Nunn Issues “Peach State Pledge,” GOP Responds.

Democratic Senate nominee Michelle Nunn challenged her future Republican rivals to swear off outside PAC spending in what she calls a “Peach State Pledge.”

Dear Congressman Kingston and Mr. Perdue,

I write today to ask you to agree to a Peach State Pledge — a pledge to refuse spending by outside groups in Georgia’s U.S. Senate Race. In many cases, these groups will never be forced to disclose who is backing them — preventing Georgians from seeing who is trying to influence our election.

And unlike television advertisements from each of our campaigns — where by virtue of a clear disclaimer voters know who to hold accountable for the message — that is not the case with third party advertisements. I believe we have an opportunity to send a message to Washington.

If we can join together and pledge to limit outside spending and third party ads, we can together show that the people of our state are tired of politics as usual.

That message isn’t exclusively a Democratic message or a Republican message, it’s just common sense. I urge you to seriously consider this offer and have representatives of our respective campaigns meet in the coming days to work on a formal agreement ahead of the General Election.

As the AJC’s Greg Bluestein points out, these Super PACs cannot coordinate with campaigns so the Peach State Pledge has no teeth.

The Georgia GOP responded this afternoon, pointing out all the Super PAC money lining up to support Nunn:

“Nunn’s so-called ‘Peach State Pledge’ is nothing more than a political stunt,” said Leslie Shedd, spokeswoman for Georgia Victory. “It’s the latest attempt by the Democrat to mislead Georgia voters into believing she’s something she’s not. The truth is that Nunn’s campaign is being funded by outside money raised by DC Democrats and liberal special interest groups. Nunn will directly benefit from the super PAC that was formed by her campaign chairman’s partner to exclusively raise money to spend supporting her Senate bid. It’s hypocritical, deceptive, and an absolute sham.”



  1. David C says:

    Somehow a similar pledge by and large worked in Massachusetts in 2012. You can craft enforcement mechanisms that don’t rely on the outside groups’ consent–in that case, campaigns had to make donations to a charity of the other candidate’s choice equal to 50% of the cost of the ad buy made by an outside group. In that case, it only got broken twice, and Brown’s campaign ended up donating $35,000 to charity for it. Otherwise, no outside groups weighed in, but both campaigns were still able to raise plenty of money in a race that ended up costing $82 million. Pretending that because you ‘can’t coordinate’ with outside groups no pledge is possible is pretty thin gruel there Buzz.

  2. From the Press Release:

    “Democrat Michelle Nunn Takes Big Bucks from Special Interest Groups. Nunn has the support of some of the country’s most liberal special interest groups, including the pro-abortion EMILY’s List. As of April 2014, EMILY’s List has contributed over $87,000 to her campaign – making the special interest group Nunn’s largest contributor. ”

    Pro-Choice does not equal Pro-Abortion. But by all means – keep doing what you do. Schmoes.

    Not that you guys wanted me anyway, but this was the final straw after letting the message marinate this afternoon. “Ya’ll ignunt” and I don’t even want to be loosely associated with the GAGOP as it stands right now. No AYR, No Cobb YR, No Cobb GOP… peace out.

    • Dr. Monica Henson says:

      Bridget is absolutely correct. The insistence that “pro-choice” is the equivalent of “pro-abortion” is going to continute to drive female voters away from the Republican party. The GOP needs to peel the extreme far right chokehold off its neck if it doesn’t want to hand a blue crayon to the political mapmakers. (Scarlet Hawk’s prediction is correct.)

      • Dr. Monica Henson says:

        Ironically, Bridget, I feel exactly the same way toward many of the national and Georgia Democratic Party positions. But not that one.

    • The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

      How does pro-choice not equal pro-abortion if the term pro-choice means having the lawful ability to have an elective abortion on-demand?

      • Brian Sebastian says:


        I’m not pro-slavery; I just think that if they want to, people should be allowed to own slaves; I’m pro-choice.

        Are you a yankee or something?

      • lDIG,

        You want your right to carry a gun whether or not you actually choose to carry. I want my right to choose what happens to my body, specifically my lady parts (the most intimate part of what makes me ME). Would I ever have an abortion? Absolutely not. But I decide that – not my government.

        • John Konop says:

          I am very sorry to see conservatives like you disenfranchised with the GOP. As you know for years I have been advocating that the party cannot turn a blind eye to your generation. The country needs a balance…..but you like my own kids cannot get the anti personal rights postions….To be truthfull it is hard for me to defend….Irronic many see us as the enemy…a basic concept in business is conflict is good because it shows commitment….but if you do not deal with it correctly it causes 2 problems, neither good for business. 1 people say nothing about problems and not tell anyone about the issues…..Or the best and brightest like you leave…both not good….

    • notsplost says:

      I’m right behind you, Bridget.

      All I need to hear from the Nunn campaign is that Michelle will fight to stop the TPP trade agreement and also that she will do something to protect the rights of all Americans that are now violated daily by the NSA.

      Just let me know where she stands on those issues and I’m in.

      • TheEiger says:

        I wouldn’t hold my breath on Nunn saying where she stands on anything. She can’t answer the very simple question of whether she would have voted for the ACA. Do you honestly think she will have a coherent response to the TPP trade agreement or the NSA spying on American citizens? Doubt it.

        • notsplost says:

          Well if that’s the case it is a shame. No answer that at least indicates a plan to stop that TPP horror show, no sale.

          I can always vote libertarian. Or write in that cute Wombat – what’s his/her name?

          Willy the Wombat for Senate – his time has come!

    • David C says:

      How does that press release do anything other than preach to the base choir? Is any swing voter persuaded by this? Nunn proposes something that, like Jon Richards says, sounds to the average voter like a sensible good gov middle of the road proposal, and the GAGOP goes shooting with both barrels against “pro-abortion EMILY’s List.” The folks that care about that are voting for you anyway–the folks that might be persuaded by Nunn’s proposal are going to be turned off by it. It’s just stupid.

  3. Jon Richards says:

    We can sit here and blow holes in Nunn’s pledge for how it is unenforceable. And we probably should. But for many voters, what she’s selling makes a lot of sense.

    Right now, it’s early, and not a lot of people are paying attention to her pledge, or the GOP effort to point out it can’t be enforced and is duplicitous. But in October, when the SuperPAC negative ads are running, Nunn will look back to today, and point out, “Back in July, I proposed ……” And she’ll get credit for middle of the road thinking from the electorate.

  4. Dr. Monica Henson says:

    What Jon Richards said. The Republican response is disingenuous and feeds into the public perception that the GOP won’t play by any rules except its own and just takes its ball and goes home. And if it’s not considering public perception outside of the Tea Party base, the GOP won’t have a choice of whether to take the ball home–it will be sent there by moderate voters who might have been swayed by reasonable behavior by party leadership.

  5. The Last Democrat in Georgia says:

    None has some gall pulling this kind of cheap political stunt with the massive amount of outside liberal money she has taken in and continues to take in. It exposes her for exactly what she is, which is a hypocrite.

  6. Jon Lester says:

    There is another woman in the race. Amanda Swafford is a Libertarian, which means you can forget about “choice” matters with her (as if it would change, anyway), and you can also be sure she won’t get behind new foreign adventurism, most certainly not for the purpose of “party unity.” Recall that Nunn was in favor of attacking the Assad regime in Syria for the benefit of mostly jihadist rebels, for no better reason than because dumb wench Debbie Wasserman-Schultz thought it was a good idea, despite the obvious undesirability of a Sunni caliphate on Israel’s northern border.

    • Lea Thrace says:

      “dumb wench”

      Supremely uncalled for and does nothing to help bring people to your side of the argument.

      • Jon Lester says:

        When the consequences of said vote and the shallow consideration going into it would get people killed and further destabilize the region bordering the one country she’s supposedly a champion of, I think it’s actually restrained, and it’s in consideration of the hosts that I don’t say what I really feel. It’s also well within my fundamental right of protest, same as casting a third-party vote.

        Can you give me one compelling reason to vote for Nunn (or whichever of the other turkeys wins the runoff) that would override my foreign policy concerns?

        • Lea Thrace says:

          I make no comments about who to vote for in the gasen race. I just do not feel like that kind of name calling is constructive .

  7. Three Jack says:

    So is she taking the pledge herself or is she still operating as described in the AJC yesterday, “Nunn’s campaign, which has not yet benefited from outside spending on ads, indicated she would only abide by the pledge if the two GOP contenders did so as well.” –

    Don’t propose a pledge you’re not willing to make yourself, by yourself.

    And as usual the GAGOP blows it with their response. Should have just stuck with calling it what it is, a political stunt perpetrated by a desperate dem campaign seeking a little free publicity during a GOP primary.

Comments are closed.