The 2010 Republican primary to determine who will face Democratic incumbent Ciro Rodriguez could look just as it did in 2008, when Bexar County Commissioner Lyle Larson, despite being heavily outspent, defeated lawyer and businessman Fransisco "Quico" Canseco.
Canseco has said he will definitely be a candidate and told the San Antonio Express-News that he has already had discussions with the National Republican Congressional Committee. Larson has not made a final decision and told the paper he would make an announcement later this year.
Due mostly to his ability to self-finance his campaign, Canseco has been encouraged to run by NRCC Chair Pete Sessions. Canseco spent $1 million in 2008 and was soundly defeated by Larson. If Canseco decides to run again, expect Sessions and other Republicans to lean on Larson to stay out of the race, given that he lost to Rodriguez by double digits in 2008.
Lyle Larson is running for Congress in district 23. Funny since he is advocating a 23% sales tax. If he were running in the 31st, would he push for a 31% sales tax? Let's not find out.
Larson supports a 23% national sales tax which result in a 23% increase in just about everything. That's why the DCCC has released this ad aptly called, "Lyle Larson: For Taxes. Not Texas".
I wrote earlier today about the DCCC filing a formal complaint against Republican Lyle Larson for failure to follow FEC regulations in his first television advertisement.
Thomasenia Duncan, Esq.
General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463
Re: Complaint against Lyle Larson and Lyle Larson for Congress
Dear Ms. Duncan,
I write this letter to file a complaint pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1) against Lyle Larson, a candidate for the 23rd Congressional District in the state of Texas, and his campaign committee, Lyle Larson for Congress ("Respondents").
Respondents have plainly violated the Commission's disclaimer requirements for television communications. In a television advertisement that is airing on multiple stations in Larson's district, Larson failed to include a written statement saying that he approved the advertisement. By refusing to follow the law, he has ignored Congress's mandate that he stand fully by the assertions made in the advertisement, even while seeking office in that same Congress. Because paying for a television communication that does not include the required written statement represents a clear violation of federal law, the Commission should act immediately to investigate this matter and impose penalties against him and his campaign.
THE FACTS
Congressional candidate Lyle Larson's campaign committee has paid for a television advertisement that is airing on multiple stations in Larson's district. The advertisement is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
The written disclaimer that appears on screen at the end of the advertisement states as follows: "Paid for by Lyle Larson for Congress." There is no written statement indicating that Larson approved the advertisement.
ARGUMENT
When a candidate authorizes a television communications, he must include a written statement indicating that he approved the communication. See 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(1)(B)(ii); 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(c)(3)(iii). The statement must appear in letters equal to or greater than four percent of the vertical picture height and must be visible for a period of at least four seconds. See 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(c)(3)(iii). This requirement is in addition to the requirement that the communication include an audio statement that identifies the candidate and states that he approved the communication, to ensure that voters who might not hear the audio of the ad can still discern that the candidate approved it. See id. § 110.11(c)(3)(i), (ii).
The purpose of the requirement is to require candidates to demonstrate their support for the statements made in the advertisement. Larson did not do this. Rather than obey the law and take full responsibility for his ad - which compares Members of Congress to barnyard swine - Larson chose instead to follow his own, invented rules, and take lesser accountability for his ad's claims. The result is a clear, black-and-white violation of federal law.
When, in the first election cycle that McCain-Feingold was in effect, a Texas Congressional campaign issued mailings with the proper disclaimer, but failed to put the disclaimer in a box because of vendor error, the Commission prosecuted the matter through the enforcement process. It extracted a $6,000 civil penalty with the threat of litigation, even though the campaign had long since been defunct. See MUR 5547. This blatant violation warrants no lesser treatment. With three election cycles of McCain-Feingold under their belts, Larson and his sophisticated media consultants do not have the excuse of having to figure out how to follow a new law.
For these reasons, the Commission should immediately find reason to believe that Larson and the Committee violated the law, and seek civil penalties commensurate with the amounts spent on the advertising.
Lesson number one to all current and future candidates, don't lie to voters.
Lying Lyle Larson, Republican Candidate in Texas' 23 Congressional District, can't seem to keep his term limits promises, but that doesn't stop him from making them.
Last week, Larson wrote on his campaign blog and sent out an email to supporters pledging to only serve six terms if elected this November.
Larson also said he would support a constitutional amendment which would limit the terms of Members of Congress. Yet, Larson already broke the term limit promise he made back in 1996 during his first run for his Bexar County Commission seat, by running for a third term after pledging not to.
"Lying Lyle should stop making promises he doesn't intend to keep," said Texas Democratic Party Chairman Boyd Richie. "Let the voters beware, Lyle Larson will go back on his word about term limits and say he simply changed his mind."
Sleuthing from the Texas Democratic Party found the details.
According to the San Antonio Express-News, Larson said "he would serve no more than two terms." [San Antonio Express-News, 10/24/96] But in 2004, Larson broke his promise, running for a third term. Larson also went back on his word that he would resign from his post on the Bexar County Commission to run for the 23rd District Congressional seat, because he "changed his mind" and is now staying on as Commissioner. [San Antonio Express-News, 5/21/08]
"Texans in Congressional District 23 need a congressman they can trust to stand up for veterans, children and hard working middle class families," added Richie. "That's why I'm confident voters will re-elect Congressman Ciro Rodriguez and reject Lying Lyle's most recent false promises."
Not only is Larson not telling the truth is blatantly breaking the law.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) announced today that it has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Republican (TX-23) for his clear failure to follow FEC regulations in his first television advertisement.
Not sure how you can trust a guy to write laws when he doesn't even adhere to them. Jennifer Crider, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said simply, "Voters in Texas' 23rd district can't pick and choose which laws they follow and neither should political candidates. Lyle Larson chose to break the law by failing to take full responsibility for his political ad's claims. We are filing this FEC complaint to hold Lyle Larson accountable for his clear violation of federal law."
Ciro's ad on the other hand touts real achievements and follows the letter of the law by having all disclaimers.
The Republican Party must be desperate. In a press release from earlier this week, the Republican Party of Texas asked Ciro Rodriguez to announce who he supports for President and then proceeded to attack him for endorsing Barack Obama (something he hasn't declared).
The press release simply titled, 'Ciro Rodriguez Should Step Up to the Plate:
Time for Democratic Superdelegate to Say Whom He Supports" is one of the most libelous releases I have read in some time. That's right, libelous. Why?
Congressman Rodriguez (TX-23), a superdelegate who's been elusive in his support of Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, has been called on to denounce Sen. Obama's statement...
After hours of searching this week and requests into multiple offices, it doesn't appear Ciro Rodriguez has expressed his presidential preference. How then can Congressman Rodriguez denounce a person he hasn't endorsed? Let's go one step further, why is the Republican Party inserting itself into our Democratic primary and demanding a Democratic incumbent to endorse either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.
Hans Klingler continues to write press releases blindly attacking Democrats that simply don't make sense. Klingler and the Republican Party out of touch with the reality of the current political climate.
It already looks like Lyle Larson has no chance to defeat Congressman Rodriguez. Rodriguez has nearly $1 million cash on hand while Larson has about $150,000. Maybe that is the reason the Republican Party feels the need to insert themselves in the Democratic process.
Rodriguez has the support of his district, from Democrats and non-partisan groups across the country, earning a perfect score from the National Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, National Association of Social Workers, and many more. Maybe, if the Republicans understood the needs of the people they wouldn't have to libel a sitting Congressmen. Maybe if they could field a legitimate challenger, they could get them to attack the Congressman. Maybe Hans Klingler is just a useless communications director who would rather accuse, attack and scare than debate the facts.
