Warren's campaign sent a statement Friday afternoon accusing Brown's camp of leaving loopholes in the agreement which would allow the attack ads to continue without consequence.
"Elizabeth has been very clear that we need a clean and simple agreement to stop third party advertising in this Senate race," Warren's press secretary Aletha Harney said in a statement. "She is happy that Scott Brown has moved her way on this issue, but unfortunately, the proposal he has put forward still includes loopholes that Karl Rove could drive a tank through. She remains confident that a strong, enforceable agreement can be reached, and is committed to getting something done that is more than political rhetoric."
Under the proposal floated by the Republican senator, if an outside group were to advertise on behalf of either candidate on TV, radio or the Internet, the one who benefits would be forced to make a charitable donation of a sum that is equivalent to half of that ad buy. The idea is to discourage outside groups from spending heavily in the state since doing so would essentially impose a financial penalty on the candidate they are trying to help.
Warren seemed open to the pact earlier this week, and proposed additional conditions to their agreement — such as informing TV and radio stations and third-party groups of the pact and taking steps to block “sham” organizations from purporting to support a candidate simply to force a penalty on the other side. Before the meeting, Brown informed Warren that he’d accept her conditions, and signaled he’d be willing to sign the agreement Friday.
“If either of us breaks the pledge, I have every confidence that the people of Massachusetts will enforce our agreement at the ballot box,” Brown said in a letter to Warren.
But after the Friday meeting, Warren’s campaign believed that there were at least two areas that were not ironed out sufficiently. According to people with knowledge of the meeting, the two sides could not agree on how to track online ad spending or on how to define a “sham” organization falsely claiming to support a candidate in order to force the opposing campaign to dip into its warchest.
"Elizabeth has been very clear that we need a clean and simple agreement to stop third party advertising in this Senate race," Warren's press secretary Aletha Harney said in a statement. "She is happy that Scott Brown has moved her way on this issue, but unfortunately, the proposal he has put forward still includes loopholes that Karl Rove could drive a tank through. She remains confident that a strong, enforceable agreement can be reached, and is committed to getting something done that is more than political rhetoric."
Under the proposal floated by the Republican senator, if an outside group were to advertise on behalf of either candidate on TV, radio or the Internet, the one who benefits would be forced to make a charitable donation of a sum that is equivalent to half of that ad buy. The idea is to discourage outside groups from spending heavily in the state since doing so would essentially impose a financial penalty on the candidate they are trying to help.
Warren seemed open to the pact earlier this week, and proposed additional conditions to their agreement — such as informing TV and radio stations and third-party groups of the pact and taking steps to block “sham” organizations from purporting to support a candidate simply to force a penalty on the other side. Before the meeting, Brown informed Warren that he’d accept her conditions, and signaled he’d be willing to sign the agreement Friday.
“If either of us breaks the pledge, I have every confidence that the people of Massachusetts will enforce our agreement at the ballot box,” Brown said in a letter to Warren.
But after the Friday meeting, Warren’s campaign believed that there were at least two areas that were not ironed out sufficiently. According to people with knowledge of the meeting, the two sides could not agree on how to track online ad spending or on how to define a “sham” organization falsely claiming to support a candidate in order to force the opposing campaign to dip into its warchest.
No comments:
Post a Comment