Kelly Ayotte has announced her support for ‘The People’s Pledge’ by asking Governor Hassan to sign on. If you forgot what that is, Jeanne Shaheen tried to foist in on Scott Brown in the 2014 US Senate race after he lost to Liz Warren when they both signed on in 2012.
If an independent third party group spends money on TV, radio, or online supporting a candidate, that candidate has agreed to pay 50% of the cost of airing that ad to a charity of the other candidate’s choice.
How nice of Senator Ayotte to toe another progressive narrative for them.
“Campaigns don’t have to be driven by third party groups – we can change the status quo and take a stand to say that this race should be about New Hampshire. That’s why today I’m asking you to agree to a race between the two of us by pledging to keep third party special interest spending out of this race and keep the focus on New Hampshire priorities.”
You catch all those buzz words? McCain’s “change the status quo,” followed by some ‘special-interest’ rhetoric of the outside influence (see also “money isn’t speech”) left?
And then there are those dastardly third party groups, driving the campaign away from NH Priorities. As if Kelly has even been focused on anything other than political class priorities driven by lobbyists and DC insider money. Money that makes for good political speech, if given directly to the campaign and the politician to manage the message as they see fit.
That’s what the People’s Pledge is all about.
Mizzayotte is playing the incumbency card here. The People’s Pledge, by design, favors incumbents. Those in office and already connected to the Money-Matrix are almost always well-funded by default. Challengers are not always as fortunate. The end result is re-election.
For those wondering, no – there is no contradiction with regard to incumbent Scott Brown’s loss to Liz Warren. In that race Warren was the ideological incumbent. That contest was always hers to lose. The only reason Brown ever got to the US Senate from Massachusetts in the first place was the confluence of timing (open seat during the peak of tea party activism against ObamaCare) and a horrible challenger in Martha Coakley. By 2012, Republicans didn’t see Brown the same way and Warren would always out-Democrat him.
So Ayotte is playing with political speech, allowing Hassan to opt-in, and waiting to use a refusal for making political hay. That was Shaheen’s play with Brown, but in the case of Hassan, Democrats don’t care. The only people who really give a damn about this faux-issue are not voting for Ayotte when a better Democrat is on the ballot, more proof that Ayotte has already allowed special interests to convince her that this is a savvy political play.
One of the things I did not explore (more thoroughly in 2014) is if The People’s Pledge might encourage challengers to suppress political speech that favors them. To do that, they’d have to, well, coordinate–which is illegal.
Could one side or the other suggest a morally or ideologically inappropriate charity to keep the opponent from otherwise agreeing to take the pledge, providing one or the other with free (and legal) “advertising” from media outlets that cover it?
And then, of course, there is this.
“…the pledge is actually crap painted with populist rhetoric that simultaneously advances two things Democrats want. To further regulate or intimidate speech they can’t control, and to promote the notion that political speech that happens beyond the control of politicians and their campaigns is dangerous to Democracy.
Insisting that speech not controlled by campaigns is bad is contrary to the entire point of the first amendment protection. The people’s pledge is itself a form of illegal coordination to “tax” speech to the advantage of agreed upon beneficiaries in the form of non-profits who may well turn around and spend that money on issue advocacy against the person forced by the pledge to fund it.
Yes, it is voluntary stupidity, but none of these prospects are things a Republican should be endorsing, let alone encouraging. But once again we see how New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte has been corrupted by the political class. Her idea of “changing the status quo” is a form of speech suppression that favors incumbents, which, let’s be honest, is as status quo as it gets.
For the sake of free speech, on both sides, I hope Gov. Hassan says no. But her answer will depend entirely on the math; how much in promises of direct contributions can the DNC collect from the Democrat donor class. If the numbers favor Hassan, then Maggie can say yes without fear of getting caught in a vice, and keep Ayotte advocates from speaking out against her.
