In the MA-5 Democratic Primary race for the US House, there once were five fellow Beacon Hill members running to bring integrity and reason to Congress.
But in the last days of the election, it seems we're at a point where everything goes.
Emily's List Ad in Support of Clark
Find out what's happening in Lexingtonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
Emily's List, an organization which endorsed State Sen. Katherine Clark, is sending mailing to voters in the district with a picture of Clark next to Sen. Elisabeth Warren.
Both are liberal, both progressive, both women, only one problem. Warren is not endorsing Clark:
Find out what's happening in Lexingtonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
"Let me be clear," she writes. "I'm not endorsing any of these great candidates before Tuesday's election."
After arduously seeking Emily's List endorsement, and touting it at every occasion, now Clark is not denouncing these mailings. And the Boston Herald reports that Emily's List sent the fliers to more than 45,000 homes."I’ve seen candidates get in a little hot water just for including a photo that happens to have another, non-endorsing politician in it," writes David Bernstein for the Boston Magazine.
"Many people who receive the mailing will assume that the politician pictured has authorized its use, which in turn suggests an endorsement. And those instances have not been anything close to this."
The People's Pledge
The MA-5 candidates actually got together and signed a People's Pledge, promising not to allow endorsing organizations like Emily's List to campaign for their preferred candidate. Do these mailings break the Pledge?
The answer is no, as it turns out - the candidates would not sign the pledge, despite pleadings from State Sen. Will Brownsberger, who is the only one stubbornly not taking PAC or lobbyist money - unless an exception was introduced in the People's Pledge for paper mailings.
What these candidates had in mind was, probably, specifically a loophole for these kind of Emily's List mailings.
Sciortino's Ad slamming Clark
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), on the other hand, endorsed State Rep Carl Sciortino in the race, and put up an online ad: "Katherine Clark cut pensions". This one is paid by PCCC and also endorsed by Sciortino's campaign: a clear trespass of the People's Pledge.
Except Sciortino would not have it: his campaign now claims the ad is in-kind donation from the PCCC to the Sciortino campaign.
Go figure. The gist here is that if you read section 5 of the People's Pledge literally, it would capture a lot of conduct that all candidates routinely engage in:
"The candidates agree that neither they nor anyone acting on their behalf shall coordinate with any third party on any paid advertising for the duration of the special 2013 election cycle."
So, in PCCC's view and Sciortino's, no need to abide by the People's Pledge.
Another ad, also breaking the Pledge but this time put out independently by PCCC (then quickly withdrawn) slams Clark for her support of government surveillance as a sponsor of recent state legislation.
Is the People's Pledge not meant to be read literally?
Then, what was the point when the Mass Democratic Party announced that this "marks the first time five candidates have signed the historic agreement"?
The sheer knowledge and legalistic training from our candidates is showing – not in crafting the People’s Pledge, but in working around it. They plan to go to Congress and write legislation, and can't even stick to an agreement between them.
If they did not mean to read the People’s Pledge literally, why did the candidates bother to sign it?
Andrei Radulescu-Banu is a Lexington Town Meeting member.
We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here