Update: H/t to CentralLaPolitics, a Republican blogger, who is equally as outraged by the tactics of David Vitter’s LCRM and has uploaded the radio ad attacking Chris Roy, Jr.
Listen to the ad here. And read about Chris Roy’s defense of a mentally-ill Vietnam veteran who was ruled incapable of standing trial by a judge, after a string of evaluations by a court-appointed psychologist. This was Roy’s one and only murder case, and both Roy and the DA agreed to convict the man of manslaughter. This is what the LCRM is lying about in an attempt to smear Roy’s professional reputation and shift votes over Lance Maxwell.
Three days before the primary election, Lance Maxwell, the Republican candidate for House District 25, attempted to distance himself from a radio advertisement attacking one of his opponents, an ad that was sponsored by the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority. Maxwell issued the following statement to The Town Talk:
This press release is in response to an unexpected attack ad against one of my opponents. On Wednesday, October 17, I heard this radio ad for the first time. I had no prior knowledge nor did I approve such an ad. (By law, no political action committee can communicate strategically with me). This ad is not supported by nor endorsed by the Lance Maxwell Campaign. I have personally called this PAC and asked that they remove this ad immediately. Any further negative campaigning by this PAC is against my specific request. This election cycle is about the future of Louisiana. I will not allow outside PAC’s to muddy the water with negative ads that are contrary to the basic foundations on which I was raised and for which I stand. Negative ads, like the one that is currently playing, are rooted in “old school” smear tactics that have kept Louisiana stagnant. Please continue to work with me as I strive to move Louisiana forward.
Although we did not know it at the time, a recent campaign finance report from Lance Maxwell reveals that on October 10, 2007, less than a week before this advertisement was taken out, Maxwell received a $4,900 donation from the very political action committee that he accuses of being “rooted in ‘old school’ smear tactics,” the Louisiana Committee for a Republican Majority. (Click here to view the report).
Maxwell’s attempt to distance himself from the LCRM may be politically expedient, but it appears to be completely disingenuous. Not only has Maxwell accepted thousands of dollars from the LCRM, he spent the past few years of his life working for the man behind the LCRM, Senator David Vitter. In fact, a letter from Vitter’s wife Wendy appears on the main page of the LCRM’s website. A closer look at Maxwell’s reports also reveals that he has accepted donations from the principal forces behind the LCRM:
- On July 16, 2007, Joseph Canizaro of New Orleans gave Lance Maxwell $2,500.
- A day later, on July 17, 2007, Joseph Spinosa of Baton Rouge also gave Lance Maxwell $2,500.
- On September 17, 2007, Phylis Taylor, Louisiana’s only billionaire, donated $2,500.
- The same day, Maxwell received a $2,500 donation from Morris Dickson Company of Shreveport.
All of these donations have two things in common (besides their timing): They are all from outside of District 25, and they are all from individuals who have repeatedly supported both the LCRM and the Republican candidates in their “targeted districts.” The only big name that seems to be missing is Boysie Bollinger of New Orleans.
Maxwell may have a problem with the smear tactics of the LCRM, but he seems to have no problem taking their money.
CenLamar 
You object to Lance taking contributions from people outside of the district. Hasn’t Chris Roy taking money from just about every trial lawyer in the state?
I know you are trying to report the facts here, but don’t you find it a little hard to be unbiased about Chris Roy’s race when you work for his brother, Mayor Jaques Roy?
Go look at the reports for yourselves. Jim, your claim is absurd, and Melinda, it is what it is: I am simply iterating the facts.
Lance Maxwell also received a “policy book” from the LCRM, and he reported this contribution as an in-kind contribution on 11 SEPT 2007. The policy book educates candidates on the LCRM’s policies and on their strategy for winning elections. Even if Maxwell did not know these ads would air, a claim I doubt given that he is the recipient of both cash and a policy book from the organization that aired the ad he repudiated, he at least knew the LCRM’s philosophy.
I wonder if the LCRM asked him to repudiate their ad.
Lamar, I disagree with your choice of candidate for State Representative. I am supporting Lance Maxwell for one primary reason: Chris Roy’s brother is mayor of Alexandria, an area with a large portion of that particular district Chris wants to represent. I see this as a huge conflict of interest. I personally think Chris is a much better person than his brother, your boss, but it would not be in the district’s best interest to have two siblings controlling the same area. We have Nepotism laws for a reason, and while I am fully aware that no laws would be broken if Chris were elected, the spirit behind those Nepotism laws I believe still applies.
“Maxwell’s attempt to distance himself from the LCRM may be politically expedient, but it appears to be completely disingenuous.”
“Appears to be completely disingenuous” is not an example of “iterating facts,” but rather, an example stating an opinion based upon facts. I’m merely pointing out that the commentary included in your blog posting should be put into a certain context, mainly, the context that you work for Chris Roy’s brother.
Furthermore, putting commentary into your posting places the entire post into question, including the “facts” that you reported. In other words, you may have chosen to report certain facts while leaving others out in order to achieve a desired outcome in your argument. Case selection bias is the biggest fallacy in blogging AND in the main stream media. While the facts you are reporting may be true, are there others you are leaving out? I have no idea, but the bottom line is, don’t pass off this amateur posting as if it were 100% unbiased fact.
Thanks.
My point exactly!! Thanks, Melinda.
Yes, Nora and Melinda, nepotism is a problem. And this is why many of us question the experience of Lance Maxwell, whose only qualification for office is the position he held under David Vitter, who may be subpeonaed in a case involving the DC Madam. Only 28 with limited cultural, educational, political and business experience, Maxwell is a product of nepotism and of cronyism, especially as a large portion of his campaign warchest came from his former boss, David Vitter, who runs the LCRM.
Thank you for highlighting the problem of nepotism. It proves once again that Lance Maxwell is not qualified for political office.
Do you understand what the definition of nepotism is?? Nepotism is to give preference to any sort of relative ie; Jacques Roy the Mayor of Alexandria giving preference to his brother Chris Roy, who happens to be running for State Representative of a district in which Alexandria falls. That would be an example of nepotism. Lance Maxwell having support from his former employer does not come under the definition of nepotism. As far as cronyism, that is an opinion that can easily be used for Chris Roy as well, depending upon which side of the table you’re on.
Nora,
Nepotism, although it has its etymological roots in nepote, or nephew in Latin, also includes close friends of those who wield power. Vitter wields that power, as he runs the LCRM and makes major decisions in the Republican state party, and Lance is the beneficiary both financial and political of the power Vitter wields. And yes, lance did work for Vitter. This is a classic example of nepotism.
You cannot cite the Roy family in this respect, as Jacques Roy does not run a PAC that is funding all Democratic candidates for the state legislature. Roy, moreover, never employed his brother. You are simply confusing his status of Mayor in a city on the outskirts of the district for which Chris Roy is running for major political player who makes all decisions statewide. That is a huge error, and it is an error on which your entire argument is based. There is no nepotism here, especially as Chris Roy was not an anointed candidate. I believe you recall the jungle primary, and I believe you recall the candidacy of Glen Beard. Democrats did not endorse Roy early as Republicans lined up behind Lance Maxwell, David Vitter’s choice for the district.
Crack a dictionary and read the definition of nepotism. And until you can establish a link involving employment between Jacques Roy and his brother Chris, I ask you to refrain from misusing the term nepotism here and elsewhere online. For it is dishonest and disingenuous.
Thank you for your prompt and anticipated cooperation.
According to Louisiana Ethics Law, Nepotism is referred to by the definition I previously gave. Lance is not familial related to David Vitter, so give it a rest. If you would have clearly read my previous comments, you would see that I stated I am fully aware that no law would be broken if Roy was elected. HOWEVER, the point to my post is that I have a huge problem supporting someone running for an elected position in a district in which his brother is the Mayor. That is a tremendous conflict of interest, and it is my decision to make. To make one other point, in the primary I actually voted for Glen Beard. Since he is no longer in the running my vote will most certainly go to Lance Maxwell based solely upon my belief that family members should not have control over the same areas. Your high and mighty attitude gives further resolve on my part NOT to vote for Chris Roy (and believe it or not, I actually like him as a person).
Please cite the ethics law. And no, I will not refrain from discussing the relationship Lance Maxwell has with David vitter. For that relationship is both financial and political. Indeed, Maxwell is a political scion of Vitter, which places him in a relationship of propinquity with the Senator similar to that of biological kinship. And to be quite honest, Lance’s former employment with the man bankrolling his campaign with out of district interests’ money is much more troubling than Roy’s biological relationship to a Mayor of a city on the outskirts of the district, especially as Vitter is running a PAC whose sole purpose is to staff the state House with those who will promise to uphold the policies Vitter and his cronies formulated in Washington, DC.
The evidence is stacked against Maxwell, not Chris Roy. And until you can cite empirical evidence, I recommend you refrain from using legal terms in a willy nilly and irresponsible manner. If you do take the law as seriously as you claim, you would understand the recklessness of your statements here and elsewhere. If you claim Chris Roy is the product of nepotism, the burden of proof is on you. And to be honest, there is no proof, and you understand this. This explains why you are now citing your highly subjective and utterly tendentious judgment as evidence.
Boy, it would be terrible if the Mayor of our city had a close working relationship with one of the men elected by the citizens of our district to represent us in the State House, wouldn’t it?
Nepotism is a weak argument, because Mayor Roy is not appointing anyone to this position; the citizens of our district are voting for the person they believe can best represent their interests. By your logic, anyone who is related to an elected official should be barred from running for office.
How democratic is that! I suppose we would have never had John Quincy Adams, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George H.W. Bush, Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, Edward Tennedy, Robert Kennedy, and literally hundreds of other elected officials.
I am sorry, Nora and Melinda (who is writing from a computer in Baton Rouge. One wonders why she is so interested in defending the LCRM and the candidacy of Lance Maxwell), but this is a ridiculous argument.
And Melinda, as you probably know, I have repeatedly disclosed who I work for; in fact, it’s at the top of the page under the “About” section. I am not attempting to mislead anyone (which seems to be the modus operandi of the LCRM).
H/t to CentralLaPolitics, a REPUBLICAN, who is outraged by the LCRM and has uploaded the radio ad against Chris Roy.
[audio src="http://www.freewebtown.com/centrallapolitic/LCRM-25-Freedom.mp3" /]
Lamar,
Where am I writing from now?
Probably somewhere in Texas, maybe out of the country, maybe in Louisiana. It’s called a proxy server, and for the record, I’m actually from Marksville.
In any event, should I not have an opinion on who is elected even though I do not live in the district, but merely close by? Would I not care if some right-wing or left-wing radical was elected to the U.S. Senate from a state outside of Louisiana? OF COURSE I would care, their policies affect the entire nation, not just their state.
State, or in this case, district boundaries are a weak argument for trying to discredit an opinion. Do policy decisions stop at district lines? If a legislator from Alexandria was the deciding vote on a decision to legalize abortion, or prevent gay marriage STATEWIDE, then as a resident of Marksville, wouldn’t I be concerned with whom is elected, not just in my district, but anywhere in the state? If legislators could only make decisions that affect their own district, then your snide remarks about me dialing in from Baton Rouge hold water. HOWEVER, as soon as a governmental structure allows for legislators to impose their policy on people outside of their district, which is the case everywhere, then ANYONE and EVERYONE has an interest on who comes out on top of any election.
My opinion can’t suddenly be discredited because someone gerrymandered a district line 10 years ago to make their reelection easier. This probably explains why these huge business interests are donating to candidates outside of their district. If someone from Monroe can tax a business in New Orleans, that business owner has an interest in not seeing that taxing legislator elected.
Lastly, I could give a hoot about Lance Maxwell, LCRM, Chris Roy or any of these guys…I just don’t want you to claim to be writing an article completely full of facts when it is, in fact, an editorial full of facts and opinion…that’s the only reason I posted.
Melinda,
This is a blog. Sometimes, I construct my opinions based on a presentation of the facts. Thank you for acknowledging you are not from here; it is obvious, as no one in this election can be described as “radical.” However, the tactics of the LCRM are, in fact, very radical, which is why the Republican candidate publicly disavowed their ad.
Ok, one part of your comment Melinda really strikes me as indicative of the Republican Party and LCRM. You stated that “If a legislator from Alexandria was the deciding vote on a decision to legalize abortion, or prevent gay marriage STATEWIDE…” that as a non-resident of the district it becomes your business.
That’s just it, it’s still not your or the LCRM, or anyone outside of that district’s business. Legislators are elected to represent the will of their constituents. Not the will of a political cause or religious faith.
That’s the system we have here in the US. If you want a different system you’ll need to move to the UK where the person in your district doesn’t necessarily represent you.
But here in the US, and in Louisiana we elected officials are elected to serve an electorate as defined by district boundaries. If you want your beliefs represented, then vote in a candidate you like within your district. But, if the people of Alexandria want to have a representative that represents their beliefs, then it should be ONLY up to the voters in Alexandria to decide that and that includes funding their campaigns.
Whether a group is buying votes for business purposes or for idealogical purposes, it’s still buying votes and it’s still wrong.
And Lamar, I was wondering when someone would point out that it seems ideal to have an Alexandria friendly legislator fighting our battles in BR rather than one creating battles here in Alexandria. Thanks.
Lamar,
Yes, Marksville is very, very far away from Alexandria. Thank you for acknowledging that you were trying to pass off your opinion as a fact. That’s all I ask.
Drew,
There is no law anywhere in the country, federal or state, against people or businesses giving money outside of their district. “That’s the system we have here in the US. If you want a different system you’ll need to move to the UK.” Sound familiar…?
But I believe you were trying to argue it’s “wrong,” not necessarily illegal, for someone to try and influence the outcome of an election in which they cannot vote. How is it wrong for a person to try and prevent harm, however they define it (taxes, regulation…etc), from being inflicted upon them by their government? So what if the legislator isn’t theirs, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that that legislator may inflict harm upon the individual or business regardless of geography. If they have to power to legislate outside of their district, then anyone affected by that legislation has the right to influence the outcome of an election. While they aren’t given the power of the vote, why do you think the LAWS ALLOW for out-of-district contributions? I’ll tell you why, it’s the exact argument I’m putting forth. Can you imagine a world where the national head of the NAACP couldn’t give money to defeat David Duke in his local races? Ridiculous. THAT is why it is legal (AND IMPORTANT) to give money out-of-district, so that individuals and businesses cannot be railroaded by an out of district legislator without having a say. That isn’t “wrong”…it couldn’t be more “right.”
Continuing with your logic, are endorsements wrong? What if Bobby Jindal had endorsed Maxwell? What about the head of the NRA endorsing Roy? Bobby doesn’t live in the district, neither does John Sigler (head of NRA). Should we ban endorsements unless you live in the district? OF COURSE NOT. Do you consider endorsements, which are nothing more than an attempt to influence the outcome of an election (just like money) “wrong?”
Bottom line is that you live in a fantasy world where you think a legislator should be able to make decisions affecting people 500 miles away and don’t want that person to have a say in it. Campaign finance laws are written the way they are for a reason, so that people like you never get elected and impose your will on others without their say.
Actually, Melina or Nora or whatever your name is, you are wrong. Campaign finance laws were written in order to prevent large donations from any one individual or entity from being funnelled to any one political candidate. Hence why ceilings have been imposed, and hence why all contributions, expenditures and loans must be reported with certain forms of information such as names, addresses and dates. Because the LCRM, David Vitter, Joseph Spinosa and Republican candidates for the House find the title of the Election Code that is the campaign finance law of Louisiana too restrictive, they have willfully and egregiously exploited loopholes within that law in order to engage in the activities the campaign finance reforms attempted to ban. The practice in which the LCRM and their candidates and funders are engaged is referred to as bundling, and the US House recently voted to end this pernicious practice, as they understand it to be anathema to the democratic process.
I find it interesting that you are now confusing legislators for lobbyists. If a company wants to kill a bill with a tax increase, they can send their lobbyists to Baton Rouge to pressure legislators and to testify during committee hearings. But now companies such as those owned and operated by the donors to the LCRM want to put the people they have lobbied with their donations in legislative seats. I guess their influence on government, one to which they have purchased access, will now be streamlined. And no, I do not believe it is acceptable for companies localized in the parishes surrounding New Orleans and Baton Rouge to determine the outcome of elections in rural parishes while purchasing candidates’ loyalties. Apparently you do with your Baton Rouge IP address, and this explains why you mention tax cuts for businesses in your previous comments. So glad to see that you believe in corpratism and in feudalistic forms of government. And so glad to see that you are now attempting to cover your tracks online. Are you a paid operative? Who do you represent?
And no, no one here distorted the information that is democratically available at the Board of Ethics’s website. The donations have been made and accepted, and candidates are now attempting to denounce the organization that has provided logistical and financial support to their campaigns. There is no distortion here: Maxwell and other candidates received a policy book; they attended a seminar in which they were taught how to coordinate a “local” message with the broader message the LCRM manufactured with Republican operatives in Washington, DC; they are the recipients of donations from the LCRM and of additional funds from LCRM donors and the various Republican PACs with whom David Vitter has established relationships in Washington, DC; and now their online supporters are attempting to invalidate those of us who are exposing this latest attempt of special interests to purchase our legislature. I see no ambiguity here, and frankly, I find your breathless attempts to lend legitimacy to all this bankrupt and laughable. Perhaps bankrupt is not the correct adjective, as you are most probably a paid operative who will benefit from all this political chicanery.
If you are from Marksville, you would be engaged with the legislative race in Avoyelles Parish, one in which the LCRM has also invested a lot of revenue. But no, you are in Baton Rouge with a proxy server you do not know how to operate. So much for ridding government of ineptitude, waste and incompetence.
Have a wondeful day. And please get back to me after you have read and fully comprehended our campaign finance laws. Believe me, I am not holding my breath.