There’s been much discussion here and elsewhere – and appropriately so – about the roughly $100,000 that Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) has dumped into Leland Cheung’s effort to unseat Pat Jehlen in the state Senate. DFER’s money comes from an out-of-state pro-charter outfit that doesn’t have to disclose its donors. It is the definition of dark money, and its presence in this race is an unalloyed bad thing.
But, in fairness, it’s also true that the Mass. Teachers Association (MTA) is spending a similar amount on behalf of Jehlen’s reelection effort. We do know where that money comes from, but the fact remains that the MTA is still a special interest group that is able to spend more money on the race than the candidates themselves have raised.
All of this strikes me as, on balance, bad. People talk a lot about how terrible Citizens United is, and how we should be trying to keep big money out of politics. And this is exactly why: right now, outside groups are able to spend tons of basically unaccountable money – often (as in this case) more than the candidates themselves are able to spend – in order to advance a very specific policy goal that may not even be apparent from the advertising that the groups buy. As I’ve already noted, the DFER materials that I’ve seen on behalf of Cheung don’t say a thing about charter schools, yet we all know that’s why they’re involved.
Fortunately, there is a proven solution: an agreement between the candidates that they will both swear off outside money and a pay a financial penalty if an outside group spends money on their behalf or to attack the other. In short, the People’s Pledge. Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown proved that it works brilliantly – as you’ll recall, that was one of the hottest Senate races in the country, in a year when outside groups were flooding Senate races with millions of dollars, yet almost none of that money came here. And several Massachusetts races have used People’s Pledges since then, though recently they seem to have fallen away.
It’s too late for the Jehlen-Cheung race, unfortunately, a race that would have been a perfect Pledge candidate. But whatever the result on Thursday, this unpleasantness should be a reminder that outside money remains a serious problem – particularly in down-ballot races, where it can drown out the candidates themselves. It would be nice to have a legislative solution, but that’s likely a long way off. Until we do, candidates can, and should, take matters into their own hands.
PS: some people think People’s Pledges are a bad thing. They are wrong.
I am mostly in agreement with your post with one minor dissent. MTA money mostly comes from union dues, not out of state donors.
I said that we do know where most of the MTA money comes from (unlike DFER). Implication was union dues.
sloppy reading on my part
I want to imagine a world where the PP isn’t necessary, but it’s clear that it does SOME good. I think disclosure is the most important thing, and the thing that feels the most fair to regulate (or informally regulate via pledge).
I also think the climate in Massachusetts would prevent any race, no matter how hot, from getting truly nasty. The backlash would be too much.
comes from. I’ve been canvassing about the question. I’ve been tweeting, facebooking, and posting here.
The fact is, without the MTA and BTU, which is also working on opposing this question, there would be NO OPPOSITION. When it comes to opposing one percenter education policy, we are it. When it comes to giving tax dollars to quasi-public organizations serving the interests of the one percent, we are it. There is no well-financed, organized opposition to the business lobby at the municipal level.
The millionaire’s tax? Where would it be without unions? Not on an eventual ballot. The push for the minimum wage. We were there, though we are contract employees. People like to point out that teachers have a self-interest in education policy. As if no one else does. We all have self-interest. That doesn’t disqualify from concern with the common good.
DFER and the education reform movement make it look like we are craven, self-interested hacks that only care about ourselves and our paychecks. They do this to contrast with their (dark money financed) benevolence. Like everyone else, we have self-interest, but we are also part of the last bulwark between workers and completely unfettered business.
P.S. I’m not making a criticism, implied or otherwise, of this post.
-EOM-
It will take a constitutional amendment affirming that corporations are not people and money is not speech to establish government of, by and for the people instead of government of, by and for corporations and billionaires. As Andy Dufresne said, it’s time to get busy living or get busy dying. Sure, amending the Constitution is appropriately difficult, but fighting issue by issue against the corrupting influence of big money in politics is an endless and ultimately unwinnable battle. Remember, ours is the first generation that has NOT amended the Constitution.
A Peoples’ Pledge agreement is only going to happen in a race where both candidates think they can win without outside money (eg: Warren vs. Brown).
Cheung was only going to have a shot against Jehlen if his outside money transformed the race.