You are here
The People's Pledge in Mayoral Races
Wednesday, June 18th, 2014
Robert Wechsler
In 2012, Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown signed a People's Pledge
in their U.S. senatorial race in Massachusetts. The candidates
agreed to donate to a charity of the other candidate's choice a sum
equal to 50% of any advertisement run by any outside group or PAC.
The goal was to let the candidates control their own race and to
prevent outside groups from changing the nature of the race,
especially by running negative ads, as they tend to do. The pledge was successful
because, as the candidates wrote in a letter to third-party groups,
"Your spending will damage the candidate you intend to help." There
were only two minor breaches, leading to charitable contributions of
$1,000 and $35,000.
The success of the People's Pledge has led good government organizations and candidates to put pressure on federal and gubernatorial candidates nationwide to enter into People's Pledges of their own. This post will look at the role of the People's Pledge in mayoral races.
The People's Pledge is especially important in cities and counties that have a public campaign financing program, because their voluntary limitations on contributions and expenditures, along with unlimited independent spending, can mean that candidates do not participate due to the reasonable fear that their campaign will get overwhelmed by outside spending for and against them. The ability of candidates to control outside spending in a constitutional manner means that more candidates will participate and, therefore, public campaign financing will work. If it works, more local governments will embrace it as part of their government ethics program.
According to a Los Angeles Times blog post, in Los Angeles, in early 2013, one mayoral candidate surprised another with a request to agree to a People's Pledge. The candidate's proposal included direct mail advertising. The candidate's opponent criticized the candidate for waiting so long to make the proposal, portraying it as a desperate act. The timing of a proposed pledge and the relative situation of the candidates appear to be important to the success of a pledge. But as it turned out, the candidate who proposed the pledge won the election four months later.
At the local level, unions play a larger role than in most elections for federal and statewide office. And unions tend not to spend their money on radio and television advertising. That is why the pledge proposed by the Los Angeles candidate included mailings. It's harder to limit phone banks, since they usually involve volunteers.
According to an article in the Boston Globe, the People's Pledge became an issue in the 2013 Boston mayoral election soon after the primaries. One candidate proposed taking the pledge, while the other said that he didn't trust his opponent to honor such an agreement. This was based on the fact that the candidate who proposed the Pledge had rejected an earlier, less formal pledge in the preliminary election (it appears that only two of the eleven candidates took the pledge), before changing mid-election. The opponent called the pledge proposal "political theater," which appears to be the accusation of choice by those who do not want to limit outside spending. In this case, it was the opponent who refused to enter into the pledge (and had the most union support) who won the election.
In the New York City mayoral election of 2013, Common Cause New York asked the mayoral candidates to take the People's Pledge, but this proposal does not seem to have gone anywhere. It appears to work best when the impetus comes from one or more candidates, but good government organizations can get the conversation going so that it is more likely that a candidate will propose the Pledge and that the opponent will accept the proposal.
So far, talk of a mayoral candidate People's Pledge appears to be limited to these three large cities, and in none of them was the pledge taken by the candidates, except for two minor candidates in a crowded preliminary election. It's only a matter of time, however, before one city or county leads the way and, as in Massachusetts, shows not only that it can work, but also that it is a way for candidates to control their campaigns while (1) sparing citizens from overwhelming and negative advertising and (2) showing citizens that they are willing to go beyond the minimum requirements of campaign finance laws to prevent the appearance that special interests are trying to buy their support.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
The success of the People's Pledge has led good government organizations and candidates to put pressure on federal and gubernatorial candidates nationwide to enter into People's Pledges of their own. This post will look at the role of the People's Pledge in mayoral races.
The People's Pledge is especially important in cities and counties that have a public campaign financing program, because their voluntary limitations on contributions and expenditures, along with unlimited independent spending, can mean that candidates do not participate due to the reasonable fear that their campaign will get overwhelmed by outside spending for and against them. The ability of candidates to control outside spending in a constitutional manner means that more candidates will participate and, therefore, public campaign financing will work. If it works, more local governments will embrace it as part of their government ethics program.
According to a Los Angeles Times blog post, in Los Angeles, in early 2013, one mayoral candidate surprised another with a request to agree to a People's Pledge. The candidate's proposal included direct mail advertising. The candidate's opponent criticized the candidate for waiting so long to make the proposal, portraying it as a desperate act. The timing of a proposed pledge and the relative situation of the candidates appear to be important to the success of a pledge. But as it turned out, the candidate who proposed the pledge won the election four months later.
At the local level, unions play a larger role than in most elections for federal and statewide office. And unions tend not to spend their money on radio and television advertising. That is why the pledge proposed by the Los Angeles candidate included mailings. It's harder to limit phone banks, since they usually involve volunteers.
According to an article in the Boston Globe, the People's Pledge became an issue in the 2013 Boston mayoral election soon after the primaries. One candidate proposed taking the pledge, while the other said that he didn't trust his opponent to honor such an agreement. This was based on the fact that the candidate who proposed the Pledge had rejected an earlier, less formal pledge in the preliminary election (it appears that only two of the eleven candidates took the pledge), before changing mid-election. The opponent called the pledge proposal "political theater," which appears to be the accusation of choice by those who do not want to limit outside spending. In this case, it was the opponent who refused to enter into the pledge (and had the most union support) who won the election.
In the New York City mayoral election of 2013, Common Cause New York asked the mayoral candidates to take the People's Pledge, but this proposal does not seem to have gone anywhere. It appears to work best when the impetus comes from one or more candidates, but good government organizations can get the conversation going so that it is more likely that a candidate will propose the Pledge and that the opponent will accept the proposal.
So far, talk of a mayoral candidate People's Pledge appears to be limited to these three large cities, and in none of them was the pledge taken by the candidates, except for two minor candidates in a crowded preliminary election. It's only a matter of time, however, before one city or county leads the way and, as in Massachusetts, shows not only that it can work, but also that it is a way for candidates to control their campaigns while (1) sparing citizens from overwhelming and negative advertising and (2) showing citizens that they are willing to go beyond the minimum requirements of campaign finance laws to prevent the appearance that special interests are trying to buy their support.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
