I was excited to see this morning in Stephanie Murray’s Politico MA Playbook that Senator Ed Markey, Congressman Joe Kennedy (for whom I volunteer), and Ms. Shannon Liss-Riordan seem to be close to consensus on the details of a People’s Pledge for the MA 2020 Senate Primary. According to Murray, progress has been made in the last “week or so,” with Liss-Riordan’s campaign agreeing to the language proposed by Congressman Kennedy’s team, and Senator Markey now “actively looking at it” (according to John Walsh, Senator Markey’s campaign director). Apparently, a signing ceremony is being planned, and both Congressman Kennedy and Ms. Liss-Riordan have agreed to postpone the event to fit with Senator Markey’s schedule (he is in DC currently because the Senate is in session). Seems like a win-win to me, and more representative of the collaborative negotiations and scheduling approaches that are typically used among campaigns. I wish that Congressman Kennedy had been extended the same consideration for scheduling the climate debate.
“People’s Pledge” Coming Together for MA Senate Primary
Please share widely!
Christopher says
I’ve never understood these. Since campaigns aren’t supposed to co-ordinate with outside groups anyway how are campaigns expected to control and be responsible for what those groups do?
BKay says
As I understand it, campaigns aren’t responsible for what those groups do, but they are responsible for what money they accept, and from whom. So the agreement isn’t about controlling the outside organization raising (or trying to donate) money to a campaign, but rather refusing to accept, or returning, it if it comes from an unacceptable source (e.g., Senator Markey’s campaign ultimately returning the money that was donated from lobbyists of fossil fuel companies). Specific agreements may differ, will depend on what all candidates agree to, and may include some combination of refusing money (or refusing money over a certain amount), returning money, or donating the money given to a relevant charity.
Christopher says
That’s not it at all. The whole point is to keep out the actions of outside groups that they undertake on their own, not from whom the campaign accepts money.
SomervilleTom says
I find “pledges” like this to be sales gimmicks that are generally irrelevant to what actually happens before, during and after a campaign.
It’s been my experience that a pledge like this is most often promoted by a candidate or party that is struggling to achieve traction in a given contest. The intensity of the pledge promotion is generally proportional to the weakness of the candidate.
If Mr. Kennedy were to put forward evidence that Mr. Markey was being improperly swayed by the interests of any particular individual or group — and that Mr. Kennedy was not himself similarly swayed improperly — then I’m all ears. I don’t see any of that in this campaign.
The “dirty money” argument is much more effective when a candidate is shown to be dirty.
I’m a registered Democrat. I have voted in every Democratic primary since becoming eligible to vote in 1972. If Mr. Kennedy or his campaign want to sway me, they need to start emphasizing issues of substance and give up with this relentless focus on glitz.
doubleman says
Thanks to Jonathan Cohn for catching and sharing. I’m only adding it here because it involves Markey, though not directly related to this race.
Last week there were votes on 5 Trump judge nominees. They all passed (obviously) and now have lifetime appointments.
Only 2 Senators voted against all 5 nominees. Kirsten Gillibrand and Ed Markey. (The Senators running for President were not in DC to vote.)
It’s like this impeachment thing is a complete joke. If the Democratic party can’t do the basic work of opposing lifetime appointments to conservative judges put forth by a racist, illegitimate, corrupt President, what is the point of the party?
Christopher says
I’d like to know who the five judges are and what may be objectionable before issuing a blanket condemnation of Dems. If some of them got a lot of Dem votes particularly in this environment that encourages partisanship, then maybe they weren’t that bad after all.
Christopher says
I got an email indicating a climate debate tonight, though only on Youtube and Facebook rather than TV. Is it time to pull down the clock?