Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Senate’ Category

Keep Super PACs out of our elections; forget about the party, vote for the candidate whom you feel is best for Louisiana

Posted in Economy, Education, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Health Care, Higher Education, Legislature, Legislators, PACs, Senate, Vitter on October 25, 2015| 10 Comments »

By the time the dust from the gubernatorial primary election had settled late Saturday night, there were several conclusions that can be drawn from the results, all of which can be traced back to one overriding fact:

David Vitter is in trouble. And it shows.

Moreover, based on what transpired in the campaign leading up to Saturday’s voting, we can reasonably predict that the next four weeks before the Nov. 21 General Election will see more of the same attack ads by David Vitter, this time aimed at State Rep. John Bel Edwards.

Edwards entered the race with little name recognition outside the Florida parishes of Louisiana. He was pitted against three Republican incumbents: Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle, popular Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and the state’s senior U.S. Senator David Vitter who had—and still has—more money than his three opponents combined, thanks to a Super PAC formed on his behalf. That Super PAC, the Fund for Louisiana’s Future, ironically is headquartered not in Louisiana, but in Washington, D.C.

But Vitter had that enormous negative—his reputation as a whoremonger who reportedly cavorted with prostitutes in Washington and New Orleans.

But despite the lack of name recognition and a campaign war chest that nowhere approached that of Vitter, Edwards, a state representative from Tangipahoa Parish, still managed to pull in 40 percent of the vote to only 23 percent for Vitter.

Granted, Edwards was the only major Democratic candidate in the primary but still, fully 77 percent of those who voted preferred someone other than Vitter as our next governor.

Angelle received 19 percent of the vote while Dardenne got 15 percent.

Vitter led or won outright in 10 parishes while Angelle won a majority or plurality in nine. Edwards won or led in the remaining 45.

That leaves Edwards needing only another 11 percent from Angelle’s and Dardenne’s 34 percent and the 3 percent that went to three other minor candidates to put him over the top while Vitter needs to pick up 28 percent.

There’s no love lost between Vitter and his two Republican opponents.

In fact, on Saturday, the campaigns of both Dardenne and Angelle campaigns sent out emails to supporters calling attention to the arrest of a private investigator working on behalf of the Vitter campaign. http://www.jaydardenne.com/vitter-staffer-arrested/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=sp&utm_campaign=20151024_23829285_Jay%20Dardennne&utm_content=body_txt_directlink&action=email_click&ha1=

Vitter’s campaign has paid J.W. Bearden & Associates of Dallas $135,000 since August of 2014 and on Friday, an employee of the firm, Robert Frenzel of Dallas, was arrested for secretly recording Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand, a Dardenne supporter, and State Sen. Danny Martiny of Metairie.

Bearden acknowledged that Frenzel worked for the firm but Vitter campaign spokesman Luke Bolar said the intent was to conduct surveillance on an Edwards supporter and not Normand. Oh, well, that’s different.

When arrested, Frenzel was found to have in his possession a dossier on New Orleans blogger Jason Brad Berry who recently has been publishing a series of interviews with prostitutes who claim to have had sexual relations with Vitter, including one who says Vitter fathered a child by her in 2000.

The email from Dardenne’s campaign said of Frenzel’s arrest, “I hope that you will share this with every one of your family and friends. We’re no strangers to political corruption, but usually these crooked politicians wait until after they get elected to betray our trust. We now know the real David Vitter.” Dardenne added, “He’s cheated, he’s lied and now he’s been caught spying.”

Likewise, Angelle said, “A man who has been unfaithful to his wife and (who has) been caught spying on Louisiana citizens does not have the moral character to be governor of our great state.” Angelle, like Dardenne, did not endorse anyone in the runoff.

So, why is it that two Republicans who failed to make the runoff have thus far refused to endorse fellow Republican Vitter?

For that, Vitter has no one but Vitter to blame. His onslaught of negative ads—he had more than twice as many TV ads as Angelle, his nearest competitor—had to leave a sour taste in Angelle’s and Dardenne’s mouths. Vitter relentlessly attacked the records and characters of both men which could force each of them to simply sit on the sidelines with no indication to supporters on whom to support.

Vitter’s ads against the two were particularly vitriolic in their content and now that he has disposed of them, he will no doubt turn his guns on his Democratic opponent. But Edwards made it clear on Saturday night that he was prepared.

“This is going to be a real tough runoff to watch unfold on TV,” he told supporters. A West Point graduate, Edwards referenced the West Point Honor Code which says, “A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.” He then said to a chorus of cheers, “David Vitter wouldn’t last five minutes at West Point. He’s desperate and all he offers are lies.”

Edwards predicted that Vitter would do everything possible to link him to President Obama and Vitter didn’t let him down. In his own address to supporters following Angelle’s concession, Vitter said, “Voting for John Bel Edwards would be like voting for Barack Obama to be governor of Louisiana.”

Edwards, calling Vitter “Jindal on steroids,” noted that all four candidates supported “in some form or other,” expansion of Medicaid for Louisiana so that more low-income families can have health care.

Saying that he had avoided negative ads, Edwards then fired a shot across Vitter’s bow when he said, “If David Vitter wants to talk about who we associate with, I’m more than ready to do that.”

From hookers to private investigators illegally intercepting others’ communications, Vitter’s obnoxious behavior goes back at least to 1993 when then-State Rep. Vitter physically assaulted a woman who questioned his vote against killing a bill that would protected gays and lesbians from employment discrimination. http://cenlamar.com/2015/03/24/in-1993-david-vitter-physically-assaulted-woman-accusing-him-of-supporting-gay-rights/

Not only does Vitter have The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, a Super PAC, but Baton Rouge lobbyist and attorney Jimmy Burland, writing on Vitter’s behalf, sent an email last week to several hundred state lobbyists in which he solicited individual $5,000 contributions from each in a series of Vitter meet-and-greet events which began today (Sunday, Oct. 25). He said in his email that the Vitter campaign needed to raise $3 million.

It didn’t take long to get a reaction to that brazen pay-to-play proposal. The Louisiana Association of Educators (LAE) on Oct. 23, two days after LouisianaVoice published news of the email solicitation, announced that it had severed all ties with the Burland and Associates lobbying and political affairs group, effective immediately.

“The parting of ways comes in light of a recent letter distributed by the firm’s owner, James Burland, soliciting contributions for the David Vitter campaign. LAE President and LAE-FCPE Chair Debbie Meaux said the move is troubling, as it is a blatant contradiction of the whole foundation of the firm’s business focus,” LAE said in a news release.

So now it comes down to choosing between a graduate of West Point and platoon leader of the Army’s 82nd Airborne who fought Bobby Jindal for eight years or a man who spies on opponents, cheats on his wife, physically attacks women who question him, avoids answering questions about his records, avoids debates or appearing at venues at which he does not have pre-screened questions and who has any reporter who questions him fired.

That’s the choice, folks. Forget about the Democrat and Republican labels and for once, let’s vote for leaders, for character, for trustworthiness. For all you people out there who puff up your chests and proclaim that you “don’t vote for the party but for the best candidate,” now is the time to put up or shut up.

If Vitter wins this election, LouisianaVoice will be watching his every move.

If Edwards wins and the Republican legislature attempts to block his programs which we believe would be best for the state, we will track campaign contributions, contracts and legislative votes that benefit large donors like banks, oil companies, pharmaceutical firms, nursing homes and insurance companies like never before. Votes on equal pay for women, anti-discrimination, higher education and health care will be scrutinized and chronicled for all to see.

If an Edwards administration becomes a smaller version of Congress where Republicans use parliamentary moves to block good legislation or if they try to tack on amendments like the infamous Mike Edmonson retirement enhancement amendment, we will by-God subject you to more exposure than you ever dreamed possible.

You are on notice.

One more thing: The Fund for Louisiana’s Future and all other out-of-state PACs need to stay the hell out of Louisiana politics. Forever. We don’t need outside money telling us how we should vote. We’ve seen what big money does to politics: it amplifies the voices of the special interests while muting our own.

And we don’t like that.

Read Full Post »

Baton Rouge attorney/lobbyist tries to strongarm lobbyists on behalf of David Vitter via email for $5000 contributions

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Senate, Vitter on October 21, 2015| 13 Comments »

U.S. Sen. David Vitter may not show up for debates and he may not submit to unscripted press conferences, but that doesn’t mean he won’t seek out the opportunity to rub shoulders with well-heeled lobbyists representing more than 1,000 businesses, organizations and other vested interests in Louisiana.

In what political historian Robert Mann calls “the most blatant, breathtaking pay-to-play message I have ever seen in politics,” Vitter, through a front man, unabashedly puts the muscle on lobbyists for the maximum $5,000 each in campaign contributions. http://bobmannblog.com/2015/10/21/sen-david-vitters-blatant-pay-to-play-scheme/

And Mann has worked for three U.S. senators and a Louisiana governor, so he knows political coercion when he sees it.

It’s understandable that Vitter doesn’t want to address uncomfortable questions, i.e. did he ever solicit prostitution for pay? It turns out the family values candidate, who was highly critical of President Bill Clinton’s tryst with Monica Lewinski (and we by no means defend that behavior) in a 1998 New Orleans Times-Picayune op-ed piece, had his own fling with a couple of hookers while serving in the U.S. Senate.

It’s understandable but not acceptable. Senator, you answer for your actions, good, bad or indifferent. You can run but you can’t hide. If you are elected, you will be under this shadow and it will haunt you throughout your entire term of office, be it four or eight years. You said Clinton could not govern effectively after what he did. How can you?

But, as is our wont, I digress.

There are no fewer than 800 registered lobbyists that prowl the halls of the Louisiana Capitol, buttonholing senator, representatives, and governors.

They represent about 1,100 clients, including payday loan companies, utility companies, oil companies, insurance companies, the National Football League, the New Orleans Saints, the New Orleans Pelicans, professional firefighters, sheriffs, municipalities, and the Association of Louisiana Bail Underwriters and countless associations, organizations, and services.

A partial list:

  • AT&T, AT&T Louisiana, AT&T Louisiana and its Subsidiaries, AT&T Telecommunications, AT&T, Inc. and its Affiliates;
  • CLECO Corp., CLECO Power, CLECO Power, LLC;
  • Entergy, Entergy Corp., Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Services, Inc.;
  • Louisiana Energy and Power Authority, Louisiana Energy Users Group;
  • Louisiana Family Forum, Louisiana Family Forum Action;
  • Louisiana Farm Bureau, Louisiana Farm Bureau Insurance Group;
  • Louisiana Federal of Teachers, Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees;
  • Louisiana Housing Alliance, Louisiana Housing Council;
  • Louisiana Oil & Gas, Louisiana Oil Marketers and Convenience Store Association, Louisiana Oilfield Contractors Association;
  • Ochsner Clinic Foundation, Ochsner Health System;
  • Pelican Bingo, Pelican Gaming;
  • State Farm Insurance Co., State Farm Insurance Companies, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company;

You get the picture.

So, what does all this have to do with David Vitter?

Simply this: Vitter spokesman Jimmy Burland, a Baton Rouge attorney and lobbyist, sent out an email blast to “the Louisiana Lobbyist Community” in which he announced that Vitter and wife Windy would be hosting receptions across Louisiana immediately after Saturday’s primary “and we hope you can attend and bring a check.” (Emphasis ours).

Mann was right. That’s pretty blatant and more than a little heavy-handed and it sends a clear message to lobbyists to be ready to play ball if they want special favors from a Vitter administration.

Okay, we know this kind of thing goes on all the time but at least most politicians have the good sense to be a little more subtle about blackmailing potential contributors.

The schedule for the receptions:

  • Sunday, Oct. 25: brunch at Andrea’s Restaurant in Metairie;
  • Monday, Oct. 26: luncheon at Juban’s Restaurant in Baton Rouge, followed by a reception at a Lake Charles site to be announced at 3 p.m. and a 6 p.m. reception at Café Vermilionville in Lafayette;
  • Tuesday, Oct. 27: breakfast at Brocato’s in Alexandria at 8 a.m., followed by an 11:30 a.m. luncheon at Ristorante Giuseppe in Shreveport and a 5 p.m. reception in Monroe.

And, as if that is not enough: “Additionally, we have set a lobbyist fund-raising meeting for Friday, Oct. 29 in Baton Rouge (time and place to be announced) and urge you to attend,” Burland wrote.

That must be to catch all the strays and stragglers.

Perhaps the most irony-filled statement in the entire email was when Burland wrote, “…David has spent much of his money fighting eight SuperPACs (sic) and opponents, and he has asked his most ardent donors to re-up for the runoff campaign immediately at the maximum contribution amount.” (Emphasis ours.)

Spent much of his money fighting eight Super PACs? Wow, what unmitigated hypocrisy. The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, a Super PAC set up by a Vitter colleague and into which Vitter poured in a quarter-million dollars of his own money, has launched an unmerciful distortion and lies-filled attack against his two Republican opponents. (Presumably, he will do the same against Democrat John Bel Edwards, expected by most experts to face Vitter in the November general election.)

The biggest lies are that Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne had a “European birthday bash” at the expense of Louisiana taxpayers and that Dardenne voted himself lifetime health benefits. The trips were to boost tourism in Louisiana and he was not even a member of the health benefits system when the vote was taken. Moreover, Dardenne led a delegation that convinced then-Gov. Kathleen Blanco to veto a bill that would have given legislators the benefits.

To be perfectly candid, there is no excuse for this kind of character assassination in any political campaign. Unfortunately, there always have been and will always be candidates like Vitter who know no boundaries of decency.

Florida Sen. George Smathers was said to have accused opponent Congressman Claude Pepper of “matriculating” in college, having a brother who was a “known homo sapien,” his sister “a practicing thespian,” and that he and his wife practiced “celibacy before marriage.” Earl Long once called an opponent “catfish mouth” and said another opponent once fell into a hog pen and when passersby commented that one could be judged by the company he kept, the hogs left.

Those kinds of comments are funny and in the long run, harmless.

But Vitter’s attacks are way over the top. He even propped his wife up in front of the TV cameras to tell us her husband has given his pension back to Congress. Interesting, since he hasn’t even qualified for a pension. He’s 54 and he would not qualify for his $74,000 per year pension until he reaches age 62.

We can barely wait to see what kind of sordid, tasteless, lies and distortions he will unleash should he and Edwards face one another in the runoff election.

LouisianaVoice attempted to contact Burland by telephone and email but we never heard back from him. Here is our email:

Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:35 PM

To: ‘jimmy@burland.org’ <jimmy@burland.org>

Subject: LOBBYIST SOLICITATION

Mr. Burland: Below is a copy of an email to “the Louisiana Lobbyist Community” dated yesterday, Oct. 20.

My question is this: Do you consider this a proper solicitation of contributions when the implication is clear that the lobbyists better play ball or not expect any help from “Gov. Vitter”?

This has the appearance of extortion at worst or coercion at best. I would be interested in your explanation and will publish your response in full.

Tom Aswell

LouisianaVoice

There was the usual disclaimer at the end of Burland’s email:

“This email is intended to reach certain state registered Louisiana lobbyists only. If this email has been sent to you in error, either as a prohibited recipient, public servant or foreign national, please disregard this message and delete it from your mailbox immediately as it was not intended for your viewing or use.”

I’ll bet.

Well, LouisianaVoice received the email and intended or not, here is the complete text:

Read Full Post »

Vitter looking more and more like Jindal in avoiding debates, interactions with voters: ‘Doing the job I was elected to do’

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Congress, Earl Long, Elections, Governor's Office, Politicians, Senate, Vitter on October 12, 2015| 9 Comments »

Associated Press reporter Melinda Deslatte had an interesting column on the Louisiana governor’s race that appeared in a number of state dailies and even in what one of our readers derisively calls “The Hayride North,” but which is known to most of us as The Washington Times.

In her column, Deslatte notes that Republican Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle, Republican Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne and Democratic State Rep. John Bel Edwards are somewhat irritated that Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter.

The four, for those of you who have drifted off into the semi-conscious state induced by football overdose, are the leading contenders in the Oct. 24 governor’s race and most observers have already conceded the top two spots to Vitter and Edwards.

But Vitter, who remains ensconced in Washington where he insists he is “doing my job that I was elected to do,” is apparently so cocksure of his position that he feels he doesn’t have to get out and meet voters and answer questions or, as the late President Lyndon Johnson would have said, “press the flesh.”

You see, Vitter is trying to buy this election, pure and simple. He’s got this Super PAC called Fund for Louisiana’s Future carrying the water for him. Translated to terms we can all understand, his PAC is his attack dog. He doesn’t have to put his name on those nasty half-truths and outright lies being tossed around about Angelle and Dardenne.

The way Super PACs work, there is supposed to be arms-length separation between the candidate and the Super PAC. There is supposed to be no coordination between the candidate and the Super PACs. That’s why all the attack ads have the disclaimer at the end of the ad that tells us that the message you just heard was paid for by Funds for Louisiana’s Future.

Funds for Louisiana’s Future has somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million to tear down Vitter’s two Republican opponents (notice we never said the ads are used to bring any kind of positive message about Vitter’s accomplishments—just negative messages about Angelle and Dardenne).

But isn’t it interesting that with all those rules about arms-length separation and a ban on coordination, a check of contributions to Funds for Louisiana’s Future finds that Vitter chipped in $250,000 of his own money to the Super PAC. http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/contrib_all.php?cycle=2014&type=A&cmte=c00541037&page=1

How’s that for arms-length separation? Still think there was no consultation between candidate and PAC?

And don’t think for one minute that Edwards is exempt from attacks. The National Republican Governors Association, after having said it did not plan to do any ad buys for the first primary, has done a sudden about face.

But of course the RGA didn’t count on a surge in popularity by Edwards before the Oct. 24 primary. Everyone assumed Edwards would make the runoff, being the only Democrat in the race, but the RGA got a real shock when Edwards actually forged into the lead in not one, but two separate polls two weeks or more before the first primary.

Panic set in quickly and the ads attacking Edwards, trying to tie him to President Obama, suddenly began flashing across TV screens across the state. It evokes memories of when Buddy Roemer came from nowhere in the final weeks of the 1987 election.

But it’s not the polls or the attack ads that have Angelle, Dardenne and Edwards upset. That, after all, is in keeping with the tradition of Louisiana politics and can be expected. After all, when did the truth ever matter when it came to winning an election?

The thing that’s got the three a mad as a wet hen is Vitter’s refusal to participate in TV debates.

Deslatte says the three are accusing Vitter of:

  • Refusing to attend unscripted events;
  • Engage in real policy debates;
  • Interact directly with voters;
  • Participate in question-and-answer sessions where he is not allowed to review questions in advance “or control the forum style.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/10/12/vitters-absence-tv-debates-rankles-competitors/73767224/

Does all that sound a little too eerily familiar? Did a shiver just run up your spine? Did the room suddenly experience an unexplained chill?

The answers for us were yes, yes, and yes, so we did a little historical research and we find some uncanny similarities with someone else you may remember.

First, let’s take Vitter’s earlier claim that “I’m doing my job that I was elected to do.”

Doesn’t that sound a little too much like, “I have the job I want” repeated by Bobby Jindal so often during his first term?

How about Vitter’s:

  • Refusal to attend unscripted events? Anyone remember Jindal ever holding an unscripted event of any description? He couldn’t even participate in a hot dog eating contest without every bite being choreographed in advance.
  • Refusal to engage in real policy debates? Has anyone ever seen Bobby Jindal talk about any issue without repeating the same tired talking points repeated verbatim from one venue to another ad nauseam?
  • Refusal to interact with voters? Ever see Jindal work a crowd? I mean come down off that stage and mingle without a taxpayer-funded State Police security detail protecting him from any human contamination? Didn’t think so.
  • Refusal to participate in question-and-answer sessions when he isn’t allowed to review the questions in advance or control the forum style? Do we even have to say anything here?

The similarities are so strong and so frightening—especially with the prospect of another four or eight years of Jindal-like “leadership.”

Skeptics are saying that Angelle as governor would be “Jindal 2.0.” But Vitter as governor would be “Jindal on steroids.”

Already, it’s becoming difficult to keep from saying Jitter or Vindal.

But one thing is abundantly apparent: Vitter is not running for governor; he’s purchasing the office by attacking opponents on TV instead of confronting them face to face like a man. My grandfather had a name for that: cowardice. And if he’s elected, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We will have been purchased, in the words of the late Earl Long, “like a sack of potatoes.”

As for me, my vote is not for sale.

 

Read Full Post »

Holy ethics violations, Batman! Now it’s Bobby Jindal in violation of law by using state web page to attack opponent

Posted in Auditor, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Senate, State Agencies, Vitter on May 27, 2015| 15 Comments »

No sooner did we call U.S. Sen. David Vitter out for potential improprieties for using his Senate franking privileges to gain an edge over his three opponents in this year’s gubernatorial election than our old friend C.B. Forgotston send us evidence of an even more flagrant misuse of his office for similar reasons.

It’s enough to make you wonder what the hell goes through these politicians’ minds except that we already know: they are so convinced they are above the law that they couldn’t care less what the great unwashed think about their flaunting of the rules.

We’ve previously reported Jindal’s acceptance of tainted campaign contributions from the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (non-profits are prohibited from making campaign contributions), laundered money from a St. Tammany Parish bank board of directors (without the 11 directors’ awareness they were “contributing” $5,000 each to Jindal) and the head of Florida’s largest-ever Ponzi scheme who funneled $30,000 in contributions to Jindal from himself, his wife and his law firm.

Within an hour of posting the story about Vitter’s use of franking privileges to promote his gubernatorial campaign, LouisianaVoice’s email exploded with messages about Jindal’s latest post on the governor’s web page, paid for by Louisiana taxpayer dollars.

The first email was from Forgotston, who has fired off a letter to Inspector General Stephen Street demanding an answer to his inquiry as to the legality of Jindal’s “press release” on Tuesday.

So what, exactly, is all the fuss about?

Quite simply, Jindal used the state computer and web page (and presumably a state employee) to gin out a “press release” personally attacking one of Jindal’s probable opponents for the Republican nomination for president under the headline “Gov. Jindal: Senator Paul unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief.” http://www.gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&articleID=4965

Paul, a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, is an announced candidate for the Republican nomination. https://randpaul.com/

And what did Paul do or say that prompted Jindal to ignore legal constraints on the use of state web pages? Apparently, Paul said something to the effect that ISIS exists because of the U.S. hawkish foreign policy—a claim, by the way, that we cannot entirely disagree with.

“This is a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be Commander-in-Chief,” Jindal whined.

Except he did his whining on a state-funded web page and that immediately invoked the wrath of a number of readers and Forgotston, who once worked as a legal counsel for the legislature, is not the one you want to tick off when it comes to matters concerning the state constitution.

In his email to Street, Forgotston began by describing the Jindal press release as “a violation of Louisiana Constitution, Article XI, 4.”

In case you don’t want to take the time to open the link, it says that while there is no prohibition against the use of public funds to disseminate factual information about a proposition appearing on an election ballot, “no public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization.”

“It (the press release) clearly urges a vote against U.S. Senator Rand Paul for President of the United States,” he said. “The press release was issued by state employees (the release contained the names of Shannon Bates Dirmann and Shannon, Deputy Communications Director for the Governor’s Office) and has no disclaimer that public funds were not used.

“If this is not a violation of the law, please advise why it isn’t,” Forgotston said. He ended his email by writing, in all caps, “A RESPONSE IS REQUESTED,” which he said “is not directed to any recipients of his email other than the State Inspector General.”

In case any of our readers also would like to submit a similar question to the OIG, here is Street’s email address: stephen.street@la.gov.

Forgotston said he will also share his concerns with Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera.

As Forgotston himself is fond of saying: you can’t make this stuff up.

 

Read Full Post »

Vitter may be making use of U.S. Senate franking privilege to unfair advantage over his three opponents in governor’s race

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Finances, Governor's Office, Senate, Vitter on May 27, 2015| 14 Comments »

 

U.S. Sen. David Vitter could be setting himself up for a repeat of ethics complaints over a perceived use of his Senate franking privileges in his campaign for governor.

The congressional franking privilege, which originated in 1775, allows members of Congress to send official notices, brochures and updates to constituents back home under their signature without having to pay postage. Congress, through legislative appropriations, reimburses the U.S. Postal Service for franked mail it handles.

Vitter is not a candidate for re-election in the 2016 election but instead is running to succeed Bobby Jindal as governor against three other candidates. He is making full use of his franking privileges to announce town hall meetings across the state to address local issues. One such mail-out has caught the attention of LouisianaVoice.

Reform efforts over the past two decades have reduced overall franking expenditures from $113.4 million in fiscal year 1988 to $16.9 million in FY 2014 and even then, many of the mail-outs are simply tossed unread by recipients back home. Much of that reduction can be attributed to a shift to electronic communications rather than any real reform of the practice.

Franking has come under wide criticism by opponents of the privilege who say it:

  • Is financially wasteful;
  • Has become outdated with the introduction of other forms of communication, i.e. e-mail;
  • Is abused for private and political gain;
  • Gives unfair advantages to incumbents in congressional elections.

The last two could be cited as giving Vitter an unfair edge in this fall’s governor’s race. While he is not running for re-election, he is a candidate for governor and his Senate franking privileges could be looked upon as an unfair advantage over fellow Republicans—Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne—and Democrat State Rep. John Bel Edwards who are also running for governor.

Franking rules strictly prohibit incumbents from actually soliciting votes when the mail-outs are done on the taxpayer dime but they do not preclude addressing hot button issues like immigration, social security, veterans’ benefits, etc.

In 2009, Louisiana Democratic Party Chairman Chris Whittington filed an official ethics complaint against Vitter for his verbal attacks on U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, an eventual opponent in Vitter’s 2010 re-election campaign. Those attacks were made in local meetings pursuant to mass mail-outs by Vitter via the franking privilege.

Whittington said Vitter, by explicitly invoking the name of Melancon in his so-called town hall meetings, publicized in advance by franking mail-outs, crossed the line from official business (the supposed purpose of franking) to campaigning.

Though the words “vote for…” never appeared in any of Vitter’s mailings, reports from his town hall meetings across the state made it clear that he mentioned Melancon often. Vitter in turn charged that the Democrats were trying to “shut down the debate and suggest that it’s somehow out of bounds. Well, it’s not out of bounds because this is still America,” he said.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/22/770585/-LA-Sen-Louisiana-Dems-File-Ethics-Complaint-Against-Sen-Vitter#

In Vitter’s most recent franking mail-out, he issued an invitation to one of his town hall meetings on Monday, June 1 in the chambers of the East Baton Rouge Council “to discuss possible solutions to relieve traffic congestion. We’ll also discuss efforts like working to pass a long-term highway reauthorization bill that would help to update our roads and bridges,” the announcement said. IMAG0721(CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

While strictly interpreted, such a discussion could easily be passed off as a federal concern with federal roads and highways crisscrossing East Baton Rouge Parish. That, along with the unquestioned problem of traffic congestion experienced by local motorists, could easily be construed by Vitter as a Senate-related issue.

We have no way of knowing at this point, but it would seem a safe bet that similar town hall meetings have been or will be announced by Vitter via franking in other parts of the state to discuss other pressing problems.

But coming as it does in the middle of what promises to be a heated election season in Louisiana, it would appear to give Vitter a decided—and unfair—advantage over his three opponents who do not have the luxury of free campaign mail-outs.

Nor would it be the first time Vitter has skated on the edge of campaign rules.

In January of 2014, Vitter was up against a state law that prohibited him from using his seven-figure campaign funds amassed as a federal office-holder for a state campaign.

No problem for a manipulators like Vitter and Charlie Spies, a Republican lawyer who was instrumental in launching Mitt Romney’s largest super PAC. In early 2013, Spies created the Fund for Louisiana’s Future and registered the super PAC both federally and in Louisiana in order “to support Sen. Vitter whether he ran for re-election to the Senate or for governor.”

Thus did Vitter become perhaps the first politician in the U.S. to be the largest single funder of his own super PAC.

A former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission said Vitter’s funding of his own super PAC, unprecedented to that point, raised the issue of the separation of super PACs and a candidate’s campaign “to a new level.”

Another observer, Paul Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said the existing Louisiana prohibition of the use of federal campaign funds in a state campaign was the only plausible reason for a candidate ceding control of his own campaign funds by transferring cash from his federal campaign to his gubernatorial campaign.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/how-david-vitter-shattered-another-campaign-finance-rule-20140601

Stand by, folks. This election campaign promises to be a tad out of the ordinary, even by Louisiana’s unique standards.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »