ProJo Article Highlights GOP Anti-Laffey Ads

I rarely link to Providence Journal stories, because they are usually just reprints or rehashes of AP or NYT feeds, and they are the only game in town concerning local stories, which gives them an uncomfortable (to me) power to mold Rhode Island's public opinion along the lines that the ProJo deems fit. This is due, in part, because the newspaper feels that Rhode Island is a liberal state and should stay that way. But there are some occasionally interesting stories pursued, and Katherine Gregg has one this morning - Ads become a hot issue in GOP race .

The article describes the risks that the NRSC is taking in running the ads - possibly creating a benefit for Laffey instead of knocking him down a few pegs. And Gregg correctly points out that the ad criticizing "spy cameras" ignores what those tactics did - catch publicly paid employees sleeping on the job - and the fact that the results played well with Laffey's constituents outside of union members and the ACLU.

Gregg and her sources note that the NRSC is attempting to define Laffey before the statewide voters draw their own conclusions. But it is also clear that the ads are being produced by someone unfamiliar with Rhode lsland's political climate. I believe that the ads paint a false picture. The Providence Journal could go a long way with making this clear, just by asking some of the questions I have asked in previous posts. For example, why is the NRSC criticizing Laffey for raising Cranston's property taxes when he had absolutely no choice if he didn't want the state to take over Cranston (after which the state would have raised property taxes anyway)? Anybody with a passing knowledge of the story of Cranston's 2002 fiscal problems would be aware of this. Perhaps the Journal will look closer into things like this in the future.

Chafee's campaign states in the article that it can't comment on or communicate with the NRSC regarding these ads since it would violate federal campaign laws:

Citing federal campaign-financing rules barring any coordination between his own campaign and the national-financed ad campaign committee, Chafee also would not say if he had discussed these concerns with the national committee.

His campaign manager, Ian Lang, said: "The senator has had no interaction with the NRSC about these ads, nor can we by law." But when asked the same question directly, Chafee said: "I try not to cross any of these boundaries." Then: "Don't jump to any conclusions."

And finally: "My preference would be positive, factual, issue-oriented ads. That hasn't changed, but . . . [I am not] going to hyperventilate over one ad or a couple of ads that are occurring here a year away.

"I just know this is going to be a long campaign . . . There are going to be a lot of these ads. Some of them I'm not going to like, some of them I'm going to like.

I'm not certain of the validity of this. I think that certain coordinating activities might be prohibited, but Chafee (or his campaign) telling the NRSC that this is working/this isn't working doesn't seem to me to be a violation. I could be wrong in this, but I think that Chafee is trying to get the best of both worlds here - taking the benefits while not having to decry the tactics.