Let's say you're a self-funding multi-millionaire running for Senate in a small state, where the $10 million you've decided you can spare can basically buy you a television commercial every 12 seconds, plus a plasma screen TV for everyone in the state to watch them on.
How would you approach the idea of campaign finance reform?
Well, here's one way: by declaring that nobody can spend big money but you:
Republican Rich Tarrant is challenging Independent Bernie Sanders, to join him in asking third parties to refrain from advertising on their behalf.
Still, that's not all bad, right? It's an important part of campaign finance reform, isn't it?
Well, you might never find out.
And why not? Well, because when it comes to limiting the influence of Big Money in politics, you can't propose half-measures to Bernie Sanders and hope you won't
hear any more about it:
So what does Bernie propose in response? Well, here's the deal:
1. The message Vermont should send to the rest of the country should be that politics doesn't have to be nasty. But there's another message that the people of Vermont would probably like to send, and that's that you shouldn't be able to buy yourself a Senate seat. So why not cap spending on the race at the still-enormous sum of $2 million apiece?
Now, the truth is that Bernie's been running statewide for years now, and he's got much wider name recognition than Tarrant. So what about if Bernie spots Tarrant an extra quarter mil, plus the $150K he's already put into TV and radio? A $2 million cap for Bernie, and a $2.4 million cap for Tarrant. Fair enough?
2. Want to show the country how to limit nastiness in campaigns? Let's agree that all negative campaign ads have to be done by the candidates themselves, talking directly to the camera, or for radio, directly into the microphone. No more anonymous announcers and disembodied voices leveling the charges. And no relying on the band-aid "I approve this message" tag. If you've got something negative to say, come out and say it yourself. Or better yet, save yourself the trouble and don't say it at all.
3. Stop outside groups. Credit where it's due: Tarrant's got this one dead on. Let's agree to call on all outside groups, including shadowy 527s, asking them to refrain from spending in Vermont on any candidate's behalf.
4. Finally, something everyone wants to see: debates. Vermonters are lucky enough to live in a state where politics is still local. So as long as we're holding ourselves out as an example of how politics once was, and could be again, let's do it right. How about a debate in every county in Vermont?
This would make for a really special kind of race, don't you think? The kind in which Vermonters -- and really anyone, anywhere -- would be proud to participate.
Disclosure: I help with Bernie Sanders' blog. In fact, I wrote that stuff up there. ^^
So, sounds promising, doesn't it? Tarrant wants to prohibit third-party expenditures and so does Sanders. We have a deal, right?
Wrong.
An effort by the two main candidates for Vermont's U.S. Senate seat to establish a set of ground rules for the campaign fizzled before it even got off the ground.
The campaign of Republican Senate candidate Richard Tarrant rejected a set of proposals by independent U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders that would have capped spending in the Senate race.
Oh well. Looks like turning Vermont into a shining example for all to see will have to wait:
Surprise! Rich Tarrant asks Bernie to make Vermont an example for the country by rejecting third-party spending, and Bernie says OK. So Bernie asks Tarrant to make Vermont an example by capping spending -- and even spots him 20% extra -- and Tarrant takes his ball and goes home.
In her first public appearance for the Tarrant campaign, Kate O'Connor [You remember Kate, don't you?] pokes her head up to declare Bernie's proposal a "four point incumbency protection plan." Of course, nobody in this race is the incumbent, but as Ronald Reagan (another Democrat-turned-Republican) once told us, "facts are stupid things."
Just to be clear about what's getting Kate's goat, we'll review the proposal. Kate's advising Rich to:
- Reject spending caps that include a 20% bonus for her candidate
- Reject the elimination of sneaky negative ads
- Reject his own proposal to bar third-party spending
- Reject an offer to debate Bernie at least once in every county in the state
So here we are, with both candidates agreeing that they should prohibit third-party spending in this race, but what blows the deal up on that score? Bernie proposes putting actual teeth in the agreement. What kind of teeth? This kind:
In the event that an unaffiliated third party does interfere, we would jointly condemn the interference and call on them to stop. If they continued to interfere in the election, any candidate could abandon this agreement once the unaffiliated third party spent $50,000.
And why does it need teeth? Because we've already seen how Tarrant deals with dirty tricks in this race.
Perhaps you remember Tarrant's bankrolling of an "astroturf" blog?
We learned that domain name "VermontSenateRace.com" was registered with Melbourne IT LTD., a firm with an Emeryville, California, address, on October 5, 2005. Our Internet-savvy sources say it's a registry one would use if one wanted to "anonymize" ownership of the website. The purpose of an "anonymizing" service is to hide the tracks of whoever is really behind it. Anyone who signs up gets to use the Emeryville, CA post-office box as their website administrator's address.
Interesting.
Using appropriate search tools, however, we were able to find a VermontSenateRace.com registry page with a human name attached. The name of only one person appears: "Jeffrey Bartley." Bartley is listed next to "Organization Name."
Bartley? Bartley? Bartley?
The name rang a bell.
Ready for this, folks? Might want to sit down first. That's because the name "Jeffrey Bartley" also appears several times in GOP Candidate Richard Tarrant's recent FEC filing. Bartley, in fact, has been a salaried employee of "Tarrant for Senate Inc." since October, receiving his first paycheck one week after the bogus, seemingly nonpartisan "Vermont Senate Race" website was registered.
But you might not know what Tarrant's campaign, confronted with the facts, decided to do about it:
Tim Lennon, Tarrant's campaign spokesman, said Bartley has a right to run a blog in his spare time. He said he does not consider the blog to be part of the Tarrant campaign and Bartley would not be asked to remove the blog.
Lennon said it was a coincidence that Bartley started working for Tarrant and created the blog at about the same time.
"It's just something he chooses to do on his own time," Lennon said. "As far as we know, there is nothing improper about what Jeff is doing."
So roughly translated, what they decided to do about it was: nothing. Nope. Not a problem, as far as they're concerned.
Well, it might not be big bucks, but when push came to shove with this "third party" blog, Tarrant's campaign threw up its hands and declared itself powerless to stop these shady dealings, because golly-gee whiz, it's out of their control. It's just how this particular "third party" chooses to spend it's time.
So what makes you think he'd agree to enforce his "proposal" when there were really serious dollars (and really serious benefit) behind it?
Yeah, exactly. Nothing.
Next time, Tarrant can just save the stamp and reject his own proposal before he sends it. That'll put 37 cents back into his $10 million budget.
Bankrolling "astroturf" blogs. Campaign finance "limits" with limits for everybody else but the GOP candidate. What's next?
Have you got stamp money for Bernie? If so, now may be the time to share it. Vermonters know what time it is, but hey, $10 million is $10 million, and that's a threat that has to be met head on.