If you add up the totals of both Cazayoux and Jackson, that means that the majority of the voters in LA-06 voted for a pro-union candidate. A majority voted against Mr. Cassidy.
There were two things at play here - the belief that a Democrat needs to emphasize their conservative credentials in order to win, which I discussed here; and the fact that Michael Jackson was bought and paid for by L. Lane Grigsby, the owner of Cajun Contractors, an anti-union construction corporation. I wonder what Mr. Jackson gains being paid off by Mr. Grigsby to spoil the election. Some have suggested that the Federal Election Commission needs to delve into the full extent of their financial relationship, since Mr. Grigsby has already made illegal donations to Mr. Cassidy, and the fact that there is no disclaimer on ANY of Mr. Jackson's election paraphernalia:
This is the image plastered on billboards all over North Baton Rouge:
And this is the image on the few lawn signs they had printed up:
Do any of y'all see the union label on these signs? I don't. Do any of y'all see the disclaimer required by federal election law that states it must detail who paid for the signs? I don't.
Mr. Jackson is a lawyer. I'm sure as a candidate, he took the time to read federal election law as to what was required of him as a candidate. The fact that he didn't put a disclaimer up there leads me to believe that there is a pattern of disregarding the law on his part. Mr. Grigsby broke the law by donating more than is legally allowed to Mr. Cassidy. And we know that Mr. Grigsby has donated nearly half of the money raised by Mr. Jackson in this campaign. Were there more donations that we don't know about?
All of that aside, I am saddened by the decisions made by Michael Jackson in this election. While I understand his frustration about losing the special election primary run-off in April, as someone who is progressive, how he runs a campaign fueled in large part by money from a wealthy, anti-union, Republican donor who is diametrically opposed to most of what he stands for is beyond me.
I don't buy the idea floated by other progressives that this election was the best opportunity for a progressive candidate to win election to Congress. I also don't buy the idea floated by some black commentators that this was the best opportunity for a black politician to win election to Congress from this district.
The conventional "wisdom" propping up this belief were the ideas that the white "conservative" Democrat and the white Republican would split the white vote down the middle, and so long as the "independent" black candidate took 90% of the black vote in a general election plus the liberal white vote, the black candidate would win.
Such thinking assumes that black voters are sheep, and will only vote for the black candidate. Black voters are Democrats, y'all. The vast majority of them vote for the Democrat in a general election, not the black candidate. This election should prove that, as Don pulled a majority of the black vote from majority African-American precincts in EBR Parish:
Candidate
African American Votes
% of African American Vote
Bill Cassidy (R)
1,503
4.91%
Don Cazayoux (D)
19,955
65.20%
Michael Jackson (Lane Grigsby)
9,147
29.89%
I've actually had a few discussions with folks via email and in person that voted for Michael Jackson, and they all say that it wasn't unreasonable to assume that Michael Jackson could win he took 90% of the black vote like he did in April. The problem with that analysis is that it conveniently forgets that Mr. Jackson got 90% of the black vote in a Democratic Party primary. Either way, black folks would win ... they would get their concerns listened to by whomever got out of the Democratic primary. In a general election, when black voters make up far less that 50% of the vote, getting 90% of the black vote simply ain't enough to win in a 3 way race. If Mr. Jackson were the Democrat, perhaps, but he wasn't. He ran as an Independent who was paid off by L. Lane Grigsby to tilt the race to Bill Cassidy.
There is one more thing these folks forgot ... when there is a Republican candidate in the race, to assume that a majority of black Democrats will vote for the Independent black candidate is
fallacy, especially when the white Democratic candidate is almost certain to get the endorsement of the party's first black Presidential nominee. Why these folks thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell that a majority of black folks were going to disregard the endorsement of Barack Obama is also beyond me. Further, please tell me the last time an Independent candidate won in a 3 way election in this state.
Another person I have discussed this with brought up the salient point that it makes no sense to keep pushing DINO's like Mary Landrieu and Don Cazayoux when I am for progressive policies, and they are not.
In a general election, when the choice is between a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent candidate (who can't win), the most progressive candidate will ALWAYS be the Democrat. I don't care how smart Bill Cassidy is. He votes the way the fundamentalist wing of the Republican Party tells him. Otherwise, he wouldn't have a 100% rating from the Louisiana Family Forum. And in the United State Congress, where the Republican Party exercises a vise-like grip on their Members' votes, Mr. Cassidy will not be free to exercise his "reasonableness." He will be forced to vote the way the Republican leadership wants him to, just so he can get their support for re-election. And he has done just that in the Legislature, with respect to his votes for the Louisiana Family Forum.
Mr. Jackson's egomaniacal candidacy sent Mr. Cassidy to Washington. His shameless selling out of the working families in this district is absolutely despicable. The losers in this are not Don Cazayoux, who will be fine; nor Mr. Jackson, who will also be fine; but the black voters of Baton Rouge. They have done without adequate representation for all but 6 months of the last 15 years.
They can thank Mr. Jackson for the lack of representation for the next two.
In Cassidy's most recent FEC report, Lane Grigsby, the owner of Cajun Contractors that is attempting single-handedly to unseat Rep. Don Cazayoux by supporting both Republican Bill Cassidy and Independent Michael Jackson, has, along with his wife, daughter, son-in-law, and his CFO's wife, illegally contributed $8,700 to Republican hopeful Bill Cassidy. Don't believe me ... read the law (pdf alert):
§ 441a. Limitations, contributions, and expenditures
(a) Dollar limits on contributions.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (i) and section 315A (2 U.S.C. § 441a-1), no person shall make contributions-
1(A) to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,300*
I don't have a problem with several individual family members maxing out ... that's fine. If several individual family members give more than they are allowed to give, that's illegal. That's a broken law. And it is CLEAR that the Cassidy campaign and Lane Grigsby, his family and a friend have broken the law:
I knew that Republican hopeful Bill Cassidy was determined to be a Congressman, but I didn't realize that he'd be willing to break the law to do it, as federal election law states that one can only donate $2,300 per election.
It's also nice to see L. Lane Grigsby be so vigilant about following the law in this regard. After all, he's the guy pushing money towards Independent candidate Michael Jackson and Republican Bill Cassidy. There are rumors flying that L. Lane is the one paying for the Jackson billboards all over Baton Rouge, since there is no disclaimer as to who has paid for them, as required by federal election law.
I've been wondering where Jackson was going to raise the necessary money to run a real campaign. The Politico's Scorecard gives us some answers:
Through his own 527 organization, Grigsby has bankrolled much of Jackson's campaign, helping him get his message out to black voters in the district.
Over half of Jackson's $58,450 in fundraising to date has come from Grigsby, his family or his associates at his construction company.
Grigsby has spent money on anti-Cazayoux mailers endorsing Jackson's campaign. The mailer features a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. on the front and attacks Cazayoux for his connections to labor groups. At first glance, the piece looks like it's from Jackson's campaign.
He also has been paying to produce yard signs for Jackson, according to a Democratic source in the district.
We've noted the numerous donations to the Jackson campaign from the Grigsby family. We have the MLK mailer, which we'll scan and put up in the morning.
Earlier this year, 90 percent of African Americans and nearly 20 percent of white Democrats in the 6th District supported my candidacy, giving me 43 percent of the overall votes in the Democratic primary. Recognizing these percentages and the unprecedented turnout that is expected in support of Sen. Barack Obama's bid for the presidency, and the fact that the winner only needs a plurality, not a majority, it's clear that we can win.
I find it amazing that Mr. Jackson actually thinks he can win this race based on election results derived from a Democratic primary in April. I think Mr. Jackson might be forgetting some pertinent information ...
Like that fact that Don Cazayoux, the current Democratic congressman, pulled 90 percent of African American voters during the general election in which he bested Republican Woody Jenkins.
I think it's time for Mr. Jackson to awaken from his Lane Grigsby-induced dreams, (and there are 2 more $2300 donations dated 03/20/08 and 02/07/08) and face the fact that he is in the race for one reason only - to tilt this election to his Republican opponent, Bill Cassidy, a man that is diametrically opposed to everything that Mr. Jackson professes to be for.
So I got a pretty good laugh today from my friend John Leek, who founded the Mississippi blog Cotton Mouth Blog. He sent me this link to a radio ad of Woody's that has Woody saying that he doesn't believe in negative advertising.
All I have to say is ... then let's see you call out your friend Lane Grigsby. And your friends over at Freedoms Watch. And your friends over at Club For Growth, all of whom are all running over the top negative ads in a desperate attempt to pull Don Cazayoux's negative numbers up, (and so far failing), hoping to depress Democratic turnout enough that Woody can somehow slink by.
[UPDATE]: Edited to indicate which groups are Republican Party operatives. Also added Cazayoux press release.
Well, we've seen some race-baiting and outright lies by Republican Party operatives - NRCC and Freedoms Watch - over the last two days. I guess they thought that since Don is a Democrat, he would shrivel up into the fetal position, and whine. Think again. It's not 2004 any more ... it's 2008. Democrats today stand up and fight what we all know is right:
Help keep this ad on the air right up until Election Day (May 3rd) by donating here.
The Cazayoux campaign just put out a press release highlighting the ethical lapses of two more folks that are airing negative attack ads against Don (emphasis mine):
Wealthy construction company owner Lane Grigsby also released an ad this week, attacking Cazayoux. Like Republican Woody Jenkins, Grigsby has a background of ethical compliants, including allegedly colluding with a candidate to make an attack ad that "viciously and personally attacked" the candidate's opponent and hiding his company's interest in state contracts to build hurricane shelters.
One more outside interest group, the Club for Growth, began airing ads today lying about Cazayoux's record of middle class tax relief. The Club for Growth is one of the largest and most well known groups advocating extreme and radical tax policies; in 2006, spent $7.4 million to defeat candidates that stand up for middle class tax relief. In October 2007, the Ohio Ethics Commission rebuked the Club for making false statements about one of their targets and in January of 2008 the Club was hit with an FEC complaint for illegally coordinating with a campaign.
So I have been given a copy of the new ad that Woody is going to airing all over the district at some point in the next few days, if it's not already up. The title is an apt question, as Governor PBJ only appears in a picture that is also on Woody's website. Pray tell, why wouldn't the Governor personally appear in the ad of a "strong conservative" like Woody?
Answer: The Governor knows that Woody's gonna lose, and he doesn't want to tie himself to a sinking ship.
On another note, the Louisiana GOP is getting VERY nervous about this race. The Business Report tells us:
Baton Rouge contractor Lane Grigsby, who has made third-party expenditures before, says he will launch a media campaign next week to defeat congressional candidate Don Cazayoux. Grigsby's reason is "where he gets his money from," referring to national labor unions that have given to the Democrat. The ads will be produced by consultant George Kennedy. The Cazayoux campaign released an internal poll this week showing him leading Republican Woody Jenkins, 49% to 42%.
Oh, poor Lane Grigsby, he's gittin' scared of some people-power. Donate to Don ... the NRCC may be dark, but Freedoms Watch and now, Lane Grigsby are picking up the slack. This thing is going to be a FIGHT.
