Brown Campaign To Pay Up For Violation Of Outside Ad Pledge

BOSTON (CBS) – Scott Brown’s campaign acknowledged Tuesday that a third-party group recently ran online ads in support of the Senator, a violation of a pledge made with his opponent Elizabeth Warren earlier this year.

Back on Jan. 23, Brown and Warren signed the People’s Pledge, which is an agreement to block outside, third-party advertising in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts.

On Tuesday, Brown’s campaign said they contacted a group called CAPE PAC, who was running Google ads in support of Brown.

As a result, Brown’s campaign will now make a donation to the charity of Warren’s choice.

There has been no formal comment from the Warren campaign.

Comments

One Comment

  1. George Bush says:

    Brown was elected by outside money. He pretends to be a working man as he gets slot parlors for his friends and trades his positional power for contacts for his daughter’s singing career. He is Mitt lite.

    1. fred says:

      I hope you had the time to go re-cast your vote today for hope and change. I noticed that Obama has managed to stop the rising sea levels too. Maybe Lizzy can help you get those anti depressants for free that you so obviously need.

      1. George Bush says:

        Fred, you poor Republican, you think every thing in the world is about Obama? This is an election about the best person to represent the States interests, voting straight party line all the time is no friend of democracy, you are just being a puppet.

      2. Pat says:

        And, you can see that most of Warren’s money is from out of state – more than Scott Browns.

    2. Pat says:

      And you don’t think Liz Warren is collecting outside money? Wow

      1. Tsal says:

        Pat brown broke the agreement. How does that throw warren under the bus. Do you have anything concrete. I admire brown for living up tonthe agreement but figured this discussion would turn quickly Way from him and to the dems. Why?

      2. petem says:

        tsal,
        I know you know the answer to why but the others in the remedial class; Why? Because that’s all the have on the right. Attack the other guy, talk about religion, or pull out contraception (really?? contraception? Since you righty’s weren’t paying attention the rest of the world settled that one about 35 years ago). I almost forgot about the deficit, they really, really care about the deficit; until it’s time to pay it down. We can’t really touch defense, or Big Oil subsidies or yada, yada, yada…And we can never, ever, ever raise taxes on anyone (anyone rich that is…)

      3. gramps says:

        Pat is right/wins…..

        Warren collected 63 percent of her itemized donations from out of state backers.

        http://www.wtop.com/?nid=278&sid=2772267

        Brown, 40%.

        Do the math….

        gramps…..PS

        Have either of you two ladies (bobbsie twins) tried ‘Knitting’ to pass the time?

      4. Tsal says:

        Impressive brown got money from financial sector and health care and pharmaceuticals. Good for him.

      5. George Bush says:

        Tsal,
        Didn’t Brown make over 1 million a year forking for Harvard Health care? Just another case of rich guys trading breaks and favors with each other.

  2. donny says:

    As a voter, what matters most to me is the simple fact that Ms. Warren is upholding her end of their agreement.

    1. gramps says:

      You mean ‘Brown’…..

      It’s called ‘reading comprehension’…

      gramps

      1. Tsal says:

        Really? The agreement was to block outside third party etc. wonder who broke that agreement.

      2. gramps says:

        As usual, you havn’t a clue!

        Canadates ‘CAN’T’, again, ‘CAN’T talk to 3rd the parties!

        If PAC’s spread their BS, the Canadates have to pay-off….

        Brown is being a ‘MAN’ & honoring their agreement!

        Ya “Can’t understand normal thinking”

        Reading comprehension?

        gramps….PS

        ‘Peppermint Patty’ strikes again!

      3. Tsal says:

        Gramps is there a point in time you plan to come back to earth?

      4. donny says:

        Comprehend this; YOU say what YOU mean, and I’ll say what I mean.

        Two people have a deal (Brown & Warren).
        One breaks the deal (Brown).
        One upheld the agreement (Warren)

      5. tsal says:

        donny – you are forgetting one rather major detail – gramps only likes it when you say what he wants you to say………………….

  3. Paul says:

    The people who think Warren is collecting third-party money too can’t prove it. Like Mondale said to Hart….”Where’s the beef?”.

  4. Pat says:

    I say this shows how much integrity Scott Brown really has! Kudos!! He saw that a PAC (which he has no contact with) ran an ad, violating the agreement and he is happily paying the charity of Lizzies choice! Now, Warren’s campaing is defending a PAC ad that ran for two days after the agreement began saying it was proposed before the agreement and refused to pull it. Way to weasel out Lizzie!

    1. tsal says:

      Pat – it was before the agreement – Brown had the same before the agreement – does that mean he is also weaseling out???

  5. NikW says:

    This is the most stupid thing I have ever seen. This is a thirt party person that did this and Brown is doing what he said he would.

    This Crybaby tactic from Warren makes women look bad.

    1. petem says:

      What crybaby tactic?

  6. aperture says:

    Why can’t people let go of Brown-bashing when the Senator “manned up” by acknowledging the PAC’s actions, banished the ads, and donated to Warren’s charity of choice. What else could/should he do to satisfy his detractors? The answer is “nothing else” will satisfy those who will not let their opinions be disturbed by facts.
    Now, Warren’s actions are above reproach, right? I haven’t heard anyone calling Warren, weasel warren.

    1. donny says:

      Uh, you just did.

      Very clever.

  7. tsal says:

    What amazes me is that no one can simply give Brown credit. That’s all it is, folks. Brown did a great thing – why does it lead to an attack on him for something else? Warren had nothing to do with it – why is it necessary to jump on the defensive and toss her under the bus.

    Long and short of it, Brown lived up to the agreement. Good for him.

    1. Pat says:

      Tsal, I agree. This is a positive for Brown

      Boy, it’s going to be a long time until November…

      1. tsal says:

        I like both Brown and Warren and wish more politicians would look at the example they are setting. I’ve said a million time (no need to confirm that, gramps) that I would love to see them as our two senators and dump Kerry. My guess is they’d tip a few on their heads in Washington.

      2. Pat says:

        I have never met anyone who admits to voting for Kerry. Who the heck keeps this guy in office? I’ve never ever voted for him….his constituent services stink, i’ve never gotten a response from his office and to boot he’s the biggest blowhard going. He’s no hero that’s for sure.

      3. tsal says:

        I voted for him against Bush – only time I did and hope I never have to again. The alternative was even worse than Kerry. I could not in good conscience ever voted for Jr. As bad as Kerry is – and he’s bad – he doesn’t present the danger that Jr did. He did some incredibly bad things to this country.

  8. Maureen Kelley says:

    Make that donation to Planned Parenthood, most appropriate given Scotty’s so-sponsorship of the Blunt Amendment!!!!

    1. tsal says:

      although the Blunt Amendment has nothing to do with his holding up his part of the deal with Warren – it is one more piece of information about Brown that will toss my vote to Warren. Remember, however, that Brown did have his people speak out against Limbaugh and that is a definitely positive.

    2. Pat says:

      Planned Parenthood has enough money already, I’d rather it go to feeding homeless or the hungry. WIll be interesting to see where Warren’s minions pick as a charity.

      1. tsal says:

        well with right wanting to limit access to BC, more unplanned pregnancies, and either more clients for planned parenthood or more homeless

        As I say that I find it interesting that right doesn’t support BC coverage OR abortion. Interesting conundrum.

      2. Pat says:

        Tsal,
        OMG, we’ve been through this, no one is limiting anyones right to birth control!. This whole thing was about the government forcing religions to go against their faith and teachings. Where is the personal responsibity in this? Because a church isn’t going to include bc on their employee coverage there’s going to be an uptick in unplanned pregnancies? Where is the partner, cannot these people afford $20 a month? Why is it everyone elses problem? I have paid for my own way and pregnancies myself, it is doable. This is a false argument as neither birthcontrol or abortion is against the law. Tsal, I’m surprised didn’t we go through this already?

      3. tsal says:

        pat we have been through this. A couple of problems

        1) what about the Christian Science Monitor – do they have to offer health care period? The Church does not believe in doctors.
        2) church and state – separate – no say
        3) why is V covered for men?
        4) BC is used for many reasons other than preventing pregnancy
        5) I don’t know if you have a kid in college who has worked her butt off to get there and has the grades it takes to get the scholarships and loans and anything else it takes but if you do, you also know that $20 a month just isn’t there. And it wasn’t for the girl that Ms. Fluke was testifying for who lost an O because the BC was not covered under Georgetown’s plan. I don’t have a problem with $20/month but I at least understand that many do.

        We may have been through this but until someone can answer those questions I will not change my opinion. I’m surprised that our “going through this” means you assumed I had adopted your view.

      4. Pat says:

        ) what about the Christian Science Monitor – do they have to offer health care period? The Church does not believe in doctors. DON’T WORK THERE THEN.
        2) church and state – separate – no sayOBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE SINCE THEY CAN REFUSE PAROCHIAL SCHOOLED KIDS SCHOLARSHIPS
        3) why is V covered for men? GOOD QUESTION
        4) BC is used for many reasons other than preventing pregnancy THEN LIKE COSEMETIC SURGERY, AS LONG AS DR. REQUESTED IT WOULD BE COVERED
        5) I don’t know if you have a kid in college who has worked her butt off to get there and has the grades it takes to get the scholarships and loans and anything else it takes but if you do, you also know that $20 a month just isn’t there. And it wasn’t for the girl that Ms. Fluke was testifying for who lost an O because the BC was not covered under Georgetown’s plan. I don’t have a problem with $20/month but I at least understand that many do. SOUNDS LIKE SHE QUALIFIED FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD DUE TO POVERTY LEVELS. WHAT ABOUT THE PARTNER – CAN HE HELP CHIP IN? WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

      5. tsal says:

        oh and other than wanting more bodies in church – why does the catholic church NOT approve of BC? Is there anything in the Bible that says you cannot prevent having children? The Catholic church is definitely counting on non use of BC to create more pregnancies.

      6. tsal says:

        Pat it would set a rather tricky precedent if the church were able to dictate what can and cannot be covered by health care. The CSM is a perfect example. As I said before, if the church messed up with your son and I am sorry it did I see no reason to use an error as a precedent. The Catholic church has so many things wrong with it that I would hate to think we are going to begin letting it dictate our policy. It should probably fix its own house before it tries to fix the house of this country.

  9. Heather says:

    Scott Brown is a stand up guy…always has been. That is why he has the trust of the people. I would bet that the Warren goons would have done everything in their power to cover up if the shoe was on the other foot. By the way…Warren is taking huge sums of $$$$$ for her campaign from West Coast Libs…who will she be beholdin to if she gets elected?????????

    1. tsal says:

      a lot of supposition going on there – I’d do the same for Brown – because it’s not hard – but I’d rather give credit where credit is due and not spread unfounded comments.

  10. Gini Pariseau says:

    Brown knows how to manipulate the voters and maintain his image. He will continue to pay charities that Elizabeth Warren designates each time he breaks the rules. At that point he has already reaped the benefit brought by breaking the rule. Then he can just point to all the charities he has contributed to as someone living up to the deal. He is a manipulating phony.

    Just as a “PS” – the first thing Brown did when he got into office was sign the Roger Norquest pledge. What a pawn!!

    1. Pat says:

      You forgot to include the evil scary Koch brothers in your talking points. And, please revisit the article, this was an outside PAC not Brown or anyone in his campaign.

    2. tsal says:

      Gini – I agree with Pat – like others criticizing Warren for what they assume she will do – you have no idea what Brown will do going forward. Remember what Felix Unger said about “assume”

      I think BOTH should be given credit for at least attempting to keep the attack ads down. Why is that so difficult to see?

  11. Paul says:

    Pat, I think you ARE sure what I meant…otherwise you wouldn’t have mentioned that website.

  12. Mike says:

    amazes me how a person can spin the truth to make it their truth but to everyone else it is a lie.
    By law the gov. can’t take my money and make me spend it on something I find offensive and aginst my religion. It is not only against my constitutional right it is also against the law. Do your homework!

    1. tsal says:

      what are you referring to Mike? If it’s health insurance – when did you start paying for anyone’s but yours? Your money doesn’t pay for mine – nor does it pay for anyone else’s. Unless of course you want to send me a check. I do not get where the mind set “my money” comes from except from Limbaugh. It’s PRIVATE insurance and it’s paid for by the individual – that’d be ME.

    2. tsal says:

      What if I told you I am a Christian Scientist and going to doctors is against my religion. I do not think there should be healthcare – period – since it not something I believe in. Do your homework, Mike!

  13. sloppjohnB2 says:

    This going to make the moonbats VERY unhappy. Imagine a man of integbrity returning the money. Just think what they would be saying if he didn’t. The poll numbers clearly show that Queen Liz, the annointed one, is in a free fall. Tsal uou need to get a job!

    1. Rob Cleary says:

      This is transgender Sals job. She’s the self appointed hall monitor. At least she didn’t call you vile.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From CBS Boston

WheelMobile
Download Our App

Listen Live