By Joe Trotter
The “people’s pledge” is a cute trick that benefits politicians in three ways. First, publicly rejecting the Citizens United decision gains candidates press and public goodwill. In this case, each candidate in the Rhode Island gubernatorial race who has publicly called for the “people’s pledge” now has a Providence Journal article fawning over the move.
Second, if the “pledge” is successful, candidates benefit from the lack of large-scale independent critics. By limiting outside voices, candidates are only beholden to responding to criticism from traditional critics, such as the press and other candidate, rather than the positions taken by concerned citizen groups. Simply put, the “people’s pledge” is a non-legally binding attempt to negate the constitutionally protected associational rights of American voters.
Third, if the “pledge” is unsuccessful, the candidates who signed the pledge then have a new platform from which to attack their opponents. Although the truth is that candidates who reject the pledge are recognizing the important role independent voices play in a free democracy, their opponents now have a vehicle with which to tar the rejecting candidate as tools of special interests.
