[EL] Mutually Assured Super PAC destruction in MA. Senate Race

[Matt Taylor]

Here's my take on the Massachusetts Super PAC detente. Thanks to many  
on this list for their thoughts/contributions/ideas.

http://nationalmemo.com/article/mutually-assured-super-pac-destruction-brings-detente-massachusetts
Mutually Assured Super PAC Destruction In Massachusetts?
Tue, 01/24/2012 - 1:23am —
Matt Taylor
In the Massachusetts Senate campaign, where Super PACs have already  
spent millions blanketing the airwaves in what promises to be a  
spectacular slugfest, the candidates are giving peace a chance.

Or so they would have us believe.

Scott Brown, the Republican incumbent, and Elizabeth Warren, the  
progressive consumer advocate who recently left the Obama  
administration to launch a political career, tentatively agreed Monday  
to reject outside spending by third-party groups, whether traditional  
political action committees (PACs), party organs like the Democratic  
National Committee, or Super PACs like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS.

Under the terms of the deal, hashed out in both private meetings  
between the campaigns and publicly-available letters, whenever a third- 
party group spends money to air an ad attacking (or supporting) a  
candidate, the potential beneficiary must donate half the sum of the  
ad buy to a charity of their opponent's choice.

Neither has anything to lose by coming across as an advocate for  
stricter campaign finance regulations that would limit or block the  
use of outside money in campaigns. This is especially true when it  
comes to Super PACs, the "independent, expenditure-only committees"  
that emerged in the wake of the 2010Citizens United and related  
Supreme Court rulings and have received quite a bit of unfavorable  
press coverage, including constant satire from Stephen Colbert and Jon  
Stewart. These groups can accept unlimited donations from individuals  
and corporations.

"With our joint agreement, we have now moved beyond talk to real  
action to stop advertising from third-party groups," Warren said in a  
statement. "But both campaigns will need to remain vigilant to ensure  
that outside groups do not try to circumvent what is an historic  
agreement. This can give Massachusetts voters a clear choice come  
Election Day."

The gambit reflects a sentiment on the part of both campaigns that  
they have a viable path to victory without outside help. Having seen  
Newt Gingrich's presidential bid explode in the face of a Super PAC  
barrage in Iowa, the risks to third-party intervention might be  
greater than potential gains.

"The more liberal voters in Massachusetts are critical of Citizens  
United and Super PACs," University of California at Irvine Professor  
and election law expert Rick Hasen said. "It was Brown, the  
Republican, who made the first move here, trying to outflank Warren on  
the left on this issue."

In other words, Brown, facing a vigorous challenge during a  
presidential election year in a Democratic state, may simply be using  
the hot button issue of money in politics to triangulate and build his  
bipartisan appeal.

"This is more a reflection that the candidates would like to see less  
outside advertising by these groups and control the message  
themselves," added Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign finance expert at  
Colby College. Barack Obama's successful 2008 campaign famously urged  
outside spending to focus on turnout and not on television  
advertising, preferring top-down management of paid media efforts by  
his strategists and consultants.

"I think it is very unlikely to be successful," Hasen said of the  
proposed pact. "Super PAC spending can be very effective because it’s  
likely to be negative. Even if candidates are sincere, there’s no  
reason to think supporters of a candidate will actually [hold their  
fire]."

Instead of being a genuine attempt to squelch the influence of special  
interest money on the campaign, then, the jostling over the Super PAC  
cease fire is mostly about political positioning.

"Logistically, the devil’s in the details," said David Paleologos,  
director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.  
"Ultimately, who’s going to be against a peaceful, positive campaign?  
Their intentions are honorable. But the road to hell is paved with  
good intentions."

Perhaps most important is the thorny matter of Super PACs potentially  
breaking the law by taking queues -- even to remain on the sidelines  
-- from candidates. Any coordination between candidates and Super PACs  
calls into question their purported independence, as Colbert and  
Stewart have been reminding us with their on-air antics.

"The more a candidate tries to tell a Super PAC what to do, the more  
likely they’ll be subject to a complaint before the Federal Election  
Commission," Hasen said.

There's also the stealthy nature of Super PAC activity. Even when they  
can be reached, the groups are extremely tight-lipped about their  
plans and focus in the 2012 elections. And they have no obligation to  
adhere to a pact between the candidates.

"We don’t comment on specific strategy for any races that we may or  
may not be involved in," said Nate Hodson, a spokesman for Crossroads  
GPS, when asked whether his group would be open to staying on the  
sidelines if Democratic Super PACs did the same.

But League of Conservation Voters Senior Vice President of Campaigns  
Navin Nayak said in a Monday afternoon statement, "While we cannot  
take directions from any candidate on our independent activities, we  
are inclined to respect the People’s Pledge agreed to by Elizabeth  
Warren and Scott Brown and we hope that Scott Brown will honor his end  
of the deal when Crossroads and the Koch Brothers inevitably break it."

The Massachusetts Democratic Party signaled it would abide the pledge,  
too. And there is some precedent for a deal like this one being  
successful.

"Rick Lazio and Hillary Clinton tried to do something somewhat similar  
in their Senate race," said University of Kentucky Law Professor  
Joshua A. Douglas. "The evidence suggests the candidates and the  
groups, generally speaking, adhered to the agreement." In that 2000  
contest, the candidates agreed not to spend "soft money" on TV ads and  
also to ask third-party groups not to interfere. It was a fight over  
the terms of the deal that led to Lazio's famous march across the  
stage at a debate, but a pact was eventually reached.

And this even though there was no penalty for noncompliance in the New  
York race; the candidates decided to "let the public decide." Which  
is, after all, who the ads are trying to reach.

"There will be societal pressure," Douglas added. "Outside groups  
might think twice. Partially because they don’t want their preferred  
candiates to suffer the penalty. But the deterrent is more in the  
societal impetus. Any [outside] ad in Massachusetts is going to be  
tainted: it’s not adhering to this voluntary agreement the candidates  
hammered out to improve the discourse in this election."

Best,


Matt Taylor, Political Correspondent
The National Memo
matt at nationalmemo.com
(347) 273-1636 (office)
(646) 783-8585 (mobile)
@matthewt_ny (twitter)





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120124/416f8c77/attachment.html>