Their agreement has no teeth, third parties don't have to and probably will not pay any attention to it. However it is a hopeful gesture toward civility in a time of increasingly strident, bellicose and often quite aggregeously deceptive attacks on political office seekers by extremely well funded groups and individuals with single minded agendas. The albeit symbolic gesture raised my opinion of the candidate with whom I often don't agree and gives hope that this will not be a campaign of lies, half truths and character assassinations at least not by the candidates themselves.

Jeff: Let's get real. They are both doing this because they believe it is in their political best interest to do so. Obviously, they can't both be right. But this isn't about philosophy, it's about winning a very tough election.

Yeah, it's so American to have anonymous groups spending vast amounts of money to lie, or at least bend the truth, to the unsuspecting voters. Any person who has an interest in the race can write a letter to the newspaper or talk to his friends and neighbors; third parties are perfectly free to express their opinions. But PACs and their corporate contributors are no more "persons" than the U.S. Congress is a "person". If only I could shut up the secret spenders who clutter the airwaves, my mailbox and my telephone with their slanted, mostly defamatory, messages! The truth is that most of these evil entities are sponsored by Republicans, so our Mr. Jacoby relentlessly, and mindlessly, defends them. Shave the beard and zip the lip, Jeffie.

Once again, Jeffy puts himself in the unenviable position of defending the indefensible, the Prince of Darkness, Carl Rove. Even a mindless ideologue like Jacoby, the Globe's token conservative, should take offense at the garbage created by Rove's Super Pac. In any case, this token gesture towards civility is unenforceable, and will not stop Rove from mud-slinging.

It's Karl, not Carl.

What an anti-democratic gesture this agreement represents. How does more information harm any process, political or otherwise? If a group lies in their advertisements today is it not possible to IMMEDIATELY prove this fact? Doesn't a media outlet have the ability to significantly "proof" any claim by an advertiser prior to its airing a dubious ad? No one has ever been able to prove that more ads (of whatever nature) automatically lead to election. There has never been a period in history where someone who wanted to be well informed about a candidate's history could access more articles, facts and perspectives on one. Unless someone subscribes to the theory that the bulk of the voting public are unthinking, lazy and easily lead dopes this is the best of times for achieving a well informed voter. Its not surprising a liberal like Warren would be a hypocrite about free speech but its disgusting that Brown has not a whit of understanding of the constitutional imperative of unbridled political speech. Thanks for making this sad point very well Mr. Jacoby.

Clearly, they have not managed to shut you up Jeff. We are not likely to agree on the Citizen's United decision and you are clearly comfortable with groups often backed by anonymous donors pumping out propaganda. How nice for you. While it's true that the factual basis of some of these ads can be checked and corrected by PolitiFact.com or Factcheck.org the producers of these misleading ads understand the pyschology of ideologues - that they will hear what reinforces their preconceived beliefs and dismiss any attempts to correct the ads as the efforts of elitist intellectuals (though they might use other words not acceptable in polite company).

The amount of "speech" that anyone can consume is finite and since I'd rather hear from real people through the many democratic means available to them -- blogs, comment pages like this one, letters to the editor, door to door canvassing, holding signs on street corners -- than be overwhelmed by advertisements paid for by non-Massachusetts interests groups. I want a senator to represent me and my fellow bay-staters, not NY hedge fund executives or border state residents concerned with immigration. So sorry, Jeff, you're wrong on this one.

Jacoby wants a world where a political suicide bomber like Gingrich can be bankrolled in large measure by one very rich casino tycoon. If people want to support a candidate, they can easily send money to that candidate under the same set of rules for all candidates. Citizens United is an evil decision that only increases the power of those with incredible fortunes. One dollar, one vote - is that your America, Jeff?

Not sure, but it seems like Jeff has yet again thrown the full power of his conservative mind thinking this through. The pledge does not prevent any group from airing ads of any sort. Just that if an ad targets an opponent, the candidate that "benefits" will donate to charity the cost of airing the ad. It might seem irrational to drain the coffers of the candidate one supports, but the creators of attack ads seem to have been gifted with a small dose of rationality to begin with, so I doubt they will notice. For example, I donate a dollar to a liberal candidate every time Jeff works his magic nonsense against liberalism or its adherents, but I doubt Jeff feels the sting of censorship or a reduction in his freedom of speech for it. But I'm bleeding cash.

Well thought out Jeff. Too bad your editing skills are so poor. Does no one edit anymore?

Loopy reasoning. The agreement is not "designed to keep third-party advertising from playing a role" - its designed to discourage third-party advertising. There's no legal or regulatory force behind this, simply a negotiated agreement among two candidates. Any third party can still buy ads, but there will be consequences that the candidates have agree do and what's wrong with that? Once again Jacoby just filling up space just to fill space.

unlimited, anonymous cash = speech (which means the rich have more speech than me?) a senator says "ehh" = filibuster Perhaps we should revisit what speech means, and then work hard to protect it. However, I would like to thank Jeff for working tirelessly on behalf of billionaires, unions, and other groups who would like to buy influence. Well done sir!