Two articles of note have appeared in the media over the last week. In my opinion, both should be read by each and every student of politics.

The first is James Fallow’s analysis of the Obama administration – Obama, Explained. It is the cover story of this month’s edition of The Atlantic. He has three themes in the piece. First, the behavioral and psychological Obama. Second, how do we view the administrative successes and failures of the last 3+ years. Third, a temporal look. For the last, he references a memo written by James H. Rowe Jr., at the time a young official at the Bureau of the Budget (what is now the Office of Management and Budget) to President Harry Truman. Rowe’s memo could be written today and still be mostly accurate about the political setting in which Obama finds himself today. The lesson is twofold – the political strategy of opposition (by Republicans in both cases) is totally predictable and, given the political strategy, political stalemate is inevitable. If Obama is going to enjoy a second term, we can pretty much predict how the campaign will unfold no matter who the Republican nominee is.

The second piece appeared in the New York Times last week. The Geography of Entitlements interactive map is illustrative of the hypocrisy of much of the political debate in the current primary season. Those areas that most depend on federal funding for social programs, retirement benefits, Medicare and Medicaid and other federal benefits are, in large part, the same parts of the country that support candidate that would reject government in general. The map does not show military spending but trends would be the same.

In his NYT column today (3.17.12), Paul Krugman cites work by Aaron Carroll of Indiana University. Carroll points out that “in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as ‘most conservative’ received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.” For those economists that assume rational economic man, they need to explain why large parts of country are willing to vote against their economic self-interest.Others have written about this seemingly illogical political stance - notably Ben Barber, Walt Whitman Professor of Political Science Emeritus, Rutgers University.

Psychologists tell us that when cognitive dissonance gets bad enough, we typically seek to resolve it. I’m waiting for the collective dope slap from supporters of Rick Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney but I’m not holding my breath.

Tester Tells Rehberg: No Thanks

The Tester camp rejected Congressman Rehberg's Made in Montana pledge late yesterday. Rather than provide an analysis and commentary, I'll simply post the Tester campaign's press release and let you judge for yourself.

Rehberg rejects Tester’s plan to keep third-party ads out of Montana

Out-of-state organization spends another $190,000 attacking Tester

BILLINGS, Mont. – Montanans for Tester campaign manager Preston Elliott today released the following statement after Congressman Dennis Rehberg rejectedJon Tester’s proposal to keep all third-party TV and radio attack ads out of Montana:

“Jon offered Congressman Rehberg a simple, good-faith effort to keep secretly funded ads out of this race, and Congressman Rehberg rejected it because he's relying on these ads as we speak.”

Elliott added that Rehberg’s “response” to Tester’s proposal was “just more dishonest politics” from Rehberg designed only to keep third-party, out-of-state TV ads running on Rehberg’s behalf.

“Montanans can't trust Congressman Rehberg to keep his promises. He gave himself five pay raises after campaigning against them, he hid tens of thousands of dollars he's taken from lobbyists, and he's broken every clean campaign pledge he's signed. Montanans won't fall for yet another promise Congressman Rehberg knows he can't keep.”

Immediately after Tester’s proposal last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a secretly funded organization not affiliated with local chambers of commerce—spent another $190,000 on TV ads in Montana attacking Tester (fact check HERE).

Below is a summary of why Montanans can’t trust Dennis Rehberg. A full reports is available online HERE.

Rehberg promised Montanans no pay raises for himself…

Rehberg Promised Never to Vote for a Pay Raise. In a 1996 campaign ad, Rehberg said he “has never voted for a pay raise, and [he] never will.” [Rehberg Campaign Ad]

Rehberg Flier Claimed He Had Never Voted for or Taken a Pay Raise – And Never Would. In a 1996 campaign flier, Rehberg boasted, “Rehberg has never voted for or taken a pay raise and he never will.” [Rehberg 1996 Campaign Flier]

2000: Rehberg Promised to Oppose Pay Increases. In 2000, Rehberg “said he has always opposed pay increases as an elected official and would do so in Congress.” [Helena Independent Record, 10/12/00]

…Then he voted for five of them

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $3,300 in 2006. In 2006, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,300 to $168,500.Rehbergvoted to kill an amendment that would block an automatic pay hike for members of Congress. By killing the attempt to block the pay raise, Rehberg voted to receive a 2 percent increase and an annual salary of $165,200. The effort to block the anti-pay raise amendment passed 249-167. (H RES 865, Vote #261, 6/13/06; Congressional Research Service, Salaries for Members of Congress: Congressional Votes) NOTE: This pay raise was later blocked by the Democratic Congress in 2007.

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay $3,100 in 2005. In 2005, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,100 to $165,200. Rehberg voted in favor of a measure intended to prevent the introduction of an amendment blocking an increase in the annual salary for House members by $3,100 to $165,000. The House blocked a bid by Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) to force an up-or-down vote on the pay raise. The effort to block the anti-payraise amendment passed 263-152. (HR 342, Vote #327, 6/28/05)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $4,000 in 2004.In 2004, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $4,000 to $162,100. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $89.8 billion in fiscal 2005 for the departments of Treasury and Transportation and related agencies. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 235-170. (H Res 770, Vote #451, 9/14/04)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $3,400 in 2003.In 2003, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,400 to $158,100. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $89.6 billion in fiscal 2004 spending, including $27.5 billion in discretionary spending, for the departments of Treasury and Transportation and related agencies. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 240-173. (H. Res. 351, Vote #463, 9/4/03)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $4,700 in 2002. In 2002, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $4,700 to $154,700. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $35.1 billion in fiscal 2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 258-156. (H. Res. 488, Vote #322, 7/18/02)

Rehberg hid tens of thousands of dollars in lobbyist money

HEADLINE – Rehberg’s Lobbyist Cash Unreported. [Helena Independent Record, 2/6/2012]

HEADLINE – Rep. Rehberg Under Fire After Report Uncovers Lobbyist Contributions. [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg’s Campaign “Took A Hit” After Discovery Of Unreported Lobbyist Contributions. In February 2012, The Hill reported: “Montana congressman Denny Rehberg's bid to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) took a hit Sunday after the Associated Press uncovered lobbyist contributions to the Republican hopeful's campaign.” [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg’s Campaign Received About $20,000 From Three Dozen Undisclosed Lobbyists. In February 2012, The Hill reported: “The AP reports that Rehberg's campaign received about $20,000 through October from three dozen lobbyists who didn't reveal their place of employment on federal disclosure records. The revelation could hurt Rehberg because he has relentlessly attacked Democratic first-termer Tester for being the top recipient of lobbyist campaign funding.” [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg violated campaign pledges he signed

Rehberg Signed Clean Campaign Pledge in 1996… Then Broke It. On June 27, 1996, Rehberg and Sen. Max Baucus signed a Clean Campaign Pledge to “maintain the highest ethical and moral standards in the conduct of my campaign” with a positive campaign focused on the issues. [Rehberg Clean Campaign Pledge, 6/27/1996]

Rehberg Signed Pledge in 1996, Later Violated the Promise. As reported by the Billings Gazette, “In 1996, Sen. Max Baucus and Republican challenger Denny Rehberg signed a pledge, but that didn't prevent acrimony. By autumn, the candidates were accusing one another of violating the promise and arguing over how to word a letter urging supporters to behave. [Billings Gazette, 6/8/2004]

2000 Senate opponent: Rehberg Violated Clean Campaign Pledge. In October 2000, the Great Falls Tribune reported: "In recent days, both Republican Denny Rehberg and Democrat Nancy Keenan have proclaimed that the other candidate violated the clean campaign pledge each signed in April." According to the report, "Keenan entered the fray Wednesday, saying she is 'outraged at an offensive and misleading' television ad 'run in coordination with Dennis Rehberg's campaign' questioning her commitment to safe schools and a positive learning environment. She was referring to an ad claiming she opposed notifying teachers when a student has been convicted of a criminal offense and that she supported Playboy magazine in school libraries. Keenan demanded Rehberg pull the 'misleading and untrue ad,' and charged that he 'has reverted back to the negative tactics that were the hallmark of his failed bid for the U.S. Senate in 1996' against U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont." [10/5/00]

Keenan Accused Rehberg Of Breaking Clean Campaign Pledge, Said That Montanans "Expect More From This Campaign." In October 2000, PBS reported: "Keenan argued that as school superintendent she was constitutionally prevented from banning books and magazines. She accused Rehberg of misrepresenting her record and breaking their clean-campaign pledge. In a letter to Rehberg, she fired back, saying Montanans "expect more from this campaign than the typical political mudslinging that dominated your '96 Senate campaign." [PBS, 10/26/00]

###

Congressman Rehberg Responds to Senator Tester

Well, I was right. Congressman Rehberg did offer his own pledge to Senator Tester. I just got off a conference call with the Rehberg campaign and sure enough, they have their own pledge they want the Tester campaign to sign. And, you know what? It is tougher and more rigorous than the pledge proposed by Senator Tester. By far.

"The Made in Montana Pledge" essentially allows only Montana money to be spent in the Senate race. Both campaigns will pledge to take money only from Montana residents. Neither campaign can accept PAC money nor money from registered lobbyists (whether registered in Montana or not). The campaigns will have to return any money from donors or special interest groups received to date. Neither campaign is allowed to coordinate with any party or third party group. And, no third party organization will be allowed to spend money on express or issue advocacy launced as a print, web, broadcast, or satellite ad. The penalities are similiar to what Senator Tester proposed: the campaign must donate the cost of the expenditure to the charity of their choice.

Congressman Rehberg has long noted his support for transparency in government. This pledge does Senator Tester one better and is quite bold. I will be interested to see the Senator's response.

Senator Tester's Crusade Against Citizens United

Senator Tester has railed against the Citizens United decision since it was announced in 2009. He and Senator Baucus have jointly sponsored a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, and the Senator has been on the receiving end of a large amount of outside money assaulting him on various votes he has taken while serving in the Senate. The advertisements began in the spring on the Debit-Credit Card Swipe fee issue, they continued this summer over raising the debt ceiling and healthcare, and today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced another the launch of another set of advertisements highlighting Senator Tester's connections to President Obama and his agenda. You can watch the latest set of ads here (scroll down to Tester).

Congressman Rehberg, too, has felt the sting of outside interest group money: a group of Montana Hunters and Anglers bought spots attacking the Congressman for his plan to allow the U.S. Border Patrol waivers from a variety of federal regulations when operating on public land. American United for change also sponsored some spots telling the Congressman to keep his hands off of Medicare. You can view these spots here and here.

I have in the past written about how all this outside money drives candidates crazy because they lose control of their message. Senator Tester has a solution to the problem: he is offering Congressman Rehberg a pledge to disavow any third party advertising expenditures. The pledge, according to a Tester campaign release, is as follows:

THIRD-PARTY ADVERTISING AGREEMENT

1) By signing this agreement, both Jon Tester and Denny Rehberg, and their respective Senate campaigns (Montanans for Tester and Montanans for Rehberg) publicly reject and work to prevent the broadcast of all third-party radio and TV ads from date of signature through 8:00 p.m. MST on November 6, 2012, when polls in Montana close on Election Day.

2) Any cable, satellite or over-the-air broadcast of a TV or radio advertisement funded by a third-party—either negative or positive—that specifically mentions or references either candidate, through narration, text or images, shall result in a one-time penalty for the other candidate’s campaign (see #5), and this agreement is then nullified. For example, if a third-party organization airs an ad attacking Congressman Rehberg, Montanans for Tester must pay the penalty, and all third-party organizations are then free to advertise without penalty.

3) A third-party is defined as any organization other than Montanans for Tester or Montanans for Rehberg. Both campaigns are free to run their own advertising as allowed by law. Examples of third-party organizations include but are not limited to the Montana Democratic Party, the Montana Republican Party, The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, American Crossroads or Crossroads GPS or any of their affiliates, labor unions, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A third-party may also be a single person responsible for funding a broadcast ad.

4) Any effort by a third-party to undermine the spirit of this agreement by running a disingenuous advertisement meant only to trigger the penalty for either campaign will result in a penalty and nullification of this agreement. For example, if an organization that actually supports Sen. Tester runs an ad attacking Sen. Tester only to incur the penalty for Montanans for Rehberg, then Montanans for Tester must pay the penalty and the agreement is then nullified. In the event that a previously unknown third-party organization or person runs an advertisement, both Montanans for Tester and Montanans for Rehberg will ask broadcasters to immediately pull the ad, and it will be subject to a review and a challenge before any penalty is incurred.

5) The Penalty: If a third-party organization that funds or broadcasts any TV or radio advertisement that specifically mentions or references either candidate, through narration, text or images, then the opposite candidate must pay a one-time penalty equal to the cost of the ad buy to the Montana charity or charities of the penalized candidate’s choice. The penalty shall not be greater than $250,000 and must come from a candidate’s campaign coffers.

The Billings Gazette wrote about this pledge in today's paper (read the article here). In it, I mentioned that this type of pledge is a variation on an old theme. In 1980, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) launched an aggressive advertising strategy aimed at defeating nine liberal Democratic senators. 7 of the 9 senators targeted lost reelection and NCPAC took credit (Senators Cranston and Eagleton of California and Missouri, respectively, survived). The incumbents who were at the receiving end of the advertising barrage attacked NCPAC as an outside organization who was trying to buy elections, and often the incumbents would ask their opponents to disavow the organization. In the 1990s, when independent expenditures and soft money exploded on the airwaves, candidates would also ask their opponents to sign pledges asking outside organizations to stay out of campaigns. Most notably, Senator Russ Feingold--author of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act--successfully convinced his opponent, Congressman Mark Neumann, to disavow soft money advertisements and to agree to overall spending caps. Neumann, who was first elected in the Republican landslide of 1994, had already refused to accept any PAC donations. Feingold went on to win that very close race. More recently, Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren have also agreed to "curb political attack ads from outside groups" (see article here). In fact, it seems that the Tester pledge is largely based on the pledge that the Massachusetts candidates worked up.

Do I think this is the right political move for Senator Tester? Yes. The Senator's campaign narrative is a populist one and this pledge fits squarely within that narrative. Montanans are skeptical of big corporations and the big federal government. The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld the state's strict campaign finance laws barring corporate and labor union contributions, and Senator Tester applauded the decision. This is another way in which Senator Tester is attempting to highlight how his record, beliefs, and values are consistent with those most Montanans hold. Congressman Rehberg also has a strong record of supporting transparency, and this pledge--by disavowing outside money--prevents organizations like Crossroads GPS that accept campaign contributions but do not disclose them from using that money on advertisements. It puts the Congressman in a bit of bind.

Do I think the pledge will work if Congressman Rehberg agrees to sign it? I am doubtful because I'm not sure what the incentive is for outside groups to hold their fire in this race. I am also not entirely convinced that the pledge helps Senator Tester in the long run. Sure, it would seem that the amount of money being spent nationally favors Republican candidates right now. On the other hand, there will be all kinds of organizations spending money to support Democrats--especially given the President's apparent blessing of SuperPACs. And that money might not be plainly visible because it may not be spent on television but on other equally effective activities, such as voter mobilization.

Will Congressman Rehberg sign the pledge? If I were a betting man, I would suspect that they will make a counter-offer before Senator Tester's self-imposed deadline on Friday.

If you want more information on SuperPACs and how they work, I would highly recommend listening to NPR's Morning Edition on February 9th, which discusses the Crossroads set of organizations in particular and features commentary from fellow political scientist, Robin Kolodny, at Temple University.