidates who vote to enforce wage and hour laws, increase the minimum wage. protect unemployment benefits from corporate sponsored legislation that offers cuts to jobless workers, funds training and safety programs and protects their right to organize and bargain. It really seems to bother the right wing tea party types that workers have the ability to act together.
…People’s Pledges have never been about contributions to campaigns which are regulated and disclosed, but rather independent expenditures. I also have a hard time believing a random House race is going to be the target for a lot of this anyway. This is starting to sound like the latest excuse to play Gotcha with one’s opponent.
PS: What to Speakers’ legal troubles have to do with any of this?
You can thank Maura Healey for turning a nationally praised model of civic responsibility in the Brown and Coakley race, into the cheap stunt and laughing stock it has become today.
I am sure I will be seeing Ed Markey challenge Brian Herr to a Peoples Pledge in his next email, right next to the donate button…
Also, as I believe it was David who has pointed out, outside groups trying to buy the Markey Senate race on behalf of Herr would not be a wise investment.
It is SEO, significantly successful SEO. Excellent work on Rich‘s part and highly commendable.
I wouldn’t give it any attention either if I were in the position our Senator is.
I will legislate for the substance of Rich’s proposal using a gentler approach starting with the telecom, utilities and energy lobby. Companies with state sanctioned monopolies like Unitil and Kinder Morgan do not get to also impose undue influence on Commonwealth legislators, FERC that. No gifts, manila envelopes filled with cash, deposits into off-shore accounts, vacations, property, cars, no influence from utilities.
I think it is a betrayal of the whole of the constituency to accept undue influence from the telecommunications, utilities and energy lobby.
~Aaron
such common currency in campaigns that it’s quickly losing its edge. In the senate race, it was interesting and meaningful. In these smaller races, we don’t even know what it means because too often its a nothing more than a headilne grabber, not a genuine attempt to take money out of elections.
It would be more interesting if the challenging candidates slapped their opponents with a glove or say, “Sir or Madam, I spit in your general direction.”
It means more of less what it meant in the Senate race. The various incarnations of the Pledge are not fundamentally different. Is it a headline grabber? I tend to think it isn’t much of one. Even if it is, so what?
To bring it back to its original proponent, was it wrong for Shaheen to work for a Pledge with Brown? Was that just a stunt? Did the fact it made headlines make it so? No to all those things. It is what it is. All things follow it are either gravy or not. The Pledge stands on its own in whatever race it is proposed.
NH is not a guarantee for either party and is going to be a very tempting target for outside groups on both sides.
it’s a PR move. As you say, it is what it is. It’s now part of campaign discourse, and candidates will try to use it as a tactic. That’s the nature of campaigns. Even idealism has material benefits.
I think that its use in small-time campaigns dulls its edge a little. Should I take the people’s pledge the next time I run for re-election as selectman? How about a contest for state rep? What if my parents live out of state?