NH's U.S. Senate Candidates Argue About 'Dark Money': Watch

CONCORD, NH — For nearly a week now, two of New Hampshire's U.S. Senate candidates have been arguing about making a commitment to run a "clean" campaign in New Hampshire — but have reached an impasse, just like Senate candidates of the past.

Democrat U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen challenged her Republican opponent, Bryant "Corky" Messner, to sign a "clean elections agreement" which would strive to limit so-called "dark money," dirty tricks, and foreign interference from the 2020 Senate race via a letter to Messner's campaign, so the candidates can focus on the issues. Shaheen also suggested they agree to pledge to donate 50 percent of the value of the dark money spending to a charity agreed to by both campaigns.

"New Hampshire families deserve leaders focused on making a difference for them, and a campaign focused on the urgent issues affecting our state," she wrote Sept. 10. "Unfortunately, money from outside groups, campaign tactics that suppress votes, and interference from foreign adversaries can make that impossible, with the potential to distort and drown out the voices of Granite Staters. We can’t let that happen."

Michael Biundo, a senior advisor to the Messner campaign, called the request a political stunt and "typical D.C. political speak."

However, Shaheen persisted and held a press conference Monday outside the Statehouse. She was joined by state Sen. Melanie Levesque, Dan Weeks, a former executive council candidate, Ambassador Jim Smith, and former state Sen. Rick Russman, a Republican.

Shaheen again called on Messner to sign the agreement.

"New Hampshire voters deserve leaders focused on making a difference for them, and clean campaigns focused on the urgent issues affecting them," she said. "Running a clean campaign means standing strong and opposing endless attack ads paid for by dark money groups, illegal attempts to suppress the vote, and foreign interference from our enemies. This is about standing up for our democracy, for the people of New Hampshire, and making sure their voice is heard in this election."

Shaheen also raised the issue of the phone jamming scandal in 2002 during her race against U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu, the Republican incumbent.

At the time, the NH GOP hired a telemarketing firm to jam the phonebanks of Democrats and firefighters. The investigation uncovered 900 calls made during a 45-minute period on Election Day. Sununu easily won the Senate race that year by nearly 20,000 votes — so the phone jamming probably did not influence the outcome; Sununu would have won anyway. But the incident led to the conviction of four people involved in the incident.

While the press conference was being held, the Messner campaign issued a press statement offering a counter proposal — agreeing to reject foreign interference and all illegal activity but also calling for the banishment of contributions from California.

"The original agreement proposed by Senator Jeanne Shaheen was an unserious political stunt that has been tried by Democratic candidates in New Hampshire many times before," Biundo said. "Candidly, Shaheen knew Messner would not sign the agreement as she presented it. Corky takes the issue of fair and free elections very seriously, which is why he signed an amended agreement that includes provisions to ensure that candidates agree not to solicit the support of adversarial foreign third parties to promote or support the candidates or the candidates' campaigns."

When asked about the real problem with money in politics — the overwhelming amount of outside spending by groups like unions and environmental organizations, Shaheen said she had no problem with that money being spent because voters knew what those organizations were, where they stood on issues, and what they wanted to see accomplished.

When asked about the proposal being at least some headway on the foreign interference aspect of her agreement, Shaheen, who had not seen the information, said Messner should agree to her original request.

The Messner campaign also suggested the closure any loopholes that arise in their counter agreement.

"The ads that have been run by Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. are sham campaign ads and therefore are illegal third-party advertisements," Biundo said. "We hereby request that you comply with this agreement and direct Shaheen & Gordon, P.A. to cease those sham ads."

The campaign also suggested Shaheen acknowledge that Shaheen & Gordon "misappropriated federal Payroll Protection Program funds to make a donation to Black Lives Matter and to buy illegal campaign advertisements."

Shaheen & Gordon has been running a number of ads on Comcast about its firm, its history, and federal programs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic for many months in the capital region.

Based on the question and Messner's response, Shaheen's campaign manager Harrell Kirstein, after the press event, countered that Messner had "no intention of running a clean campaign" and that all candidates should block the dark money. But Messner was proposing a "watered-down agreement" that would still allow unlimited, secretive spending, he said.

"These agreements have historically been bipartisan and it should concern all Granite Staters to see Messner refusing to sign Senator Shaheen's Clean Elections Agreement and opening up our state to this type of dark money spending and dirty tricks," he said.

Other Democrats also pointed to Messner touting the endorsement of David Bossie, the president of Citizens United, the organization which sued and won in the U.S. Supreme Court when a documentary film about Hillary Clinton they created was not allowed to be aired due to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The law was struck down as unconstitutional due to its limits on the free speech rights of corporate and other nonprofits, labor unions, and other organizations.

"Colorado Corky Messner moved all the way across the country to try to buy New Hampshire's Senate seat," Noelle Rosellini, a spokeswoman for the New Hampshire Democratic Party, said. "He has consistently embraced Citizens United's unlimited anonymous spending by special interests, putting the interests of corporations and shadowy dark money groups above Granite State voters."

But the influence on elections is not just from dark money or secret shell organizations: Outside spending groups do not reveal how they get their funds either. While the name of the organization and their backgrounds are often known, any amount of money from anyone can be funneled to these organizations without the knowledge of the public — making them as secretly influential on the political process as dark money and SuperPACs.

After comments were issued by the state Democratic party, the Messner campaign fired back again, too.

"Senator Shaheen is a professional politician that has perfected the art of talking out of both sides of her mouth," Biundo said. "The fact is, she's been the beneficiary of nearly $30 million of outside money during these last two election cycles, yet here she is pledging to stand up to 'dark money' now? The special interests in Washington have propped up her political career, and no phony pledge stunt is going to change that fact."

Does It Matter At This State Of The Race?

At this point in the Senate race, a clean elections agreement will probably not be a factor in the race since Shaheen has a multi-million dollar campaign fund advantage over her Republican rival.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, Shaheen raised $15.6 million through Aug. 19 and spent about $8.5 million leaving her with around $7 million for the final weeks of the campaign. Most of her contributions have come from individuals but she has collected nearly $2.2 million from political action committees representing banks, unions, corporations, and other special interests. Messner, however, has self-financed most of his Senate expenditures at this point, loaning his campaign nearly $3.9 million of the $4.4 million he raised. He has spent $1.9 million meaning he has $2.5 million left to spend. Six political action committees have donated $15,500 collectively to the Messner effort.

Justin O'Donnell, the libertarian candidate, has raised $1,675.

While Shaheen's campaign might be worried about an unknown amount of funds Messner can tap into, she currently has a nearly three-to-one dollar advantage.

It is unknown how much dark money has been waged in the Senate race so far, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website that tracks campaign spending. But outside spending by SuperPACs has been less than $670,000 in 2020, the website noted.

Shaheen's Past Clean Campaign Requests

In many ways, the response by both campaigns was not a surprise since prior efforts to limit the role of money in politics in New Hampshire has not worked.

Shaheen made a similar proposal to Scott Brown after he won the 2014 Republican nomination in New Hampshire — but Brown balked at the proposal, too, and for good reason.

After winning a special election in 2010 in Massachusetts to fill the seat after U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy died, then-Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren challenged Brown and they both agreed to "The People's Pledge" — with both candidates denouncing special interest money in the race. But as the 2012 campaign unfolded, $3 million in dark money and more than $8 million in outside special interest money was still spent during the race. The dark money was nearly evenly split as both negative and positive, for and against, both Brown and Warren, but the outside spending edge went to Warren with $2.1 million being spent to support her and $3.1 million spent on negativity toward Brown's reelection effort. About $2 million of the spending was negative toward Warren.

Another $70.7 million was spent by the candidates — with Warren outspending Brown by more than $7 million.

When Election Day came, Brown was smoked — losing by 7.5 percent or nearly 240,000 votes.

Being a higher turnout presidential race and due to the changing political landscape of Massachusetts, no amount of money probably could have saved Brown's Senate seat. But many clean elections and campaign finance reform activists as well as editorialists in the press said special interest money did not make a difference in the race so "The People's Pledge" was a success. However, organizations like the League of Conservation Voters, as an example, bragged after Brown lost that it had spent $1.1 million on direct mail and a field campaign to oust him from office. So much for "The People's Pledge."

About a year later, Brown was courted to run for Senate in New Hampshire, after moving to his family's vacation home in Rye — but he ditched "The People's Pledge" when Shaheen requested he agree to it again. The logic? Why disarm yourself if the other side is still going to spend millions in special interest money pummeling you?

"It's hard to view Jeanne Shaheen’s actions as anything other than hypocritical and self-serving," Brown said at the time. "The people of New Hampshire can see through the Washington-style game she is playing."

Shaheen then launched a political attack against Brown, who had yet to win the nomination, about his lack of a support for "The People's Pledge." These ads weren't the first attacks against Brown: The New Hampshire Democratic Party launched a full-scale assault on Brown nine months before he won the nomination and 11 months before the general election. Brown easily beat former U.S. Sen. Bob Smith, former state Sen. Jim Rubens, and seven other candidates in the GOP primary.

During the 2014 cycle in New Hampshire, $7.19 million in dark money was spent on the Senate race. Of that money, nearly $1.2 million was positive for Shaheen while $801,000 was negative. Brown received nearly $2.2 million in supportive spending while $850,000 of the spending was negative, giving Brown a slight edge.

But that money was dwarfed by outside spending by special interests groups like NextGen Climate Action, the League of Conservation Voters, NRA, and other organizations, which dumped more than $25 million in spending into New Hampshire's 2014 Senate race. Of that $25 million, $3.9 million was positive toward Brown while $14.5 million was negative. Shaheen was hit by $10 million in negative spending while $1.6 million was positive. The outside spending advantage to Shaheen wiped out the slight edge of the SuperPACs for Brown.

Shaheen also outspent Brown by more than $7 million in candidate spending and the incumbent easily won by 16,000 votes — with some conservatives sitting out the race and claiming victory for Brown's loss later.

The 2016 Ayotte Vs. Hassan Race

Eighteen months later, when U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican who won her seat in 2010, began her reelection campaign and was challenged by Democrat Maggie Hassan, the governor at the time, she suggested the pair sign "The People's Pledge," too.

The suggestion was odd coming from an incumbent Republican Senator but like Brown, Ayotte's time in the Senate was relatively moderate compared to other GOP Senators — so much so that red meat conservative and liberal and liberty-minded Republicans in the state called for her to be primaried. Rubens, later, did run again, but Ayotte easily won. As well, around $2.1 million in SuperPAC money was spent in the 2010 cycle in New Hampshire with nearly all of the spending positive for Ayotte. Then-U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, the nominee for Democrats, saw around $450,000 in positive spending and $954,000 in negative SuperPAC spending. Why give that up?

After reviewing the proposal, Hassan countered with a suggestion they agree to spending limits of $15 million and the pledge went nowhere.

Dark money groups spent about $6.3 million in the 2016 Senate race with $2.9 million being anti-Hassan, $1.8 million being anti-Ayotte, and $1.6 million being pro-Ayotte. The rest was pro-Hassan. But nearly 15 times as much money was spent by outside groups in New Hampshire for that cycle: A whopping $93.5 million. Of that spending, $47 million was anti-Ayotte while $34.9 million was anti-Hassan — at $12 million negativity advantage for Hassan. A little less than $6 million each was spent on ads supporting the candidates.

In hindsight, it was smart for Hassan to not agree to the "The People's Pledge" — Ayotte was pummeled. But not unlike the 2002 phone jamming incident that may have helped Sununu, another dirty trick against Ayotte may have cost her the 2016 race.

At least three political mailers, without disclaimers, a process that is illegal in both New Hampshire and federally, were sent to many voters around the state falsely claiming Ayotte did not have the support of the NRA and voters should cast ballots for Aaron Day, a conservative independent, instead. The mailers, which were professionally printed, had an official looking NRA logo, and were mailed from a post office in Edison, New Jersey. The postal code was previously used two years before in a voter information guide that some said was fake sent out as an experiment by political scientists Jonathan Rodden and Adam Bonica at Stanford and Kyle Dropp at Dartmouth. None of them commented on a story about the fake guide at the time.

Dropp, who is the co-founder of MorningConsult.com and was assistant professor at Dartmouth in 2016, was a visiting associate research scholar at Princeton University's Center for the Study of Democratic Politics in 2014 — about 19 miles from the post office where the illegal mailers were sent. When Patch reported the story about the mailers, neither Dropp nor the election investigator at the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office returned phone calls or emails about the mailers. Day, however, denied involvement in the matter.

When Election Day came, Hassan won the Senate race by 1,017 votes with Day receiving 17,742 votes and Brian Chabot, a libertarian, earning 12,597, showing the dirty trick probably influenced enough voters to throw the race to Hassan.

It has been nearly four years since those mailers were sent out and not only has no one owned up to the illegal act, no state or federal organizations has investigated them either.

Got a news tip? Send it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella's YouTube channel. Follow the New Hampshire Patch Politics Twitter account @NHPatchPolitics for all our campaign coverage.