Mark Green's phony 'pledge'

Have you ever noticed how it's always the candidate with less money who proposes a campaign spending limit?

Today it's Mark Green, challenging Jim Doyle to sign a "clean campaign pledge" that is more about helping Green financially and politically than it is about cleaning anything up.

in Greenspeak, a "clean" campaign is one in which the candidate with the most money agrees not to spend it, and both candidates say they abhor independent expenditures, and will penalize themselves if some independent group spends money on their behalf -- which, of course, the law forbids them to control.

If spending limits are such a great idea, why didn't Green propose it for the Republican primary? Both he and Scott Walker could have spent a reasonable amount and saved the rest for the general if they won. But Walker got out of the race because Green had twice as much money as he did, because Green took advantage of a legal loophole, since closed, that allowed him to transfer $1.3-million from his House campaign to the governor's race. That -- not how much money Doyle has raised -- is what forced Walker out of the race.

But that was last week, when Green was using his cash advantage. Now he's on the short end of the stick and wants a limit. Fat chance. He knows that, of course. This is political posturing, pure and simple.

Green correctly notes that Doyle proposed a clean campaign pledge in his race against Scott McCallum in 2002. McCallum wouldn't sign it.

But that pledge wasn't about spending limits or independent groups.

It was about candidates taking responsibility for cleaning up their own campaigns.

Here's the pledge Doyle proposed to McCallum:

As candidates for the office of Governor, we agree that the people of Wisconsin are not best served by negative campaigns. Instead, we pledge to conduct a campaign that focuses on our own records, experience and positive vision for the future of Wisconsin. In that spirit, we hereby pledge:

1. We will not run television or radio commercials, send mailings or distribute literature that mentions our opponent by name.

2. We will not distort or misrepresent our opponent's positions or record. We will not misrepresent, distort, or otherwise falsify the facts or mislead the electorate regarding any candidate.

3. We will not engage in personal vilification, character defamation or whispering campaigns directed toward any candidate.

4. We will instruct our campaign staff members, consultants and volunteers to conduct themselves in the same manner as we have agreed.

5. In order to have time to implement this pledge, the provisions noted above will take effect 48 hours after signature by both candidates.

Does that sound like posturing, pie-in-the-sky?

Well, it's idealistic, to be sure, but all three Democratic candidates for governor signed it and abided by it in the September 2002 primary. Doyle, Kathleen Falk and Tom Barrett all ran positive campaigns. They didn't quibble about who was spending how much money, or whether some outside group was independently helping one of thecandidatess.

They took responsibility for the tone of their own campaigns.

That's the kind of pledge Green and Doyle should be discussing, if they are serious about a "clean" campaign.

Green's not, of course. Owen Robinson gets to the point in his post:

From a political standpoint, this is a great move. If Doyle agrees, the he is throwing away his funding advantage. If he declines, then Green can rip him for it, and so will all of the campaign finance watchdogs like Mike Ellis and the Democracy Campaign - assuming that they have an ounce of integrity. Either way, Doyle comes out losing. Works for me.

Don't underestimate the voters. They are smarter than Mark Green thinks. This move is so transparent that they don't even need to be very smart.

And furthermore: A political friend points out that Green is not the Republican nominee yet, although he and the media are acting like he is. So it is a little premature for him to be making these sorts of proposals. The filing deadline, when we find out for sure who is running, is not until July.

UPDATE: Cory Liebmann discovers that an imbalance in spending has not bothered Green in his previous campaigns.