Despite the children’s rhyme to the contrary, words do harm, particularly in the political arena.  Here, words need not have substance behind them to do enormous and sometimes irreparable harm.  This is particularly true when their delivery is timed to make rebuttal difficult, if not impossible. 

Negative campaigning, also known as gutter politics, has typically been defined as the use of ad hominem attacks and/or relevant but untrue negative publicity to discredit one’s opponent, thereby edifying oneself.  In most cases, negative comments about one’s opponent are made in lieu of positive comments about oneself, or as a last desperate measure to influence undecided voters.  Voters are asked to vote against one’s opponent instead of for oneself.   Although long a staple of the political scene, there is much disagreement about whether such campaigning is effective.  In Louisiana, however, a law enacted in 2008 has made much of it illegal.   

Much of civil society publicly decries the “politics of personal attack,” ostensibly seeing it as a distraction from the relevant issues, as well as a clear indication that a candidate has run out of good things to say about himself or herself.  President Theodore Roosevelt once commented on negative reporting, noting that, although these men did good work when they scraped up the ‘filth’ of America, "the man who did nothing else was certain to become a force of evil.”  One needs only to read the online political forums to determine for one’s own whether some among us have reached the tipping point.  As I wrote in an earlier article (Whither the Blog, Conifer, November 2009), ugliness begets ugliness, particularly when the commenter can lurk in anonymity. 

Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that a certain segment of the population is in fact influenced by negative campaigning, particularly when its delivery is timed to prevent an effective rebuttal.  In many cases, this involves a press release, press conference or direct mail piece that arrives within days before an election and makes negative allegations about one’s opponent.  The opponent is then left with little time to respond categorically to the allegations, and even when doing so, necessarily appears defensive.  On the other hand, a candidate who chooses to not respond will necessarily appear aloof or arrogant.  It is the classic case of “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.”  Of course, this could have been prevented by releasing the negative barrage early, allowing weeks to respond, which should automatically call into question the true intentions of the negative campaigner.  If the intention were truly to illuminate and educate the voters, why wait until the last minute? 

State Representative Tim Burns introduced legislation to dissuade unfair and untrue negative campaigning, and it was passed in 2008.  Act No. 812 enacted Louisiana Revised Statues (R.S.) 42:1130.1 through 1130.6 relative to the code of ethics.  R.S. 42:1130.1 provides that the Legislature “finds that an election cannot be held in a fair and ethical manner when any candidate or other person is allowed to make false statements, allegations, or insinuations about a candidate…”  R.S. 42:1130.4 provides that “[n]o candidate in an election shall, with the intent to mislead the voters, distribute or cause to be distributed an oral, visual, or written material containing any statement which he knows makes a false statement about another candidate in the election.”  Discussions with Representative Burns indicate that it was the legislature’s intent that these statutes dissuade such conduct in the future, for the reasons stated. 

Several years ago, I witnessed what was, to me, the height of negative campaigning, in a race where each candidate had publicly pledged to refrain from mudslinging.  Three days before the election, one candidate’s wife mailed to every voter a personal letter, denying and decrying the horrible things that had been said by her husband’s opponent.  The opponent, who had said nothing, then faced the unenviable task of proving that he had not said anything, while not even knowing what it was that he had allegedly said.  He lost, in a close election in which he had been favored, apparently providing evidence that this tactic, while morally and ethically bankrupt, can be effective.  I’m left with the unfortunate conclusion that if one is willing to sell one’s soul to win an election, one should carefully consider whether this is a fair exchange. 

In the interests of full disclosure, it should be noted that I consider Mandeville mayoral candidates Trilby Lenfant and Donald Villere to be long-time personal friends.  I am also friends with many members of their respective families.  I supported Mrs. Lenfant in the recent Mandeville Mayoral election, and provide legal counsel to her.  The text of this article will find application where it will, in this election or others.