Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo you want to ban super PACs? Put your money where your mouth is.
So you want to ban super PACs? Put your money where your mouth is.Jay Costa
MSNBC
At a recent campaign event at Cornell College, Hillary Clinton told students that she wished super PACs would be banned, but then quickly added in the next breath that I and others have said were not going to unilaterally disarm.
If Clinton or other candidates really wanted to get super PACs out of this election, there is a simple tool they could use to do it: a bilateral pledge between opposing candidates to eliminate super PAC spending.
This kind of pledge has worked before, and it could work again. 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 Peoples 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.
But even beyond the tangible impact that the pledge had on the Massachusetts election, it showed that when it comes to the issue of campaign spending, candidates hands are not tied. For any candidate who really wants to do something about super PACs, taking a bilateral pledge such as the one that Warren and Brown pioneered is a real, actionable option.
Its time for any candidate who says they want to do something about super PAC spending to put their money where their mouth is. A bilateral no outside spending pledge is a powerful tool available to all candidates that has the potential to stem the flood of super PAC money all it requires are candidates who are willing to do the right thing.
In this dark moment in the history of American democracy, what we need are real leaders who will fight to ensure that our elections are about the voices of everyday voters, not just wealthy donors. Who will stand up?
If Clinton or other candidates really wanted to get super PACs out of this election, there is a simple tool they could use to do it: a bilateral pledge between opposing candidates to eliminate super PAC spending.
This kind of pledge has worked before, and it could work again. 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 Peoples 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.
But even beyond the tangible impact that the pledge had on the Massachusetts election, it showed that when it comes to the issue of campaign spending, candidates hands are not tied. For any candidate who really wants to do something about super PACs, taking a bilateral pledge such as the one that Warren and Brown pioneered is a real, actionable option.
Its time for any candidate who says they want to do something about super PAC spending to put their money where their mouth is. A bilateral no outside spending pledge is a powerful tool available to all candidates that has the potential to stem the flood of super PAC money all it requires are candidates who are willing to do the right thing.
In this dark moment in the history of American democracy, what we need are real leaders who will fight to ensure that our elections are about the voices of everyday voters, not just wealthy donors. Who will stand up?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 489 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So you want to ban super PACs? Put your money where your mouth is. (Original Post)
portlander23
Oct 2015
OP
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1. One candidate in this election has !!!!!!
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)2. Even if only in the primaries
All the Democratic candidates could do this in the primaries, and save the PAC spending for the general election.