Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) fired off a letter last week calling on Elizabeth Warren to condemn the millions in third-party ads already running in the Massachusetts Senate race, which Brown will officially kick off this week.
Over the weekend, Warren called his bluff, publicly posting her own letter essentially telling Brown that if he really wants to deny groups like American Crossroads that are beating up Warren these days the opportunity to continue, she’d be more than happy to get on board.
Brown, who’s facing a barrage of negative third party attacks himself, accused Warren last week of being a hypocrite when it comes to third party ads, which she has condemned when they’ve been aimed at her.
From Brown’s public letter to Warren, which the Boston Globe noted “was one of the most prominent examples of the senator himself confronting his challenger”:
Rather than adopt an elitist attitude with one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else, I urge you once again to join me in calling for an end to all spending by third party groups,.
Warren essentially told Brown, you want it? You got it. From her letter, sent to reporters Friday:
If you are serious about stopping the political games and getting to the hard work of keeping out third party ads and independent groups, I’m ready…I propose that our agreement include television, radio and online advertisements from outside groups and third parties and further, that this agreement include consequences for the campaign that fails to honor this agreement.
The Hill reported last week that staff from the Warren and Brown campaigns are set to meet and negotiate the details of the anti-third party ad pact.
So now we move on to the big questions. First, can candidates really control what third party groups do in the age of Citizens United? The Brown-Warren matchup is as marquee as they come in 2012, and the nascent race has already proven itself to be a huge draw for outside spending from progressive groups (who have canonized Warren as their new national leader) and conservative groups (who would love to hang onto the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s [D] seat). It’s doubtful those groups would keep out — and stay out — if the race is close.
Usually letters like Brown’s are political stunts, designed to embarrass an opponent. Now that Warren’s said she’s game for a third party ad ban, we’ll see if it’s possible for candidates to have that much control over what people say on their behalf in the second cycle of the Super PAC.
Evan McMorris-Santoro
Evan McMorris-Santoro has covered politics for TPM since 2009. Before that, he was a reporter at National Journal’s Hotline covering election 2008. He started his career covering local politics at newspapers in TN and his native NC.
anonq a lot of those people not paying federal taxes is because corporations don't pay a livable wage to meet the taxable threshold, and the other portion are either families with children or senior citizens who don't work. and those roads, schools, libraries and parks you speak of were built by many of these hard-working poorly-compensated people, and those institutions allow commerce to work so CEOs can get their million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes when they are done pilfering their company coffers
but i don't expect you to understand that, because your ideology borders on sociopathy. its impossible for the disadvantaged to take risks with limited amounts of liquid money (not to mention limited assets) when they struggle to afford healthcare, food, education, and housing in a safe neighborhood for their family. in fact, it would be irresponsible. you're advocating we worship capitalism over moral and ethical responsibility to our families. would you do that?
i hope someone hugs you today.
adam.x.hillanonq Oh, they all pay federal taxes of one sort or another; they may simply not be liable for *income* tax. For sure they pay federal excise taxes included in their phone bills and the gasoline they buy, and which are included in the price of a number of other products as well, and the working poor pay a great deal in payroll taxes. There's nobody living in this country that doesn't pay federal taxes of one kind or another, and it is simply a lie promulgated by the right wing to continue to insist otherwise.
slbadam.x.hill The issue here is income taxes. If the poor don't pay any, they have no right to start screaming at somebody who already does to pay even more just so they could redistribute it through endless bureaucratic government agencies in your Marxist utopian engineered equality schemes. It doesn't work.
And then as you scream for this equality, you seem to then have a problem because people are paying payroll taxes to pay for their unemployment insurance, social security and medicare?
This is precisely what you wanted! This type of scattered thought process can only make sense to Progressives. They want big government welfare state "safety net" programs like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance etc. and then complain that people are getting money taken out of their paycheck to pay for it. HOW ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS?! Should they not chip in at least a little bit for these costs? Should people pay zero dollars toward these programs and should we just steal from the rich to pay for it all? That sounds like a great idea until you run out of other people's money!
Why not address the true cause of the rising inequality and rising consumer prices that make it more difficult low and fixed income people to survive: bad monetary policy, central banking and fiat currency that can be inflated at will to continue funding government overspending.
anonqadam.x.hill You did not specify income taxes, you said that they paid NO federal taxes. I merely pointed out that was a lie -- they do pay federal taxes, and most of them probably pay at least as much in total federal taxes in terms of a percentage of their income as people like Mitt Romney do.
It will be interesting to see just how much of his income he pays in federal income tax when and if he really does release his tax returns in April. And why April? Is he only going to release his 2011 return, or is he going to release returns for the last several years?
It is a trick Elizabeth. Keep building your lead in fund raising and do not quit till the election is over and your friends have also been elected. Brown is trying you into thinking of your race in a individual race view. You are a fund raising magnet for the entire Progressive agenda. Wall Street will wait for you to falter then club you over the head with tons of Ad money. Keep going. Scott is on the ropes. Finish him like the leader of the middle class that you are. Think prize fighter. Wait for the moment then take him out and destroy his and the Republican will to fight.
Sorry, Scotty. Mitt's tux doesn't have coattails.
I think this is gonna back fire on Brown, he is used to the regular spineless, pro business dem. Warren is a fighter, and she has the brains to take complex issues make them easy to understand for everyone. She knows how to connect with working class voters, so it don't take a half hour to explain her position. She can break it down in a couple minutes. Brown will end up coming off as talking down to her, and I think that it will bite him down the road. To keep his seat he is going to have to buck the party, because the party is insane, and so he will end up being between a rock and a hard place. He is going to have to vote a LOT with the dems, his voters aren't like the crazies running the party. Warren is a populist, and the economy isn't getting better, not for most of us, anyway. I may be wrong, but I think it's Warren's to lose, but then this is just my two cents.
Scott's already crying foul & he hasn't even gotten the square kick to the nuts yet. His supposed advantage of bottomless money has turned into a disadvantage faster than you can say, "corporations are people my friend".
The Elizabeth stomp will continue on no matter his whining. Brown positioned himself for his win & he won, now he tries to appear as compromising to reposition himself & get re-elected, only to get the wonder woman Elizabeth Warren thrown in his face. Hey, she really only has to beat the legend of the pick-up truck.
Scott Brown is done like fried chicken & almost an afterthought before the thought!
While I admire Brown for his principles and his rugged good looks, he's in over his head here. The financial elite will not just roll over and die at his command. There's too much at stake.
The last thing America needs is a bolshevik in "progressive" clothing
How about a law that states that corporations can indeed create and fund the huge PACs we now see, but 50% of all monies would be put aside for the eventual winner and losers to donate towards projects that will benefit the actual district in play?
I have yet to see anyone address this issue. A couple of weeks ago the SCOTUS upheld a ban on foreign contributions that directly influence US campaigns. With the Citizens United decision as well as the legally opaque and anonymous contributions allowed to Super Pacs, how can anyone prove there was NOT significant foreign influence on ANY future election within the US? IANAL, help me out here.
Coincidence perhaps, but is Warren concerned about the Chamber of Commerce? Seems she responded to Brown's letter after the COC claimed they were going to put out ads.
To quote Julius Caesar, "Fattus Chancum"
One almost feels sorry for Mr. Brown considering the considerable intellectual disadvantage he has in this contest. Almost... hey, he can always go back to posing nude for Playgirl and making misogynistic comments for a living on Fox!!
There's no way this guy can hold Ted Kennedy's seat. The fact that he won it once was a fluke and will not be repeated. I mean he's about as far left as a Republican can get but that won't save him against Ms. Warren.
Why the crickets, Scott? How about that both candidates have to pay out of their own campaign coffer's each time one of those outside groups runs an AD for your or against your opponent?
No Scott, I won't hold my breathe waiting for your answer. E Warren just called your bluff! Cat got your tongue?
What does Mr Alito have to say about Citizens United now that
Down Town Scotty Brown doesn't think it's a good idea?
Looks like the 99% will be able to match the 1%. Every time we
give $1.00 the Koch brothers have to come up with $100.00.
Just keep sending in the 5-10-20 dollar donations. Millionaires
don't like to throw their money away on a lost cause.
A Repub complaining about third-party ads? That's good irony.
Mickey Bitsko Yeah, like Newt Gingrich complaining about negative campaigning.
If the groups agree to stay out, it's grounds for a future Supreme Court to overturn Citizens United, because it will prove coordination with the campaigns. Of course, I would not expect the current Court to do anything so Constitutional.
" telling Brown that if he really wants to deny groups like American Crossroads that are beating up Warren these days the opportunity to continue, she’d be more than happy to get on board."
Two politicians want the power to silence critics, the only news here is that it is a bipartisan effort to limit speech in this election...
i was going to suggest that i had some new found respect for Brown for actually being a stand up guy and not a douche...then i read the letter and the analysis of the political grandstanding...and now i think he's a bigger douche
I suspect Brown knows he's going to get spanked. In addition he will collude with 3rd parties on the sly.
What they are suggesting is "coordination" which is illegal
madmatt Interesting. Any more on this?
madmatt Agreement between candidates isn't illegal; coordination between a candidate and third-party ads are what is illegal. However, how the candidates can stop independent PACS from buying advertising saying whatever they want to say is beyond me.
Nice letter, Senator Brown. Stay classy.
Brown knows he's about to get his butt kicked. What a whiny-ass titty baby.
"Make her stop!"
Brown sounds like a bully who just got punched in the nose.
This sounds to me like an impossibility. I mean, campaigns cannot coordinate with third party groups. So, how could a campaign essentially bar a third party group from endorsing/opposing said campaign? It won't be able to do so. If Karl Rove wants to publicly throw his weight and money to Scott Brown, he can do so. If Moveon.org wants to publicly throw its weight to Elizabeth Warren, it can do so. What am I missing?
mattdotb The point (ostensibly) for both Brown and Warren would be to use their publicly stated positions (which, in its public-ness, is NOT coordination with third party groups) to dissuade third parties from engaging in mud-slinging via misleading opposition and outright falsehoods. MA voters are certainly not looking forward to what NH voters just endured in the R primary and the return of statesmanship would be a breath of fresh air. But don't hold your breath waiting for that fresh air...money trumps statesmanship every time...
Elizabeth Warren is simply calling out Scott Brown's BS bluff. Sometimes you have to match BS with BS. Warren knows there's no way this could fly. Like a true bluff-caller, she had to one-up Brown's BS bluff with " consequences for the campaign that fails to honor this agreement." Which, of course, is more BS. I love Elizabeth Warren. Besides sharing the same principles, it appears she knows how to mix it up in a political fight.
NMFreelancer You can't BS a BSer.
Shinobi42NMFreelancer But you can BS him into a shitty little corner though....
andrewrbussiereShinobi42 "But you can BS him into a shitty little corner though...."
Exactly! Warren may be from Oklahoma, but it seems she knows how to play no-limit Texas Hold 'em like a pro.
NMFreelancer She probably cleans out everyone at the table in a poker game.
The candidate could make a blanket anouncement that they wish all 3rd party advertising on their behalf to stop. Of course the nod and wink is that the superpac can just ignore the request and magically the candidates hands still remain clean. The ruling needs to be overturned and new legislation offered to at a minimum make ALL donations transparent.
britbitter I think these PACS are legally bound to NOT listen to what the candidates say... They would otherwise be colluding with the campaigns in direct violation of the Citizens United decision. It's a funny thing any way you look at it!
andrewrbussierebritbitter
The legally bound enabling language for these pacs reminds me of the blind trusts wealthy politicians use to create the illusion of distance from corruption (or collusion with the pacs), but in this day and age where corporations are people and money is speech... it's such a sham, Sam
To bad Scott Brown doesn't consider Karl Rove and his several PAC's "3rd party"... This outta be interesting.
"First, can candidates really control what third party groups do in the age of Citizens United?"
Nope. And that has Scott Brown worried. He has no control over Rove's group any more than Warren has control over the groups running ads for her. A fact which he is well aware. He just got to the Senate and wants to stay awhile, and not have to worry about those pesky little "details" on how to keep his seat, which, from the looks of it, he's going to lose.
DF2691
I'm still surprised that Brown was so willing to flaunt the Supreme Court and try to ban corporations apparent Constitutional rights to unlimited campaign spending and free speech...
That seems a little socialist to me.... He must REALLY be bending over backwards to win the populist vote here in MA... I wonder what kind of ads Crossroads will run about Browns new found socialist tendencies...
How can the parties agree to anything here? By definition, the PACs have nothing to do with the candidates. If the candidates can get the PACs to quit running ads, that proves coordination between the PACs and the candidates and they're all busted.
While any agreement between Brown & Warren would not be binding on third party PACs, I can see an "enforcement" provision that would require an unequivocal public statement by the beneficiary candidate disavowing any association with the offending PAC, and expressly repudiating, word for word, the message conveyed in any such 3d party ads.
Of course, you can count on Rove or the Kochheads to engage in some Rat-fkery, but hopefully any agreement would attempt to address such efforts as well.
Walter I suspect Warren has in mind a mechanism whereby they agree to a total spending cap and further agree that that every dollar a 3d party group spends on their behalf is a dollar against that cap that they won't spend on themselves. Draw it up as a contract and agree compliance can be enforced by a Massachusetts court's injunction power.
NCSteve 3.0Walter So then Rove's group can just run "positive" ads about Warren that damn with faint praise, and thereby limit her own campaign spending?
Priv8teerWalter Were I drafting it, I'd put in a "deliberate ratfucking by my supporters counts against the my total" clause. But, yeah, that's exactly the kind of complex factual dispute that would snarl sny disputes up until after the election.
Anytime a candidate is targeted by a Super PAC ad the other candidate must hand deliver a pizza to their opponents campaign headquarters.
Doremus Jessup 2.0 Are you sure you want your campaign HQ eating food prepared/delivered by your opponent? Maybe just ordered and paid for by the other side...
Ah yes good old Warren... the one who likes to rail against the "rich" that pay for those roads, schools, libraries, parks, etc. that the poor that pay zero taxes can than just use free of charge. The one who doesn't understand that the "rich" take risks with their capital, build that factory, and they could potentially lose it all. God forbid somebody who takes risks and works hard is rewarded for it!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like