It’s Good To Live In A Two-Daily Town (Brown/Warren Kabuki Edition)

In reaction to the Super PAC Mania currently gripping the GOP presidential primary campaign, Massachusetts US Senate opponents Scott Brown (R-LL Bean) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Harvard Yard) are looking to rid their battle of outside-group influence.

From Saturday’s Boston Globe:

Brown, Warren in battle over ads

US Senator Scott Brown, stepping up his efforts to confront Elizabeth Warren, his Democratic challenger, sent her a letter yesterday, calling on her to denounce campaign ads from outside groups.

Warren reacted quickly with her own challenge, suggesting in her own letter that the campaigns draft an “enforceable agreement’’ on the issue. “We have the opportunity to set an example for the rest of the country. Let’s do it,’’ she wrote.

Likewise, from Saturday’s Boston Herald:

A potential deal would be similar to an agreement in the legendary 1996 clash between U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry and former Bay State Gov. William F. Weld. The pair pledged to cap spending in the race at $6.9 million, but each broke the deal.

Campaign Outsider Reality Check (pat. pending):

This is nothing like the Weld-Kerry deal, and there’s no possible “enforceable agreement” that can stop outside groups from running TV spots. (By law, candidates cannot coordinate with independent political groups.)

The Brown/Warren disarmament deal is a pipe dream that serves both campaigns, but does a disservice to the voting public.

And it’s a shame that neither the Globe nor the Herald notes that fact.

Maybe we need to live in a three-daily town?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to It’s Good To Live In A Two-Daily Town (Brown/Warren Kabuki Edition)

  1. dankennedy says:

    We don’t need three dailies. We’ve got John Carroll.

  2. Scott Brown asking someone to get rid of outside campaign money? *coffee spit-take*

  3. Curmudgeon says:

    One would have thought that a sharp attorney such as Prof. Warren would have know that they could never be an enforceable agreement.

    • Campaign Outsider says:

      And that would have what to do with politics, Mudge?

      • Curmudgeon says:

        Aw, gee, John. You so in the tank that you can’t draw the conclusion?
        You’re better than that!

        Something about lawyers knowing the law, and politicians both making and knowing the law.

        Oh that’s right. lawyer politicians know they are above the law so whatever it says doesn’t matter.

      • Campaign Outsider says:

        Hey, Mudge – I was just kidding. You so in the tank you couldn’t see that?

      • Curmudgeon says:

        In a day and age when politicians and law makers are so readily willing to pick and chose the laws that they are willing to obey, such statements are ill-advised, even from the most ironic of bloggers.

Leave a Reply to dankennedy Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s