As predicted, David Jitter Vindal Vitter has unleashed his first attack lie ad against State Rep. John Bel Edwards in their runoff campaign for governor.
Unlike the distortions and lies perpetrated against fellow Republicans Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle leading up to last Saturday’s primary election, this ad was paid for the Vitter campaign and not his Washington, D.C.-based super PAC Funds for Louisiana’s Future (FLF).
Nevertheless, lies are lies and Vitter has shown himself to be not only shameless, but a damned cowardly liar as well.
Vitter’s newest ad has all the warmth and charm of the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad.
For a man with the sordid past of David Vitter, it seems a bit ironic that he would ever approve an ad attacking the character and integrity of another candidate. But hey, that’s Vitter who is rumored to have once asked Rosie O’Donnell if she had ever been mistaken for a man only to have her reply, “No, have you?” (How’s that for an attack ad?)
And events of last Friday (the arrest of his “investigator,” and the auto accident where he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his campaign finance director Courtney Guastella Callihan whose home address coincidentally just happens to be the Louisiana address of FLF (although the Secretary of State’s corporate records contain no listing for FLF).
The Federal Election Commission has no authority over super PACs in state elections. Even if it did, the board is comprised of three Republicans and three Democrats and never the twain shall meet. Any oversight is left to state ethics commissions but everyone knows what Bobby Jindal did to the Louisiana Ethics Commission back in 2008, so there’s no help there.
But just in case you might be wondering, a reader has researched the criteria for coordinated communications and independent expenditures:
- In order to satisfy the payment prong, the communication need only be paid for, in whole or in part, by someone other than a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, a political party committee or an agent of the above.
- Content – names the candidate.
- Conduct – If the person paying for the communication employs a common vendor to create, produce or distribute the communication (Emphasis ours).
Guastella has been paid $55,476 by Vitter’s Senate committee since the beginning of 2013 and $97,273 by the super PAC.
FLF paid for media that names the candidate. She is a vendor common to both Vitter and FLF as evidenced by the payments listed above and as campaign finance director and she was responsible for creating communications for the Vitter campaign.
As for that “Willie Horton” ad, one of the things claimed by Vitter was that Edwards advocates releasing 5,500 hardened criminals from prison and that he “voted for taxpayer-funded pensions for convicts.” The ad cited HB 224 as its source without providing a year for the bill.
Well, we went into the Legislature’s web page and called up House Bill 224 for 2015. That bill, it turns out, was filed by Rep. Frank Hoffman and called for the levy of an additional tax on cigarettes and never made it out of committee.
So, we moved on to 2014. That bill called for a prohibition against installers of satellite television from installing satellites on leased premises. Filed by Rep. Thomas Carmody, it was withdrawn before any action could be considered.
Rep. Paul Hollis filed HB 224 in 2013 and provided for the removal of a school bus driver for violations of certain DWI offenses. That bill passed and was signed into law by Jindal.
On to 2012. HB 224 of that year was filed by Rep. James Armes and dealt with enforcement of child support. It, too, was passed and signed into law.
Act 224 of 2011by Rep. Rick Nowlin also passed and was signed into law by Jindal. But it only increased court costs in criminal cases in the 10th Judicial District.
Only after we went all the way back to 2010 did we find the HB 224 cited by the ad. And no, the bill did not provide for “taxpayer-funded pensions for convicts.” Instead, the bill, authored by Rep. Kevin Pearson, would have required “suspension of public retirement benefits during incarceration.”
As for Edwards’s plan to release prisoners upon the helpless citizens of Louisiana, he did no such thing. Instead, he suggested a comprehensive plan to address Louisiana’s ranking as the number one state in the nation when it comes to per capita incarceration. (The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world so Louisiana, with the highest rate in the U.S., necessarily has the highest incarceration rate in the world.)
And there you have a clear illustration of how the meanings of words can be twisted and distorted in a political campaign. And yes, John Bel Edwards did vote against the bill.
So did 55 other House members as the bill failed, 56-42, with five members absent.
If 56 members voted against the bill, there must have been a reason.
There was.
A public employee pays into the retirement system his entire career and that money is earned. If the employee commits a crime within the scope of his employment, there might be an argument to be made for revoking the employee’s pension.
But suppose the employee is convicted of a crime that has nothing to do with his job? Let’s say, for example, he loses control of his vehicle and kills an innocent bystander and is convicted of negligent homicide. And it turns out he was drunk. Certainly, it would not make the employee a saint but neither should it negate his state retirement that he earned through his years of service. That’s constitutionally protected.
HB 224 of 2010 had nothing to do with providing “taxpayer-funded pensions for convicts.” It was about a blanket denial of earned retirement benefits. There’s a huge difference and that’s why John Bel Edwards and 55 other House members correctly voted to kill the bill. The real shame was that it even made it out of committee. Both the claim that Edwards wants to free hardened convicts and that he wants to provide pensions for pensions for convicts are pitifully pathetic attempts to tie Edwards to President Obama because that’s all the arrows Vitter has in his quiver.
Vitter can only resort to blatant lies to bolster his chances.
But then he has never been above lying and character assassination.
He has no integrity and we’ve already had eight years of that.
“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency” (U.S. Army Chief Counsel Joseph Nye, on June 8, 1954, to U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the Army-McCarthy hearings, but which could well apply today to David Vitter)
Here’s the ad. You watch it and decide for yourself if you really want someone like David Vitter operating by his own depraved code of ethics for the next four years.
Louisiana Voice 
At one time Vitter held a sizable lead in the gubernatorial election. Does he seriously think that this sort of advertising combined with his spy boy activities will help him win?
He’s desperate and it shows.
Let him wear himself out !!!!
I really think folks are getting tired of these attack types of ads. I know this folk is getting tired of them.
David Vitter a.k.a. #SenatorLiar is the most despicable low life person I’ve ever had the displeasure to meet. His desperation is showing, his career in politics is coming to an end, good riddance!
The Vitter ads are disgusting. We have to hope he is largely preaching to the same small choir that voted for him in the primary. I really believe most of the people who voted for Angelle and Dardenne have beliefs that transcend party affiliation and have a lot better sense than to believe Vitter is the answer. I know many people who agonized over a vote for Dardenne versus one for John Bel Edwards. They will all vote for JBE now.
The mud slinging is revealing more about the mud slinger than it is about the target, and it ain’t pretty.
Mr. Edwards is running a slick campaign of service to his country, moral character, pro life and pro guns. This will only go so far when people start getting into his record. The bottom line is that he is and will be beholding to the national party.
The gaping difference is that Mr. Edwards is speaking the truth.
And Vitter is beholden to…..Grover Norquist. All four major candidates said they would expand Medicaid, which seems to be the primary choking point for those opposed to Edwards. I’ll take my chances with the guy who opposed Bobby Jindal’s destructive programs and who advocates supporting higher education and health care not with the guy who took his chances with hookers. Of the three Republicans running, Dardenne was hands-down the best of the lot but unfortunately, the Republican voters of Louisiana once again let PAC money and attack ads against Dardenne and Angelle make their decisions for them.
@Tom Aswell
“I’ll take my chances with the guy who opposed Bobby Jindal’s destructive programs…”
All well and good, but here’s the conundrum. If I remember correctly, the Medicaid expansion entails state funding of certain portions of it and the amounts are not insignificant. In light of the debt ceiling restricting federal spending, states with budget problems will be simply accelerating themselves toward bankruptcy initiating further privatization schemes to sell off private infrastructure. It’s the typical poison pill. Sid is right, either way, Dems or Repubs, we lose. We need an independent candidate who can act in opposition to oligarchic control of the major parties, which admittedly we do not presently have. At this date Edwards is the best candidate. But Medicaid expansion should be off the table and he should be urged with the strongest possible effort to resist it. Louisiana cannot presently afford it. The tax base has been too far eroded to contemplate such expenditures.
Vitter will be beholden to the business special interests and lobbyists whose donations he has been courting. They’re not going to be donating the kind of money that he’s asking for without expecting something in return.
As Mr. Edwards is doing also. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with deciding on which one will screw us the least. Although Mr. Vitter appears to have the personality of a jar of mayonnaise he has gone against the entrenched republicans in Congress regarding immigration, raising the debt ceiling, going after the fraud surrounding Obamacare providers, etc. Mr. Edwards has a great resume, but, he is opposed to charter schools, vouchers, cutting anything, and he is for raising taxes. Besides, he supported Mr. Obama both elections which in my humble opinion makes me wonder if he is any smarter than those who voted for Jindal twice.
The point being that looking to take extra special care of the lobbyists and business special interests has been a hallmark of the Jindal regime and also a major contributor to the state being in the budgetary mess where it has been and still is, even after 7 years of Jindal-ism. If one wants meaningful change, though, there is no reason to be voting for David Vitter, who will almost certainly be carrying out the same exact policies, should he be elected into office.
Even if your assertion is true, I’ll take my chances with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Stephen, I am one of those who agonized over a vote for Dardenne vs Edwards. I chose Dardenne. But you are absolutely right, I will vote for JBE in the runoff. I have been a lifelong Republican but watching Bobby Jindal over the last 8 years has made me re-think my entire philosophy!
The Vitter ads are awful, matter of fact, sickening, but I have to hope that they will only play well with the die hards…and that the folks who voted for Dardenne and Angelle and JBE, will join forces, and send Senator Pinochio, and his money bags packing…..
@AsYouLikeIt
“…
privatepublic infrastructure.”Sid, your comment about John Bel beholding to the National Party is so one sided. What makes you think that Vitter will not be beholding to the Republican National Party and the people and businesses that gave him thousands and thousands of dollars. Do you think it is ok that he takes orders form his national party or benefactors just because he’s a Republican…I think not…but apparently this what you believe. Look what Republican Bobby Jindal did to this state. Do you think that I would vote for a sleazy, liar as the next governor….absolutely not! Wake up Sid…or are you so narrow minded that you would only vote for and “R”? Character has a lot to do with my decision and Vitter has none. Oh, by the way, I’m not a “D” I’m a registered “R.”
I would venture to say that Vitter is not a favorite among the Washington republican elites as he opposed their immigration bills, raising the debt ceiling and he wanted to go after the Obamacare frauds. But alas he, as Mr. Edwards, will be receiving truckloads of money from PAC’s et al and something needs to be done about that in my opinion. I registered as a republican back when the Dems nominated McGovern for Prez, I may change to Independent if the repubs nominate another Washington elite or I shudder to think, Jindal(who has no chance by the way).
Sid, my wife made a most insightful comment a few mornings ago over breakfast. She said if we elect Vitter we will become nostalgic for Jindal. ‘Nuff said.
Thanks, Tom for another excellent & insightful article. I just shared on Facebook (510th share!) & hope even more folks will do so as well. We can get the true facts before the voters despite how Vitter continues to be sheltered by the local mainstream media.
John Bel Edwards looks like a convict.
Congratulations! You just identified yourself (like it or not) with the Trump mentality; instead of addressing issues, you go for the personal insult. Really insightful of you.
And Vitter, with his goofy expressions, looks like what, a tower of intellect or an idiot? If you are so shallow as to vote for someone on the basis of his appearance—no matter what party—you need to turn in your voter registration card and go fishing on election day because you’re clueless.