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.

Final Fourth Quarter Fundraising for Tester-Rehberg Senate Race

I reported recently that Senator Tester raised close to $1.2 million in the final quarter of 2011. Congressman Rehberg raised substantially less for the quarter, bringing in only $656,000. For your information, I provide a graph of the money each campaign reported raising for each quarter in 2011 for your information. I also recommend that voters inspect each campaign's year end reports, available at the FEC.

I have some other posts in the works...look for them soon.

Montana Senate Race: Final 2011 Fundraising numbers coming in...

Senator Jon Tester continues to raise substantial sums in his reelection campaign. In the final FEC reporting quarter for 2011, he raised more than $1 million--as he has every quarter during the year. Read the story here.

When Congressman Denny Rehberg's numbers are available, I'll post that information.

Keystone and the Montana Senate Race

Yesterday, the White House announced that it is rejecting the proposed Keystone pipeline project (read the story here). Keystone was to carry oil generated from Canadian tar sands across the mid-section of the United States to refineries in Texas. The pipeline promised to create a large number of construction jobs and reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but objections were raised by environmental organizations concerned about the pipeline crossing a major aquifer in Nebraska and the huge carbon footprint caused by tar sands extraction procedures. In particular, the pipeline split two key interest groups important to the Democratic Party: unions, interested in the construction jobs, and environmental organizations interested in moving away from fossil fuels.

The pipeline was set to cross Montana, and--generally speaking--has received widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans in the state. Both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg have expressed support for the pipeline project, and both quickly released official statements expressing their disappointment about the Obama Administration's decision.

Senator Tester released the following statement on the Keystone decision:

“I am disappointed in the President’s decision. Just as I have supported Montana’s renewable energy jobs, I have long supported responsibly building this pipeline with the highest safety standards and with respect for private property rights. Oil, coal, natural gas, wind, geothermal and biofuels all provide good jobs in Montana. I will continue to champion Montana’s role in securing America’s energy future.”

Congressman Rehberg's official statement was a bit more forceful. It reads in part:

"Today’s shameful decision by President Obama to put his re-election ahead of thousands of jobs for American families shows just how much this Administration and its allies have bought into the radical anti-job agenda of environmental extremists like the League of Conservation Voters."

The campaign reaction has been a bit different. Congressman Rehberg's campaign released, in part, the following statement:

"Today's job-killing decision by Tester's allies in the Obama Administration hands a victory to the radical environmental obstructionists who bankroll Tester's re-election campaign, and strikes a harsh blow to Montana workers and families who would have benefited from thousands of pipeline jobs and a projected $7.5 million in revenues added to Montana's state treasury."

The Rehberg folks have been attempting to tie Tester to an unpopular Democratic president and his administration in an effort to show that Senator Tester is not, as political scientist Dick Fenno would term it, "one of us" but "one of them". In particular, they cite a statistic saying that Senator Tester has sided with the Obama administration 97 percent of the time (based on an analysis by Congressional Quarterly of Senate votes in 2010). More on all of this in an upcoming post.

The Tester campaign's response to the Rehberg campaign's press release? Aaron Murphy, Tester's spokesman, replied in an e-mail sent to reporters covering the campaign:

"Congressman Rehberg is the only member of Montana's congressional delegation who has voted against the Keystone XL pipeline. In other words, he "failed to stop himself from blocking Montana jobs.

On Tuesday, December 20, Congressman Rehberg followed orders from his party bosses and voted against the Keystone XL pipeline, and against a tax holiday for working families (read more HERE)."

The Tester campaign has been attempting to show how Congressman Rehberg looks out for himself and represents the interests of the Republican Party nationally, not Montana. Rehberg is "not one of us" but "one of them"--a tool of the Republican Party bosses. Senator Tester, according to this narrative, is an independent, bipartisan voice for the state. The Tester campaign pushes back, saying that Senator Tester is his own man and not beholden to President Obama, noting the instances where he has broken from the administration and national Democrats (e.g, the administration's job bill or the DREAM Act).

This is what we call framing in the business. Campaigns seek to advance particular narratives and discuss events in terms of that narrative. What is interesting in the Montana Senate race is how important it is in a rural, agricultural state like Montana to be perceived as "one of us" by the voters. Politics is about identities, and the identity of who is most like Montanans is an important point that the campaigns have contested from the very beginning of this race. Part of being "one of us" is making decisions that a regular Montanan would make in Washington. And both campaigns claim that they do a better job of doing on Capitol Hill what the average Montanan would want.

Both campaigns responded to the Keystone decision rapidly, and Montana Republican Party has even sent out an e-mail in an attempt to raise funds. Both sides used the opportunity to return to their core narratives of who is doing the best job in Washington and who has Montana's interests best at heart.

It should be noted that the Obama administration did not cancel the project on the merits, but argued that the 60-day deadline imposed by Congress did not allow for a full review of the project. The Canadian company can apply for a permit again, but the delay will certainly prevent any construction jobs from going online before the fall election.

Which version of the events will Montanans find most credible? That's for the voters to decide, and we'll find out over the next 11 months.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska Retiring

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is forgoing reelection in 2012, opting instead for retirement. Read the story at Politico here.

This makes the math for the Democrats to hold the Senate exceedingly difficult. Nebraska is Republican state and there's no clear Democratic candidate other than former Senator Bob Kerrey. While Kerrey was quite popular, he has lived in New York City for the past 11 years--not exactly a plus in the Cornhusker State.

All of this means that the Montana Senate race, already one of the tightest and most important in the country for determining party control of the chamber, just became--that's right--even more important.

Hold on to your hats!

New Poll in MT Senate Race

There's a new poll on the Montana Senate Race tonight by Public Policy Polling. Read the results here.

Four quick points about the poll:

1. The race has been dead even since the very beginning. There has been hardly any change in the numbers in this new poll.

2. This consistency is NOT surprising. You have two candidates who are well-known and are well-defined. It will be hard to move public opinion with campaign advertising in such an environment. In order to move voters in such a situation, absent either an external event that shakes up the race or a mistake by one of the candidates, lots of money will have to be spent on advertising to have any effect on voter opinion at all.

3. The fact that a significant amount of money has already been spent by outside organizations further underscores the second point. That said, money spent on advertising this past summer was not generally targeted at Montana voters (many of whom were spending their precious warm days outside and away from television), but at the political elite and the donor base. This advertising served to get the base excited and perhaps get them to give money. The organizations that did spend money on advertising were also sending signals to other political organizations about the importance of this race and the effort they plan to expend in the upcoming months on the Montana Senate race. This signaling can cause other organizations to take note and decide that the Montana Senate campaign is worth their time and attention as well.

4. Given that the fundamentals of this race have changed very little thus far, I expect--like most close congressional races--that this campaign will boil down to the enthusiasm of each candidate's base and the ground game. For all the money that is spent on advertising, more important and more significant are the resources and efforts spent on connecting with voters personally and through social media.