Helping Rhode Island’s Marriage Equality Bill Gain Momentum

Posted on:

Screen Shot 2013-04-22 at 5.16.23 PM

The issue of same-sex marriage is an argument that all of us have heard, and most of us have strong opinions on. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “marriage is a basic human right. You cannot tell people they cannot fall in love.” While he said this in reference to marriage between races, the same can be said about homosexuals.

Public attitudes toward gay marriage are a mirror image of what they were a decade ago: in 2003, 37 percent favored gay nuptials, and 55 percent opposed them.  According to the Washington Post, national support for marriage equality is trending upwards with 58% of Americans being in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage as of March 2013.

CFO Consulting Group is proud to be the public affairs team fighting for marriage equality within Rhode Island.  There are currently nine states, plus the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage is legal.  In addition to this, 3 states are considering bills to legalize same-sex marriage; Delaware, Illinois, & Rhode Island.  In January, the Rhode Island House of Representatives & House Speaker Gordon Fox overwhelmingly passed legislation to allow gays and lesbians to marry in the only New England state where they can’t.

The Rhode Island Senate will be next to address the issue of gay marriage when they return from their recess this week for the final work of their annual session.  The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider legislation allowing gay couples to wed. The session is scheduled for 3 p.m. Tuesday, April 23rd. Also up for consideration is a bill that would place the question of allowing gay marriage on next year’s ballot.

The two bills before the Senate Judiciary Committee take different paths.  One would reaffirm Rhode Island’s constitutional  protection of religious liberty.  The other has a long lists of special exemptions and carve-outs,

The major issue keeping Rhode Island from becoming the tenth state to legalize same-sex marriage, and why there are two bills being considered, is the question of how will those that oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, including religious institutions, businesses, and hospitals, be affected if same-sex marriage is approved?  More specifically, questions regarding the legality of a business or religious institution denying service to same-sex couples because of religious beliefs will be up for debate this Tuesday.

CFO is looking forward to seeing the Rhode Island Senate vote in favor of the bill and allow all people in Rhode Island, regardless of their sexual orientation, to possess equal rights.

By Brett Smiley, founding partner of  CFO Consulting Group

What Can We See in Q1 Reports?

Posted on:

In addition to being tax day, April 15 was the deadline for federal campaign committees to file their first fundraising report of 2014.

The amount of activity contained in these reports helps us speculate about what implications these numbers may have with respect to the 2014 elections.

Power of Incumbency – One of the most obvious signs of these early reports demonstrates is the advantage of being an incumbent. This past January, eighty-one freshman members of the US House were sworn in. Of those eighty-one, twenty-five raised over $250,000 in the first quarter of this year. Many of these incumbents are expected to be somewhat vulnerable heading into the next election.    Challengers simply do not have the resources and apparatus to  raise the kind of money that incumbents can at such an early point in the election cycle; many of them have yet to even declare their candidacy.

Therefore,  incumbents have the benefit of a de facto head-start in the fundraising race. Only a handful of vulnerable members have opponents eighteen months before the next election.   This means that  incumbents often have somewhere between a  $300,000-$500,000 head start before they even have a declared opponent.

A Glimpse of the Future – These numbers may also provide insight into whether an incumbent is considering a run for higher office in 2014.

House members Gary Peters (D-MI) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) are two potential examples of this. Peters proved his fundraising ability by netting $371,000, and in turn, demonstrated that his legitimacy as a possible contender to replace the retiring Senator Carl Levin (D-MI). Cotton is rumored to be considering a challenge to Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR); he raised $526,000 over the past three months, which places him at the front of the pack for Senate challengers.

These reports also show the opposite; that some incumbents are not ready or willing to make a run for higher office. Many in the Tea Party had dreams of Steve King (R-IA) running for the open Senate seat in his state, even though the Republican establishment was rooting for his colleague Tom Latham (R-IA). Latham seems to have won this round by raising $300,000 – more than three times what King raised(amounting to just under $93,000).

Thinking about a Comeback? – We can also look at the reports of members who lost in November to see who is plotting a comeback bid. The quickest way to identify a candidate not considering a bid is to look at who has terminated their campaign committees. Already over 100 campaign committees from 2012 have closed including defeated incumbents on both sides of the aisle.

We can also look at committees that remain open to see who might be thinking of a comeback or considering retirement. The outspoken former Congressman Allen West is likely not considering another bid; his committee transferred $400,000 from his committee to his non-profit foundation. There are also signs from losing candidates that might be considering another bid. Those committees tend to hold onto as much of their cash-on-hand as possible and spend on some limited expenses like polling, fundraising, and paying down debt that could inhibit a future run.

By Nick Daggers, Vice President, Fundraising

Why is the Senate Electronic Filing Bill Deemed Unlikely to be Enacted Despite Near Consensus?

Posted on:

Few issues or policy realms have the power to bring together alliances like those witnessed in the now infamous Citizens United case, which pinned the ACLU, NRA, AFL-CIO, and Chamber of Commerce against an alliance that included the American Independent Business Alliance, the DNC, and Senator John McCain (among others).  Even fewer have the ability to kindle bipartisanship and consensus in a political landscape characterized by polarization and gridlock. Yet the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act introduced by Senator Jon Tester earlier this year has indeed managed to receive bipartisan support.   The bill would compel Senate candidates to electronically file campaign finance reports along with the other federally registered committees that have been doing so since 2001 (PACs, Parties, and House Members). The bill would save time, tax dollars, and improve disclosure and transparency.

So why do organizations like GovTrack.us, which track the statistical probability of legislation being enacted, give the bill a 10% chance of success?

In 1971 when the FEC Act was originally enacted, the law dictated that Senate candidates file their reports with the Secretary of the Senate who would then forward them to the FEC. All other committees were to report directly to the FEC. In 2001 when the FEC required that almost all committees file their reports electronically, the Senate was exempted from the law and has continued to file on paper ever since.

Why shouldn’t the Senate be allowed to continue filing on paper?  There are several reasons why compelling the Senate to file electronically is a common sense law. First, the current procedure is inefficient. The candidate sends their report to the Secretary of the Senate, who then forwards the report to the FEC. The FEC then sends it to a third party firm that re-types the reports, enters them into a database, and sends the information back the FEC. Only then is the information available to the public.  By contrast, reports thatare uploaded electronically are instantly available to the public.

Second, the current procedure is costly.  The FEC estimates that having the Senate file electronically would save tax-payers just under $500,000 per year. It would undoubtedly save candidates the expense of printing and sending hundreds of pages worth of reports at-least four times a year.  It also unnecessarily wastes the time of government employees.  Because the Senate reports need to be re-typed, every time a campaign finance analyst finds a potential violation, they must then locate the paper image to ensure it corroborates with the re-typed data.  Such a time-consuming, redundant process is obviated by electronically filed reports.

Lastly, it would provide greater transparency.  While the FEC pays for the service of re-typing the data, it is entirely for their own review purposes. The formatted data is never made available to the public. Therefore, individuals interested in reviewing Senate reports must scroll through hundreds of pages of text-unsearchable PDF images.  For all these reasons, the measure to compel the Senate to file electronically has received widespread support and near consensus among all parties involved.

Why might the bill fail regardless of such widespread support? Those interested in the passage of the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act of 2013 should pay attention to the behavior of Senator Mitch McConnell and his role in the failed Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act of 2007.  Senator McConnell first placed an anonymous hold on the bill (when pushed, he later revealed his identity).  He then attempted to attach an amendment that would loosen coordinated expenditure laws between parties and candidates.  In short, he sought to negotiate for policy reform when the matter at hand concerned procedural reform, which to many, was simply too unreasonable and unequal of an exchange.  Observing McConnell’s disposition toward the current bill may provide insight into its chances of ever getting past committee and on to the floor for a vote.

 By Erinn Larkin, Compliance Director, PACs and Parties

The latest challenge to McCain-Feingold: McCutcheon v. FEC

Posted on:

A recent article by in the Huffington Post by Jay Pinho alludes to the thorny spot that progressives have found themselves in vis-a-vis campaign finance rules, ever since the Supreme Court decided the Citizens United case in 2010.  He discusses the recent victory of Robin Kelly the IL-2 special primary election, and the instrumental role that Michael Bloomberg played in Kelly’s electoral success.  Bloomberg flooded the race with money in order to make good on his promise to support gun control advocates.  The point he makes is this: how do Democrats celebrate these progressive victories, while at the same time, work to reverse the rules the allowed them the power to get their message out in the first place?

Pinho also mentions the frustration felt among progressives in knowing that the Supreme Court has the potential to further roll back campaign spending rules when it hears the McCutcheon vs. FEC case in October.  He states, “in conjunction with the Court’s notorious Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision from 2010, which lifted the ban on corporate expenditures and led to an explosion of outside spending during last year’s election campaigns, such a ruling in McCutcheon would augur a decisive transformation of American electoral norms — from “one person, one vote” to something approaching ‘one dollar, one vote’.”

The McCutcheon case challenges the constitutionality of individual aggregation limits, which refer to the maximum amount that one individual can contribute to parties, PACs, and candidates during any two year election cycle.  For the 2013-2014 election cycle, this amount is $123,200.  Of this amount, no more than $48,600 can go to candidates; the remainder must go to either PACs or party committees.  This limit should not be confused with the maximum amount that candidates are allowed to receive for their campaigns, which remains unchallenged, and at $2600 per election.  If the Supreme Court sides with McCutcheon, then this limit will be abolished, and individuals will be free to contribute the maximum allowable amount to as many candidates as they choose.   Thus, the case can perhaps be better  understood as an attempt to abolish the limit on the number of candidates individuals can support, rather than the amount of money they can spend per se.

There are several reasons that progressives should take pause before automatically lambasting all individuals, organizations, or proposals to alter extant campaign finance regulation.  First, the practical effects of eliminating individual aggregation amounts is likely to be minimal.  At the current limit, individuals can “max-out,” in other words, contribute the maximum amount of $2600 to both the primary and general elections of a particular candidate, to no more than nine congressional contenders during a two year period.   Of the very small percentage of Americans that contribute to congressional elections at all, an even smaller amount max-out to any one candidate.  The number of individuals who max-out to nine candidates, and exhaust their $48,600 allowance, is minuscule in proportion.

Second, if candidates are to become less reliant on Super PACs and other outside groups, then measures that make it easier to raise money in a transparent way, and in accordance with contribution limits, could be a beneficial thing.  It is impossible for one organization, party, or even Congress, to control the political messages that make it to the airwaves.  What these organizations can control is who is accountable for the messages that are made, and their level of transparency.   Unlike ad hoc organizations like Super PACs, elected officials and candidates are accountable for the statements they make and their legitimacy is dependent upon it.  Therefore measures that empower candidates relative to outside organizations perhaps deserve a second look by progressives that desire an improved campaign finance system.

 

What will it cost to win back the House?

Posted on:

By Nick Daggers
Follow Nick on Twitter @nickdaggerscfo 

With the 2012 election in our rearview mirror we are all looking down the road to 2014. After a successful cycle the Democrats gained eight seats in the House but are still 18 seats short of the majority. There are plenty of race trackers and analysts that can offer their thoughts on which seats will be in play and why. I would like to offer a quick demonstration of what we can expect to see spent in a race for the majority.

A good case study to establish an estimate for 2014 spending is to look at the six (8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17) competitive races in Illinois from 2012. According to the Center for Responsive Politics in the five districts won by the Democrats the campaigns and their allies spent a total of $20.5m, or an average of $4.1m per Democratic pickup.

The Illinois’ 11th and 17th Congressional Districts provide a microcosm of districts across the country that Democrats must win in order to take back the House. In both cases the DCCC was able to help recruit strong Democratic challengers (which will be key again in 2014) to take on popular Republican incumbents. In order to take back the house in 2014, Democrats will likely have to defeat at-least 20-25 Republican incumbents.

In the IL11 Bill Foster defeated Judy Biggert. Foster and his allies had to spend $4.88m in order to secure victory. The IL11 covers a diverse swath of the Western Suburbs of Chicago. Meanwhile two hours to the west is the IL17. In this district, Cheri Bustos defeated one-term Congressman Bobby Schilling. Bustos and her allies had to spend just shy of $4.7m to win.

While the races had many similarities they also had one glaring difference, they both fell into two very different media markets. The IL11 is in the Chicago media market, the third largest in the country, and the IL17 covers the Rockford, Quad Cities, and Peoria media markets, of which only the Quad Cities are a top 100 market.  Since both districts cost about the same to win it helps demonstrate that no matter the media market, Democrats can expect to spend about $4.75m per Republican incumbent they can defeat.

The Democrats are looking at needing to spend $120m just to defeat Republican incumbents. That number does not include the 201 seats we will have to defend and the 100 plus seats that are safely in the Republican column, which can probably be estimated at-least another $200m.

Over the next 18 months we will see exactly how these races play out and if the Democrats and their allies can raise to take back the House. While we won’t know that final number for months to come, we can already guess that just like the past three election cycle we should all expect it to be another record year for campaign spending in the battle for the Speaker’s Gavel!

 

Nick Daggers is a Vice President of Development for CFO. He has spent the last five years working as a fundraiser for political campaigns and non-profits.

Helping Rhode Island Crack Down on a National Problem

Posted on:

For many of us, Payday Loans are an unknown financial instrument. While many have a general understanding of what pawn shops and check cashers are, payday lenders are a different animal.

Rhode Island’s population is barely over a million and yet nearly 200,000 of these loans are taken out yearly. Payday loans are short term, high interest loans. They are capped at $500, due in two weeks and carry an APR of 260%. For many, these loans are the not the solution to a short term financial crises but rather cover ordinary living experiences. In fact, the average borrower takes out 8 loans per year.

CFO Consulting Group is proud to be the public affairs team fighting for the Rhode Island Payday Loan Reform Coalition. A great coalition is fighting back against predatory lending in Rhode Island, but there are similar efforts underway across the country. Additionally, there is an effort to crack down on the enabling role the big banks are playing for the industry.

Recently the New York Times covered how the nation’s biggest banks, including Bank of America and Wells Fargo have proved to be willing partners allowing the payday lenders to continuously debit accounts, racking up big overdraft fees along the way. In response to this coverage JP Morgan pledged to change its practice. CFO is looking forward to seeing that change, and change in Rhode Island.

CFO Consulting Group Expands, Adds Public Affairs Practice

Posted on:

For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, February 13, 2013                                                                                                 

CFO Consulting Group Expands, Adds Public Affairs Practice

Campaign Fundraising and Compliance Experts Announce New Public Affairs Practice, Clients

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, CFO Consulting Group announced a major expansion of services in the form of a new Public Affairs practice. The enhanced offering expands on the development/fundraising and compliance services for which CFO has become well known and regarded within the Democratic campaign, non-profit, and issue advocacy space. CFO Public Affairs also announced its first clients including the Greater Providence Board of Realtors and the City of Providence, Rhode Island. During the 2012 election cycle CFO Consulting Group assisted the successful $25 million affordable housing bond campaign in Rhode Island.

After 5 years of intense focus building our compliance and development practices, we’re excited and ready to expand once again,” said CFO Consulting Group founding partner Brett Smiley. He continued, “CFO remains committed to providing our clients with the attention they deserve and results they need to be successful. We look forward to helping them meet the challenges ahead.”

With deep roots in electoral politics and issue advocacy campaigns, CFO Public Affairs offers clients an array of results driven services needed to exceed even the most challenging objectives. Having held leadership roles in races from California to Chicago to New England, founder Brett Smiley has mastered effective and creative messaging, harnessing the power of coalitions, and developing winning strategies.

The practice is anchored in Southern New England and builds on nearly a decade of work with the region’s biggest Mayors, statewide elected officials, and members of Congress. Its hands-on team of political professionals gives every project the careful consideration and intense focus it deserves.

With its particular expertise in local government, CFO Public Affairs is uniquely suited to assist developers and those working with municipalities. Additionally, as the prevalence of ballot initiatives continues to grow, the practice’s unparalleled electoral experience is an invaluable asset for those seeking to win at the ballot box.

Few can match the experience, innovation, and expertise that CFO Public Affairs leverages on behalf of clients.

Selected CFO Consulting Group Past and Present Clients

Over the years, CFO has assisted dozens of clients with development/fundraising and compliance services, including:

Melissa Bean for Congress (IL), Robin Carnahan for U.S. Senate (MO), David Cicilline for Congress (RI), Matt Dunlap for U.S. Senate (ME), Elaine Marshall for U.S. Senate (NC), Jim Neal for U.S. Senate (NC), Steve Pagliuca for U.S. Senate (MA), Dennis Anderson for Congress (IL), Russ Carnahan for Congress (MO), John Carney for Congress (DE), Leslie Coolidge for Congress (IL), Susan Davis for Congress (CA), Val Demings for Congress (FL), Tammy Duckworth for Congress (IL), Bill Foster for Congress (IL), Eric Griego for Congress (NM), Debbie Halvorson for Congress (IL), Janice Hahn for Congress (CA), Scott Harper for Congress (IL), DK Hirner for Congress (IL), Anne Kuster for Congress (WI), Rob Miller for Congress (SC), Walt Minnick for Congress (ID), Natalie Mosher for Congress (MI), Mark Pocan for Congress (WI), Mike Quigley for Congress (IL), Maureen Reed for Congress (MN), Heath Shuler for Congress (NC), Diane Smith for Congress (MT), Syed Taj for Congress (MI), John Tree for Congress (IL), Frederica Wilson for Congress (FL), Charlie Fogarty for Governor (RI), Phil Angelides for Governor (CA), Peter Kilmartin for Attorney General (RI), Patrick Lynch for Governor (RI), Ralph Mollis for Secretary of State (RI), Angel Taveras for Mayor (RI), Asian Political Leadership Fund, Hartford Humanities Fund, Illinois Democratic County Chairman’s Association, Vanguard Healthcare PAC (IL), Tom O’Donnell for Alderman (IL), Friends of Ric Munoz (IL), Linda Holmes for State Senate (IL), Dave Koehler for State Senate (IL), Mike Noland for State Senate (IL), Celia Gamrath for Cook County Judge (IL), Tim O’Brien for Mayor (New Britain, CT), Pedro Segarra for Mayor (Hartford, CT), Hartford Humanities Fund, Ocean State Tall Ships, Providence Tourism Fund.

About CFO Founding Partner Brett Smiley

Brett Smiley is the founding partner of CFO Consulting Group offering clients results driven services meeting all of their public affairs, development, and compliance needs. After beginning his career as an accountant, Smiley fell into electoral politics in his hometown of Chicago. From 2002 to 2006, he traveled the nation as a professional campaign manager and fundraiser for candidates on the state and national level. In 2007, Smiley founded CFO and over the past five years, his team has helped dozens of candidates, Democratic parties, political action committees, issue advocacy organizations, and charities meet and exceed their fundraising, accounting, and compliance goals. His background in managing everything from a hundred thousand dollar county board campaign to a multimillion-dollar gubernatorial bid provides him with the perspective and expertise needed to assist clients at all levels. Rare for a campaign professional, Smiley holds an M.B.A. and Finance degree from DePaul University in Chicago. He resides in Providence, Rhode Island with his husband James DeRentis and is active with a variety of charitable and political causes including the Victory Fund.

Contact: Karl Frisch

202-681-5275 phone kfrisch@bullfightstrategies.com

 

Hulu, YouTube, and Campaign Finance Laws

Posted on:

A recent article in the New York Times titled “Technology Leaders Endorse Effort to Overhaul Campaign Finance,” reports that a group technology leaders and venture capitalists have come together to endorse an overhaul of the State of New York’s campaign finance system.   The group is urging Governor Cuomo to pass public financing legislation modeled after the current program in NYC .  The system provides matching funds to candidates that attract small dollar donations.  The authors argue elections are “dominated by a small group of affluent campaign donors, professional influence-peddlers and deep-pocketed vested special interests” and “more often than not, big money gets its way.”

The rhetorical denouncement of “special interests” is popular in both parties, and the reason is clear: it is antithetical to the notion of the “common interest” that underlies the foundation of our democracy.   Walter Lippmann once said that in American politics, the “public interest” can be likened to an all-powerful, “god-like” conception.   In this case, the authors seek to strengthen the public interest by implementing a system they argue will reduce undue influence of big business, enhance participation, and strengthen democracy.

The reality is that the average person will never contribute to a political campaign, even if their funds are matched.  The percent of Americans that do contribute is quite small.  While the intent among reformers is to balance some of the disparities that exist between the wealthy and less wealthy in society, what they will in fact be doing is balancing the disparity within one small part of society: the universe of political contributors.  A matching system would grant “enhanced representation” to a specific group, in this case, politically-motivated yet resource-poor contributors.

The example they note is NYC system, and yet in the most recent mayoral election of 2009, NYC witnessed the lowest voter turnout its had since the 1960’s.  Still, there may be inherent value in decreasing the wealth and power disparity within the universe of contributors by empowering small dollar donors.  What effect will this have?  One key characteristic that distinguishes high dollar donors from low dollar donors (in both parties) is that low dollar contributors are more ideological and partisan.  Thus it is not unreasonable to question whether empowering the universe of small donors could lead to higher levels of polarization.  Polarization of course, is one of the main reasons why public confidence in government among Americans is so low, as the authors note.

All this is not to suggest that reform should be abandoned, or that small dollar contributors should be marginalized; quite the opposite.   It is a call to abandon rhetoric that depicts money in politics as inherently evil, and public financing solutions as inherently good.  Lippmann was on to something when he referred to the public interest as god-like, because like a god, the public interest is not an empirical entity.  It is impossible to know what an unbiased system would look.  The group noted  here, for example, includes venture capitalists and CEOs of companies including Foursquare, Gilt, Etsy, Meetup, Twitter, Tumblr, and others. Ironically if they are successful, they will have provided one more data point to their key complaint, which is that big money tends to get its way.

In order to avoid these inevitable contradictions, reformers should focus their efforts on procedure, and on actual effects that reform will have on how campaigns operate.  They need to clearly link how rule X leads to outcome Y and has Z detrimental implications.  Without concrete examples, no amount of decrying “the evil of money in politics,” even after a substantial change in the dynamics of money in politics like Citizens United, is going to incite public support.

Links:

(1) http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/1999/new-liberalism

(2) http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo6683614.html

 

Super PAC Money: Did it make a difference?

Posted on:

The media and political talking heads spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing the potential effects the Citizens United decision would make on this year’s elections. Now that the votes are in and the victors announced, we can finally determine how big of an impact the one billion dollars in independent money had on Election Day results.

It didn’t seem to make much of one.

More than two-thirds of the one billion dollars spent throughout the election cycle went toward losing candidates. Groups who supported Republican Senate candidates pumped $100 million into seven races, and the Republican candidate lost in each of them. In House races, 24 Democrats and eight Republicans won their elections despite being outspent by their opponents.

Even though “dark money” didn’t play as large a role in winning elections as some originally thought, the Citizens United decision did make the 2012 election cycle different from any past year. Over one million television commercials – the majority of which were overtly negative – aired throughout the year, and candidates were forced to spend an unprecedented amount of time fundraising just to keep up with their opponents.

President Obama, who once again relied on his “small-donor army” and raised more than a billion dollars in campaign contributions, held twice as many fundraisers as rallies during his campaign, and Romney’s camp was still in fundraising mode in late October, mere weeks away from Election Day.

So even if it seems as though money didn’t make a difference, it’s never mattered more in the minds of candidates and campaign teams.

What’s next?

Leader of Super PACs and other nonprofits have proven they have no problem finding wealthy donors and convincing them to write large checks to support certain candidates or issues. But now, since it’s clear that their spending wasn’t enough to win an election, they’ll need to rethink their strategies.

In 2008, President Obama outdid his opponent in the world of social media. His presence on sites such as Twitter and Facebook was more prominent that that of John McCain, and the Internet is one of the primary reasons he was able to surpass $1 billion in campaign contributions.

This year, his campaign found a way to innovate campaign finance once again. Weeks before the election, pro-Obama messaging – complete with a “Paid for by the Obama Victory Fund” disclaimer – encouraged visitors of video websites such as Hulu and YouTube to vote on Election Day.

It’ll be interesting to see if third-party groups follow President Obama onto YouTube and Hulu, hoping that they can make a bigger impact in the next Election cycle.

Timeline: A People’s Pledge

Posted on:

Incumbent Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, have made headlines this election year by agreeing to eliminate third-party involvement in their closely-contested United States Senate race in Massachusetts. For almost 10 months, the two candidates kept their pact alive.

Until now.

With neither candidate gaining a significant lead in the polls, third-party groups have begun to take action.

In five hundred words or less, here is a detailed timeline of the rise and – perhaps imminent – fall of Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren’s ambitious political pact.

2010: Sen. Brown starts the conversation

In 2010, Scott Brown ran against Martha Coakley in a special election to fill the vacant Senate seat created after Senator Ted Kennedy passed away. At the beginning of his campaign, he urged third-party groups to stay out of the race, saying he and his opponent needed to “do their jobs” and not get “sidetracked by red herring issues.”

November 2011: Elizabeth Warren announces her candidacy for the 2012 election

Shortly after declaring herself as a candidate for the Democratic Senate nomination, Brown once again released a statement asking for independent groups to pull their attack advertisements.

January 2012: The People’s Pledge

Senator Brown challenged Warren to join him in his effort to eliminate third-party spending in their election. After weeks of negotiation, on January 23rd, a final draft of their agreement was presented to both candidates. Scott Brown grabbed a blue pen; Warren, a black one, and with their respective signatures, the People’s Pledge was made official. Both candidates were applauded for their bipartisanship, and average citizens rejoiced.

February 2012: Both sides want credit

Since their successful agreement proved to be popular with the media and voters, Brown and Warren argued back and forth as to who deserves more credit for its success. Brown’s camp reminded the media it was his idea from the beginning, while Warren claimed that the original proposal she received “included loopholes that Karl Rove could drive a tank through.” Despite their arguing, both candidates remained true to their word. Independent groups continued to stay out of the election. Average citizens continued rejoicing.

 

March: The agreement is tested.

In early March, an oil lobbying group produced and aired radio advertisements in Brown’s behalf. One day later, Brown’s campaign delivered a $36,000 check to the Autism Consortium in downtown Boston.

Brown stated he was happy to help a good cause, and both candidates said they were thrilled that nobody had attempted to find loopholes in their agreement.

June-July: Polls are neck and neck

The Senate race in Massachusetts quickly became one of the most closely-contested elections in the nation. In early July, Warren was beating Brown in the polls by two percentage points, 43% to 41%.

In such a close race, people thought the third-party groups would get restless and begin exploring ways around the agreement. Brown and Warren continued publicly supporting their pact, but several influential politicos started predicting the agreement’s “inevitable demise.”

August-September: Warren’s takes a fundraising advantage

Warren’s fundraising team stepped its game up, as she established herself as one of the most effective fundraisers in any Senate race in the nation. Brown supporters were likely frustrated because they had the money but still didn’t think they could use it.

The pact lived on. People were surprised.

Late September-Early October: The week the gloves came off

In the last week of September, Americans for Tax Reform – a conservative political action group – spent $215,617 on direct mail literature that attacked Elizabeth Warren. And with that, the floodgates had opened. In the following days, The League of Conversation Voters (anti-Brown) and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (anti-Warren) spent over $1 million dollars on direct mail and door-to-door canvassing to support their candidate of choice.

Alas, after months of critics and skeptics being proven wrong, the People’s Pact began to crumble. The third-party groups couldn’t wait any longer. They found the loopholes, and they leaped through them.

Where are we now?

Neither Brown nor Warren has made a statement regarding the apparent breach in their agreement. The independent groups are claiming innocence, saying they didn’t violate anything because the language in the agreement doesn’t specifically prohibit direct mailers. However, the agreement does specifically mention the prevention of loopholes. The last bullet point states, “the Candidates and their campaigns agree to work together to limit the use of third-party advertisements and to close any loopholes that arise in this agreement during the course of the campaign.”

Unless either candidate decides to acknowledge the agreement’s final point – unless they work together to close this loophole – it seems as though the People’s Pledge has lost its appeal in this election year.

We’ll wait and see what happens next, but these two candidates respected their pact for longer than most people thought they could.

It was fun while it lasted.