The Daily Herald reports:
Tammy Duckworth, one of two Democratic Congressional candidates making a bid in the 8th District, challenged her opponent Monday to reject any contribution from Super PACs — political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.

Opponent Raja Krishnamoorthi said he’ll agree — but only if Duckworth also agrees not to accept contributions from international unions, lobbyists or other corporations.... He also proposed that the candidates get rid of “paid media (ads)” by holding one debate a week until the election.

For Krishnamoorthi's specific proposal, look here.

This morning, the Duckworth campaign sent out this:
Yesterday, I asked my opponents to join me in a pledge to keep Super PAC spending out of this race. An overwhelming number of you signed on to agree that unlimited, anonymous funding should have no role in our democracy. But unfortunately, my primary opponent refused to sign on to the same kind of pledge Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown agreed to.

As I said yesterday, this will only work if my opponent agrees. Over 7,000 of you have contributed to my campaign--often in spite of tough financial circumstances--and I'm not willing to let your contributions be overwhelmed by millions of dollars in negative attack ads.

We've already seen the corrosive effect of Super PAC support in the Republican presidential primary. And frankly, I'm not surprised to see Republicans embrace unlimited, anonymous corporate funds. But using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. It's just not who we are as a party and it's not what we should aspire to be.

Hey, Duckworth campaign: Your primary opponent has a name, you know. And unless I'm missing something, the above is just dishonest.

How is it dishonest? For one thing, it's true that using a Super PAC in a Democratic primary would be unprecedented. That's why it's probably not going to happen. Joe Walsh will almost surely benefit from SuperPACs in the general election against whichever Democrat wins in March (and the chance of him signing onto any agreement of this sort are basically nil). But talking about a SuperPAC attack in the primary as if it were a clear and present danger is disingenuous at best, and is an indication of a campaign that is less interested in taking the influence of money out of the election and more interested in using it as a publicity stunt.

But more importantly, Krishnamoorthi didn't fold, he raised the bet. He didn't refuse to sign on, he asked for a broader agreement that would have taken other kinds of money out as well, plus public debates that would've lessened the impact of paid media. Maybe the Duckworth campaign views these extra conditions as unacceptable. It would be reasonable to say that Krishnamoorthi didn't refuse an agreement but attached conditions to it that they viewed as unacceptable. Then maybe they could tell us why they feel that one kind of outside money is bad but other kinds (which are far more likely to actually show up in this particular race) are absolutely necessary. But just portraying Krishnamoorthi's response as a flat-out "no" is flat-out dishonest.