A heartening new rule of engagement has developed in at least one U.S. Senate race, and it might be spreading.
Republican Sen. Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren have agreed to try to keep outside advertising out of their campaign and limit advertising to content they can control. Try is the operative word, because anyone can buy newspaper ad space and radio and television air time. Brown and Warren have contacted media outlets and potential third-party advertisers (including some groups now known as super PACs) to ask everyone to comply with the agreement.
Compliance is not likely to be universal, because the stakes are extremely high. Big money, especially in the wake of the Citizens United court decision that eliminated limits on independent campaign spending, has been instrumental, and often essential, not only in winning elections but in determining which issues get the most attention during campaigns. Candidates have benefited from attack ads for which they can disclaim any responsibility. Donors have purchased political power, and media companies primarily television stations have profited. Coming soon: Shrill cries that the agreement has violated the First Amendment rights of the super PACs and the donors hiding behind them who as individuals could donate directly to the candidates campaigns.
If Brown and Warren truly can disassociate themselves from such advertising and can adhere to their promises not to be influenced by its results, they will have accomplished something of value to voters.
And so far, the agreement does seem to be holding super PAC ads at bay.
In Montana, incumbent Sen. John Tester is asking his Republican challenger, Rep. Denny Rehberg, to join in a similar commitment. Cynics point out that Tester really needs the agreement because the Karl Rove-linked super PAC, Crossroads GPS, is targeting him. Nonetheless, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still better than doing wrong.
The issues that affect the average voter are not the same issues on the minds of individuals who dont have to worry about keeping a roof over their heads, paying for groceries or affording health care and education. The concerns of corporations are different still.
If the limit on contributions to political campaigns and related advertising was $1 per person (including corporations), every person would have an equal voice. At $10, a few drop out; at $100, the more affluent begin to gain considerable influence. As the line of zeros grows, the speech of the very wealthy drowns out everyone else, and when no limit exists, one donor can, in effect, act as a majority in influencing the direction of a race. Although each person still has just one vote, such concentrated influence does change the ability of a voter to make the best choice based on his own philosophy and needs.
Locally, political campaigns are run at relatively low cost and focus on what voters know really know, through personal experience and the experiences of their friends and neighbors about each candidate. National races cannot be conducted the same way, but agreeing to minimize the influence of anonymous big-money donors is one way to preserve the integrity and civility of a campaign.
The Brown-Warren agreement may fail, but its worth an honest effort, in Massachusetts, in Montana, and elsewhere.
