Positive pledge: Drawing a line against unfettered political cash
Share with others:
Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown and likely Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren don't see eye to eye on much, but they agree it would be good to discourage money used by special interests to buy attack ads that would influence their race in Massachusetts.
The two have hammered out "The People's Pledge." If an outside group runs an ad attacking the other candidate, a donation of half the ad's value will be made by the campaign of the aided candidate to a charity chosen by the opponent.
Mr. Brown and Ms. Warren also will contact media outlets and ask that they not accept money to run such ads. This will be a hard sell to stations in New England that had expected to make a fortune from the race.
It might be too much to expect special interests -- the corporations, trade groups and unions allowed to spend freely on campaigns by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision -- to stand down this year. Karl Rove's superPAC American Crossroads GPS plus the League of Women Voters and the League of Conservation Voters have already sunk $3 million into the campaign's saturated media market.
Some groups backing Ms. Warren were respectful of her wishes, but indicated they'll reserve the right to pursue their interests. Mr. Rove's superPAC disparaged the agreement for loopholes he said she could exploit.
There isn't any legal recourse or serious sanction in the agreement for the candidates to ensure an uncontaminated race. No matter how much Ms. Warren and Mr. Brown agree on the importance of personally standing behind the ads marshaled on their behalf, they can't deprive others of the right to free speech.
Still, the People's Pledge is a positive step by two high-profile candidates who want to rise above the muck of a bitter political environment and the blizzard of unaccountable political money unleashed by the high court.
First Published January 30, 2012 12:00 am
