Scott Brown CAPE PAC Ads: Senator's Campaign Asks Organization To Pull Online Displays

BOSTON -- U.S. Sen. Scott Brown's campaign asked a political action committee to stop running online ads on his behalf and said it would make a donation to charity in accordance with a pledge he and his chief Democratic rival made to curb outside advertising in the race for Senate in Massachusetts.

Brown's campaign manager, Jim Barnett, said Tuesday it was the first instance in which either the Republican or Democrat Elizabeth Warren had moved to enforce the Jan. 23 agreement, in which both campaigns agreed to donate half the cost of any third-party ad to charity if that ad either supports their candidacy or attacks their opponent by name.

Barnett said the campaign learned of online ads being run by the Coalition of Americans for Political Equality, or CAPE PAC, and asked the group to pull them.

"Sen. Brown is a man of his word, and as a result of your advertising on his behalf, he will honor the agreement by paying out of his campaign account an amount equal to 50 percent of your spending," Barnett said in an emailed letter to the Washington-based organization.

"In short, while your advertising on his behalf is clearly intended to be helpful, it is actually costing his campaign valuable resources," he wrote.

A voice mail left with CAPE was not immediately returned. The organization describes itself on its website as a nonprofit organization that supports candidates with conservative values.

In a brief statement, Warren's campaign did not directly comment on Brown's action but instead criticized the PAC for running the ads in defiance of the pledge.

"It's disappointing that a pro Mitt Romney super PAC is breaking the pledge, advertising on behalf of Scott Brown. Elizabeth sees the pledge as an important way to keep outside parties out of this race," the statement said.

The pledge signed by Brown and Warren, a Harvard Law School professor and consumer advocate, was reached after outside groups from both sides launched early attack ads in the Massachusetts race, which was expected to be one of the most closely-watched and costliest U.S. Senate campaigns in the nation.

Warren pointed to outside ads that targeted her campaign, specifically Crossroads GPS, an affiliate of American Crossroads, a group with ties to Republican political operative Karl Rove. One Crossroads ad spliced images of Warren with images of rowdy Occupy Wall Street protesters to claim that she "sides with extreme left."

Brown was criticized in an ad by the League of Women Voters for supporting an effort by other Senate Republicans to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling gases blamed for global warming. Another spot from the League of Conservation voters said Brown sided with "big oil."

Barnett said while the ads run by CAPE were positive in tone, they are still covered by what the candidate has termed the "People's Pledge."

The Brown campaign claims two outside groups that support Warren, ReThink Brown and Bold Progressives, also ran online ads after the pledge was signed. Warren's campaign said that to the best of its knowledge, the ads were purchased prior to the agreement and pulled after the pledge.

Comments

[john262]

10:18 PM on 03/06/2012

This is according to the Boston Globe.

"Democratic jitters in Senate race.

Brown’s resurgence in polls has shaken some of party’s confidence in Warren.

After a huge rush of optimism that Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy would end Scott Brown’s hold on his US Senate seat, Democratic insiders and activists are awakening to a new political reality, driven by a series of recent polls and Brown’s success these past few months in crafting an independent bipartisan image."

http://preview.tinyurl.com/7hf4h42

[massjim]

09:50 PM on 03/06/2012

Thats my Senator ;-)

[Saxton]

08:51 PM on 03/06/2012

It works for him now because he's ahead in the polls but if he should fall behind I'm sure he'll create a reason to go back to the negative ads. I also have to wonder if this whole thing was staged.

[aviandonn]

07:55 PM on 03/06/2012

I don't understand why any candidate would make a promise like this. Campaigns truly are not supposed to have any coordination with PACS which are supposed to be 100% independent. I don't see how this is not a case of a campaign's actively attempting to influence a PAC ad's content.

So why would any candidate put themselves in a position to basically be set up? What's to stop someone from setting up a PAC supposedly supporting one candidate, but really supporting their opponent, and then run ads that would force the candidate to drain their campaign fund coffers to pay the 'fine'. These campaigns are apparently well funded, so that might be an unlikely case, but still.

Dont' bother lecturing me about how everyone knows PACs are really coordinating with candidates on what to say or not say in their ads even if the candidate denies it. I get it. But this is a blatant example of it. It's one thing to ask supporters not to run certain kinds of ads. It's another to actually pressure them like this.

This just seems like a stupid, and vaguely illegal, agreement.

[donkey5280]

07:37 PM on 03/06/2012

i don't like brown, but i like this. others should learn from it.

[MsMich]

08:25 PM on 03/06/2012

The only reason the snake brown is agreeing with it because he knows he has plenty of money and support from the koch snorting brothers who have business in the state and can't be considered an outsider. Brown is nothing but a puppet head for his master instructed to push forward the Koch brothers plan of plutocracy with them the masters. He is also instructed to created as many poor as possible and burden the middle class so they can create 2 classes of people rich and poor. Brown needs to go along with the Majority of the Repubican party.

[cantbreallife]

07:30 PM on 03/06/2012

I admire that he is a man of his word. At least maybe in Massachusettes, we will see how two people can run against each other in a civil way without the dirty ads. Kudos to both candidates.

[drwtsn]

12:38 AM on 03/07/2012

It's just a shame that it took him a couple of years and a formidable opponent to become a man of his word.

He went to Congress saying he would be bipartisan and do what was best for the people of Massachusetts. Instead he did what was best for Big Business, and didn't vote for any Democratic bills until he had weakened them to the point of near uselessness.

[cantbreallife]

03:49 PM on 03/07/2012

Not saying I support him. Far from it. I hope Warren wins,

[Americanwoman55]

07:23 PM on 03/06/2012

Scott Brown helped write and backed the Blunt-Rubio bill. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Do not be fooled by this individual.

Warren 2012

[sindurrella]

07:12 PM on 03/06/2012

I have to give credit where credit is due, even though I'm a total Warren supporter. Good going Brown!!. Hope others will learn from this.

[John Shuck]

07:16 PM on 03/06/2012

Call me a cynic, but I'm still suspicious. A repeat offense will confirm my suspicions.

[drewone]

07:35 PM on 03/06/2012

I agree with you. I think he is smart to try and portray himself more moderate than most in his party. But, I attribute some of this as his attempt to rise to the level of his competiton.

[Pod-gers]

07:11 PM on 03/06/2012

Hey, HP, why have you failed to covet the most recent poll, published over the weekend, showing Brown ahead of Warren?

[rubadub]

07:40 PM on 03/06/2012

Becuz Hpoo doesn't believe in polls, didntcha know? *

*except when it suits their agenda,

[gibraltar]

07:10 PM on 03/06/2012

OK Pro Mitt Romney equals Mormon equals word is worthless!

[IndyDemoCan]

07:09 PM on 03/06/2012

Ouch! Super pac's are actually a bad thing and hurt the honest political process? Who knew? Not a rhetorical question. Democrats knew and said so often and loudly! Republicans are coming around to agreeing, whenever the ads are aimed at themselves, either from themselves or from the other side. Next thing you know they will be swearing that Citizens United was a bad decision! Oh wait, some republicans already have. How many millions in tax dollars is it going to take to clean up that tea party republican screw up?

[Hvartski]

07:02 PM on 03/06/2012

Interesting. Possibly this pledge could lead to less negative campaigning, although it requires candidates who not only want that, but have the $$ to support it. Still, not a bad thing.

[blackranger]

06:55 PM on 03/06/2012

Well, Brown has the support of people with no respect for the candidates or they Mass elections, that is real clear.