Recently, Beacon reporter Myers Reece wrote a short story from an interview with Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg in which he included the congressman’s response to a question about third-party spending. His response went a long way.
Rehberg said he wanted “100 percent transparency” in campaign finances. But he added that, in his high-profile contest with incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, the candidates have no control over the activity of outside groups – “ultimately, we’re along for the ride.”
Tester seized on the quote and used it in a letter he sent Rehberg last week asking that the two sides sign an “unprecedented agreement” that would require the candidates to “reject and work to keep all third-party radio and TV ads about you and me out of Montana.”
He gave Rehberg until 5 p.m. on Feb. 10 to sign the pledge. Just hours before the deadline, Rehberg’s campaign manager Erik Iverson held a conference call with reporters and said the congressman would be rejecting the Tester’s offer and instead presented a different one: the “Made in Montana Pledge.”
“This is Denny Rehberg’s proposal,” Iverson declared. “This is the offer that is on the table now.”
Rehberg took the money ban step further, proposing a plan that prohibits all out-of-state money.
The U.S. Supreme Court greatly relaxed restrictions on corporate political spending and Americans have watched the results of that decision in the Republican presidential primary, which has been littered with negative ads (some heavily financed by one person), and many of them don’t like what they see. So Tester, who has been the target of a number of third-party attacks, came up with a plan that at once would have populist appeal and be advantageous to his campaign.
Tester has been handily out-raising Rehberg, but Democratic super PACs nationwide have lagged behind Republican super PACs, which have already paid for advertising critical of the senator. So Tester’s pledge appeared to favor him. Surprise.
Rehberg then did what any adept politician locked in a tight race would do; he upped the ante and turned the tables. His proposal, which Tester rejected, called on both candidates to return money from all lobbyists, PACs and out-of-state donors and would prevent them from taking any moving forward. Advantage: Rehberg.
According to Politico, Tester has raised more money from PACs than Rehberg. And both men have raised the majority of their cash from out of state, but, again, Tester has a large fundraising lead.
These proposals follow a similar situation in Massachusetts in which incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren have agreed to ban third-party involvement in their race. But there’s no obligation for independent PACs to honor the pledge and some are noncommittal. And broadcasters there indicated that they are not going to reject paid advertisements simply because the candidates have come to an agreement that is nonbinding for anyone else involved in politics.
If Tester and Rehberg come to some agreement that limits or altogether bans third-party and out-of-state spending, who’s the referee deciding which side has broken the pledge? There are sure to be disagreements over administering the rules and that may lead to more problems than it solves.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling, it made tracking money in political campaigns, which was already difficult, even harder. And it has allowed candidates to play dumb while super PACs supporting them throw the majority of the mud.
At the state level, Montana is still fighting the ruling, but that fight doesn’t affect federal races. Ultimately, “100 percent transparency” is a long way off, even if Tester and Rehberg agree to a pledge that is wholly ineffective once a third-party decides to break it, which would likely happen.