January 24, 2012

"The Brown-Warren agreement does not seek to equalize spending between the two candidates, both of whom are well funded."

"It is a sort of suicide pact, providing... that the two 'donate to charity half the price of ads that are run in their name in the state.' Says Brown: 'By having 50 percent of that negative or positive ad buy go to charity of the other person's choice, it's an incentive to keep those groups out.'"

Brown is pandering to Massachusetts liberals who hate Citizens United and don't understand the underlying principles of free speech.

21 comments:

garage mahal said...

Newt's favorite SuperPac and Citizens United may give Dems the White House and the Supreme Court. How funny is that. Hitchcockian!

SPImmortal said...

Newt's favorite SuperPac and Citizens United may give Dems the White House and the Supreme Court. How funny is that. Hitchcockian!

------------

Then again, it probably won't.

Jay said...

Brown is pandering to Massachusetts liberals who hate Citizens United

The question is why?

They're not going to vote for him anyway.

AJ Lynch said...

Eliz Warren is an angry, nasty, unattractive, unfriendly person. Those attributes will cost her the election because Brown has the opposite features and he is a true moderate.

shiloh said...

My MA theory re: statewide elections is the Dem has to be really, really unlikeable to lose to a Rep, albeit most MA Reps are moderate to liberal Reps. Or a terrible campaigner ie no show. Or both.

= Martha Coakley

Somewhat amusing Brown has turned into a Dem pretzel trying to save his job.

Plus Brown was straight out of Playgirl lol a plus w/female voters.

Warren seems to be likable and a capable campaigner ~ stay tuned.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Newt's favorite SuperPac and Citizens United may give Dems the White House and the Supreme Court. How funny is that. Hitchcockian!





This would probably make sense to anybody else that thinks in one dimension. Unfortunately in the thinking world we are committed to thinking in three dimensions.
I'm sure it's a delightful sentiment though.
Keep up the good work!

shiloh said...

Latest RCP poll:

UMass/Boston Herald ~ 12/1-12/6 ~ 42/49 Warren +7

btw, my theory is totally untested. :D

Titus said...

My voting for Brown because he isn't a freak.

Unlike most all of the other republicans in gross states.

tits.

David said...

So who is going to make the donations to charity? The candidate or the campaign? If it's the candidate, some joker could personally bankrupt either one of them by running ad after ad.

Plus how does this prevent anything? The candidates are not supposed to "coordinate" with third parties in running ads. Can they coordinate in not running ads?

Plus, who is going to enforce this contract? When the election is over, are they really going to sue each other to enforce gifts to charity?

Totally crazy.

David said...

I think many of those Massachusetts liberals understand precisely the principles of free speech underlying Citizens United. They just disagree with those principles, insofar as they are applicable to persons who have bad ideas. I left liberalism behind when I realized that most liberals are interested in the political outcome they desire, not in principles.

Joe said...

Did they settle on the charity? If not, couldn't it be a 501(c)(3)?

edutcher said...

Considering Warren has yet to win the primary (September) and is down 2 to 1 in money - not to mention she has to run from her past as one of the fountainheads of the Occupation and one of GodZero's failed technocrats, this is a desperation ploy on her part.

Brown isn't twisting into anything as much as Warren is trying to become Sergeant Schultz, "I know nothing, I did nothing".

garage mahal said...

Newt's favorite SuperPac and Citizens United may give Dems the White House and the Supreme Court.

But the economy will take it away from them.

Phil 3:14 said...

The question to conservatives:

Would you rather have Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren?

If the answer is "Brown" then let him decide what will work in Massachusetts?

If you say "Warren" then either you're not a conservative or you prefer the small company you keep on the pure, moral high ground.

jeff said...

"Newt's favorite SuperPac and Citizens United may give Dems the White House and the Supreme Court. How funny is that. Hitchcockian!"

No problem. We just immediately start getting recall petitions signed so we can have a recall election. That's the American thing to do when a election doesn't go your way, right Garage?

How funny is that?

Synova said...

I'm with David.

If you're forced to pay into charity 50% of the cost of positive ads "in your name" for you, and negative ads toward the other guy "in your name"... how does that work?

Presumably a "Paid for by the Democratic National Convention" general ad generally talking about issues is going to have to be determined to be either against or for an opposing individual in order to rightly decide who has to pay to who elses charity.

If the oil industry buys some time during the election to tell people that we should build a pipeline to carry Canadian shale oil south, someone is going to have to decide which individual, or individualS, that ad is for and against so that the proper person's campaign can be charged and the proper charity paid.

Sounds like a mess.

shiloh said...

"The question to conservatives:"

If conservatives in MA are iffy towards Brown, he's already toast!

Maguro said...

The question to conservatives:

Would you rather have Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren?

If the answer is "Brown" then let him decide what will work in Massachusetts?


First, I question whether this is really going to "work in Massachusetts". It's gimmicky and I suspect that to the extent the voters like it, they'll give credit to Elizabeth Watren for hectoring him into giving up his filthy corporate money.

Second and more importantly, Brown is implicitly conceding the point that free speech is a bad and dangerous thing that needs to tightly controlled. That's a dangerous meme to feed and it's a much bigger deal to me than whether Scott Brown or Elizabeth Warren wins this Senate seat.

Titus said...

Mass Republicans are nomal, hence all the republican governors winning...Mitt.

Although, now he has turned into something completely not like he was as a republican governor. Flip flop on just about every single issue. Hunting Varmints? Dear Lord, he is a fucking mess.

Mass doesn't give a shit about the gay issue. As a result in the rest of the country these republicans would be crap because let's face it republicans and the evangelicals are obsessed with anything gay...

Which is why I will never vote for a republican in a presidential election because they will do anything to throw the fags of the cliff.

Thank God for the Torys. They have finally learned that demonizing gays will not win elections. Our country will learn soon. The good news is the fag haters will be dead within the next 20 years.

Daryl said...

Doesn't this mean if you donate to an outside group you get 2x the bang for your buck?

And if you donate directly to the candidates, you lose the opportunity to write off 50% of your donation to charity?

And doesn't it mean if you donate to the candidate, you are giving 50% to the opponent's charity? Isn't Elizabeth Warren going to pick some crazy left-wing charity just to discourage Scott Brown's supporters from giving him money?

mccullough said...

This is a smooth move on Brown's part. Warren won't be able to uphold her end of the bargain.

EDH said...

The interesting thing is that Brown was the mover behind this agreement. Warren had to be corralled into it.

I think Brown is sincerely passionate about candidates being responsible for, and being able to control, their own message.

In the last election, a lot of people and groups tried to project what they thought he was or should be about on to him.

And in the last year he's been under relentless and unfair attacks by outside groups.

Whether there is a shrewder calculation about the net benefit to each candidate of this "ban", I don't know.

With respect to Toronto's point: I question how the agreement will work in practice more than I fret over what effect it will have on the principle of free speech.

We'll see, I guess.