Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

An idea whose time has come (maybe)

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube
Updated Posts

* An interesting idea…

In the Massachusetts 2012 Senate race, Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown proved that when candidates are serious about curbing the influence of super PACs on their race, they can work together to make it happen.

In an agreement known as the People’s Pledge, Warren and Brown made a mutual promise to reject the support of super PACs. They pledged that if a super PAC spent money to support either of their campaigns, whoever benefited from the expenditure would offset it by forfeiting money from their own campaign coffers. The idea was new, bold, and bilateral, and it changed the calculus of spending in the race.

Because super PACs saw that making expenditures to support Warren or Brown would ultimately hurt them, it no longer made sense for super PACs to spend money in the race. As a result, the People’s Pledge successfully eliminated virtually all super PAC spending, and it helped to cut the volume of negative advertising – which super PAC money almost exclusively buys – in half. In short, with the mere stroke of a pen, Warren and Brown gave the people of Massachusetts a substantially more accountable race.

* Press release…

New television advertisements airing this weekend in Illinois are targeting both frontrunners in the Illinois Senate race by challenging Mark Kirk (R) and Tammy Duckworth (D) to refuse the flood of unaccountable election spending by outside groups. The ads, which will air online during the week and on local CBS around the Chicago Bears game on Sunday, are part of a campaign run by CounterPAC, a group backed by tech entrepreneurs advocating for fair elections by curbing the influence of outside spending.

The new video ads follow print ads in October from CounterPAC in the Chicago Sun-Times and the State Journal-Register that encouraged the Illinois’ Senate candidates to “Take the Pledge” and mutually agree to reject expenditures by outside groups during the 2016 campaign. Recent reports indicate that spending from outside groups in the Illinois’ Senate race has already eclipsed $1.7 million, with more than $1 million favoring the Democratic side.

See the ad targeting Mark Kirk here: http://bit.ly/1j5KXly
See the ad targeting Tammy Duckworth here: http://bit.ly/1NBuTR4

The ads highlight the candidates’ own criticism of the influence of outside spending and challenge them to do something about it by taking the CounterPAC pledge to reject outside money. The ad targeting Kirk plays on Kirk’s comments that an unknown group could run ads saying he strangles kittens – then offers a short glimpse of a Mark Kirk: Kitten Killer style ad. The ad targeting Duckworth highlights the inconsistency of Duckworth’s stated commitment to stemming the tide of money in politics as she rides a wave of outside spending in her own campaign for Senate.

“Both Mark Kirk and Tammy Duckworth have been outspoken about the trouble with elections that are dominated by super PACs – so this is a chance for each of them to put their money where their mouth is,” said CounterPAC Executive Director Jay Costa. “A simple pledge could erase outside money – giving voters a race free of unlimited outside spending and offering a model of accountability for other races across the country.”

CounterPAC is prepared to act as the arbiter and enforcer of a “no outside spending” pledge after candidates have mutually agreed to the terms, which include rejecting expenditures from outside sources and countering rejected expenditures by donating 50 percent of the cost of the rejected expenditure to a charity of the opposing candidate’s choice. In the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race, Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agreed to a similar pledge. That agreement set the precedent for the CounterPAC pledge and was widely regarded as successfully limiting outside spending.

A recent poll conducted by Bloomberg shows that 87% of Americans think the current campaign finance system should be reformed to curb the influence of wealthy donors, with 78% saying specifically that they disapprove of the unlimited corporate spending unleashed by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

Your thoughts?

…Adding… From a good pal…

I worked on Brown’s campaign. It ended up being a bad deal for Brown, which is why he didn’t do it in 2014.

The problem was not so much with the outside spending that it did ban, as the outside spending it did not. Specifically, only TV, radio and print ads were banned. Outside groups could, and did, spend money on direct mail, robocalls and, most crucially, get out the vote drives.

Get out the vote drives are a traditional strength on the Democratic side, particularly unions, and a traditional weakness for Republicans. Outspending them on the air was the Republican counter. The People’s Pledge, combined with Warren’s extremely robust fundraising, made that impossible.

Point taken.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 10:43 am

Comments

Look how well Bernie Sanders is doing at raising funds from small donors. That’s how it should be done.

Comment by CharlieKratos Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 10:46 am
Politicians in Illinois showing the rest of the nation how to run clean, transparent, above-board campaigns?

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by You Gotta Be Kidding Me Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 10:52 am
It can work in some fairly rare races.

It requires ethical, responsible, and strong candidates on both sides in the first place, or it will devolve into fights over how donations are defined, and who should be giving up what.

Unless candidates take full, direct, personal control of their campaign staff, the cleverer ones will figure out workarounds behind the scenes.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 10:55 am
Should be interesting to see how this plays out. I think all the candidates in the Senate race should sign the pledge, but I fear they won’t. I believe the money and influence allowed by the Citizens United decision has negatively impacted political campaigns. Unless action is taken to fight back, political races will continue to be controlled by whoever has the most money/influence.

Comment by Former Hoosier Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 10:56 am
My super PAC will run poor ineffective ads against my candidate causing his opponent to forfeit a huge part of his campaign fund.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:09 am
If an agreement like that were in place I don’t think it would be too long before the super wealthy started spending large amounts of money on their opponent’s campaigns in an effort to bankrupt that campaign. The ads wouldn’t be all that damaging and would be run early on in the campaign to inflict the most financial damage possible.

Comment by Gruntled University Employee Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:10 am
=== in an effort to bankrupt that campaign===

Oh, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:15 am
With the control of the US Senate possibly riding on the outcome of this race, good luck with that. I would like to see outside money banned outright, but since it’s not, I just don’t see outside groups staying out.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:16 am
Possible influence of a PAC in DC (and it does have ties to business done in Illinois):

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Sherwoods-Notebook-Pulling-the-PlugBut-Not-So-Fast-351316371.html

Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:33 am
There is one thing about _Citizens United_ that virtually everyone on the “left” omits or doesn’t know about, but that labor union heads understand.

Under the “old system” (now long buried) labor unions were permitted to use unlimited labor union dues $$ on “internal communications,” that is, they could lobby their own union members and their direct families to support X Democrat. But if they used union dues money for generic GOTV or voter mobilization / persuasion activities on non-union members, that counted as an in-kind contribution and was prohibited as a labor union contribution to Democrats. Today of course they can spend union dues money on all that stuff, so long as it’s not “coordinated” with the candidate it’s benefiting.

I’m really not sure how much this matters, in that I’m not sure how much organized labor truly spends to communicate these days with non-union members on get-out-the-vote drives, nor how credible such messaging is. Still.

Comment by ZC Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:39 am
Great input from Rich’s friend who worked the Brown campaign.

And even if we figure out a way to stop outside funding of robocalls and GOTV, maybe we can sponsor a statewide petition drive on some campaign issue which isn’t actually subject to change by petition.

Just spitballin’ here.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 11:47 am
Yes, please! Those awful Super PAC ads have to go. How effective are they?! And what kind of blowback would a Super PAC’s director take from large donors? This is truly more of a shell game that does little for the candidates and seems more so to line pockets of the connected. I would imagine that CEOs are often upset with the results and how their money was spent.

Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 12:47 pm
“Get out the vote drives are a traditional strength on the Democratic side, particularly unions, and a traditional weakness for Republicans.” Let me sit with that awhile - getting people to vote works for the Democrats. Is the corollary: voter suppression works for the Republicans?

Comment by uptown progressive Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 1:22 pm
The money I send to my wireless carrier (for instance) may very be used to lobby for legislation or fund candidates against my best intersts. How about Fair Share for business?

Comment by Jack Stephens Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 2:10 pm
It’s a nice thought.

From 1976 til W broke the limits in 2000, presidential candidates voluntarily agreed to limit expenditures in order to receive matching public funds.

Reagan managed to get his message across, twice, without begging for a billion dollars from a bunch of plutocrats.

The NYT reported last month that, to date, 158 households accounted for more than half of the $176 million raised in this presidential cycle.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 2:45 pm
===Outspending them on the air was the Republican counter. The People’s Pledge, combined with Warren’s extremely robust fundraising, made that impossible.===

From one Politico to another, this is basically saying that a Republican candidate has difficulty competing against a Democratic candidate without very wealthy people being able to make very large contributions.

That’s sort of the whole reason why some folks want SuperPACs to stop being a thing.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Nov 18, 15 @ 4:09 pm