Editors note: This column contains new content not originally published in the print edition.
I have heard that question numerous times from observers of the race for State Senate in District 16 to replace Dr. Bill Cassidy. It has gotten vicious.
As I have written in this column before, I know all the candidates. I have known Dan Claitor the longest—since high school. But while I like Dan, I have endorsed Lee Domingue because I believe he will bring a new perspective, energy and ideas to the Legislature as an entrepreneur. He builds, innovates and creates jobs. What is one more lawyer (Claitor) going to do to change the Legislature? The fact that Dan has lived here all his life doesn’t earn him a seat in the Senate, but it does raise the question, “What have you contributed and done in our community during that time?”
Maybe the reason both I and Gov. Bobby Jindal endorsed Domingue has something to do with his abilities and his heart for public service, as well as conservative values and a shared vision for our state. But since Claitor—as well as The Advocate‘s Marsha Shuler and Mark Ballard—can’t seem to accept that, he tried to discredit the endorsements by telling WAFB-TV, “There’s some other issues out there that I’ll just leave it up to the press to investigate and connect the dots on why that would happen.”
The reporter said Claitor was referring to Domingue’s previous donations to both Jindal’s campaign and “Believe in Louisiana,” a nonprofit organization meant to promote Jindal’s initiatives.
I have never hidden the fact I am a strong supporter of Jindal and serve as chairman of Believe in Louisiana, which was announced last year and has been reported often. It’s not a secret. All donations to the governor and those to BIL are reported, transparent and indicative of Domingue’s wanting to help and make an impact in Louisiana. He puts his money where his mouth is to support those things he believes in. That’s admirable. Even more admirable is the fact he is putting himself on the line and subjecting himself to ridicule, while offering to do public service and help others.
Where does Claitor put his money? In supporting a candidate for judge, a clerk of court and the ex-attorney general. All posts that could directly benefit his legal business. Has that been reported by The Advocate? No, because that does not serve M&M’s [Marsha and Mark’s] agenda. They want Jindal’s candidate to lose. Don’t you get it?
It is my opinion, that M&M do not like Jindal or his staff—and I don’t think they like me, either. They have demonstrated poor judgment and clear bias in their reporting in their zeal to “get the governor.” As one journalist pointed out to me, they have done the bidding of Claitor [and Roy Fletcher, Claitor’s consultant, who is likely feeding them] by writing numerous stories on Domingue and doing practically nothing—positive or negative—on the other candidates. That’s lazy, and it’s unfair.
Do you want another perspective on The Advocate coverage of this race? Veteran political writer John Maginnis wrote in his Political Fax Weekly last Friday, “Leading Senate candidate Dan Claitor doesn’t have to spend much money to go negative on his opponent Lee Domingue, because the Baton Rouge Advocate is doing a bang-up job for him.” My point exactly.
If we are going to question endorsements, why did Shuler not ask Laurinda Calongne or Claitor if they had made any type of arrangement regarding her campaign debt in exchange for her support? That has happened before, and she mentioned her debt twice in the e-mail she sent out after her first primary loss. So why no question, M&M? Or why haven’t Shuler and Ballard asked Dan Claitor why he hired Councilman Byron Sharper and Scott Wilfong to help him in his district attorney’s race last year—two guys who were both mentioned in connection with the malicious smear sheet put out on Mayor Kip Holden? Will M&M do any work examining the background of the other candidate?
On their crusade to use the District 16 race to “get Gov. Jindal,” they clearly stepped in it and wrote one too many innuendos, impugning the integrity of innocent people, resulting in a very lengthy correction with “regrets for the error” in The Advocate. Credit that action to the publisher and executive editor, who made M&M right their wrong.
If you read the op-ed pieces penned by M&M, you will clearly pick up on their negative opinion of Jindal. Ballard harps week after week. So then you’re going to tell me that, when they write a news story, their attitude is not going to bias the story? Are you kidding me? Every time The Advocate mentions Jindal’s endorsement of Domingue, it mentions the donations made as if to discredit it, instead of quoting the governor on his reasons. It would seem strange if I didn’t know that M&M dislike Jindal and want him to fail in every respect. And I’m convinced they do.
It reminds me very much of the national press and their feelings and treatment of President George W. Bush compared to the treatment they are giving President Barack Obama. Clearly biased. The Advocate is not going to point out their own bias—but I certainly will. I think its coverage of this State Senate election has been embarrassingly one-sided and included very little reporting on the other candidates. It has been unfair to Domingue, who has been used as the whipping boy, and unfair to voters, who don’t have a complete picture. But then again, I believe that was M&M’s objective all along. The bigger question will be, did their shameless strategy work on the voters of District 16 and manipulate the outcome of the election on April 4—just to get Jindal?
I believe the voters are smarter than that.
Grudge match
A new player on the scene is Jack Dampf, attorney for the wealthy heiress of the Pennington fortunes, Paula Pennington de la Bretonne. Dampf, a neighbor of mine, who has talked with me about the issue, and his client seem to be holding a grudge over a business deal that tanked. Both de la Bretonne and Domingue lost money in the venture. Ironically, it was de la Bretonne who had contacted Domingue about investing and bringing her son into the business. Domingue, who had been close to the family, has made three attempts since 2001 to discuss the conflict with de la Bretonne—and she has refused them all. Strange … or maybe that’s Dampf again.
Domingue has settlement documents signed by de la Bretonne and notarized by Dampf, and they include a cover letter expressing thanks from Dampf. Now Dampf is peddling his one-sided version of the story to the media and others as if he has a smoking gun. Not there. De la Bretonne has refused to give any interviews. WBRZ-TV and WAFB had refused to run the story on March 17—but, of course, The Advocate was quick to put it on the front page, even though Shuler, never could speak with de la Bretonne.
While Dampf points the finger, and Shuler plays along, the fact is this company he refers to had Pam Cowart [Paula’s business adviser] on the board of directors and Dalton Meaux as company CFO, placed in that position by de la Bretonne. Dampf also attended board meetings. Doesn’t a board provide oversight of the CEO? And what is the CFO responsible for? The fact is, deals and partnerships go awry all the time, and there is always friction when there are financial losses involved. The true debt never became clear until Domingue did an audit. Dampf is only presenting to the media and the public his client’s side. And, unfortunately, Shuler, The Advocate and WBRZ are willing to be the pawns. WAFB chose not to cover this he-said, she-said disagreement about a failed partnership, and Kevin Meeks on WJBO-AM described it as “a business deal gone bad between two rich people. So what? Is that news?”
But as I said earlier, I contend that Shuler and her editor, Ballard, have a separate agenda. They want to use this race to attack Jindal. It’s not about fairness or facts. Don’t forget it when you cast your vote—or when you’re reading their articles.
Peas in a pod?
Besides holding a grudge, I wondered why Dampf is wading into the sleaze in order to assist Dan Claitor’s candidacy. I did find they both like former Attorney General Richard Ieyoub. In Ieyoub’s 1996 race for U.S. Senate, Dampf (a Republican) and his then-law partner, Arlene Edwards (then daughter-in-law of Edwin Edwards), both contributed to Ieyoub’s campaign, as did Dan Claitor (a Republican). They were teamed up with Cleo Fields, who endorsed Ieyoub.
Claitor also favored Ieyoub as a candidate for governor in 2003 against Bobby Jindal and Kathleen Blanco and contributed to him twice.
The propensity for these Republicans to support Democrats may be the explanation for third-place finisher Calongne jumping on with Claitor (after claiming the week before she would not make an endorsement). Calongne has made four contributions to Democrat congressman Charlie Melancon; a contribution to Mary Landrieu in 2007 against John Kennedy; and contributed to Blanco in 2004. Just how conservative and loyal are these two Republicans, Claitor and Calongne? And would anyone want to be getting advice from Dampf on how to vote?
