Fontenot should forbid third-party attack ads

Re: “ Committing to a positive campaign ” by Ken Fontenot, July 16:

Rep. Fontenot did not insist on running a positive campaign in 2022. If he did not agree with vicious attacks on the character of his opponent, Rep. Linda Cooper-Suggs, he should have demanded those attacks stop. Just because his campaign didn’t pay for ads or the flyer said “not approved by,” that doesn’t mean he had no knowledge of them or what groups were doing on his behalf.

Such justifications are the denying and “not my fault” type that are meant to avoid personal responsibility. He was well aware the character of his opponent was being impugned on his behalf. He did nothing to stop the obvious falsehoods, and he knowingly allowed this smear campaign to continue. Like other negative campaigns, the hope was most likely that enough voters would believe the blatant lies and gross mischaracterizations of his opponent and then proceed to cast a vote for him.

If he wanted a clean, positive campaign in 2022, he could have insisted on such from the start. Historically, several candidates have run campaigns focused on positivity. There are candidates who have refused to take money from big donors. These and other methods send a clear message that a candidate wants no negativity and outside monetary influence as a part of their campaign. Was this how the writer ran his campaign in 2022? No.

If he wants a clean and honest campaign in 2024, then he should explicitly state to his donors, his campaign staff and the voting public that he absolutely will not tolerate negative statements or flyers vilifying Dante Pittman. To do any less is to condone the future attacks he says will come. To state that such ads are “par for the course” shows his unwillingness to direct his campaign in a more positive, less malicious manner.

​We deserve better.

Mary McLees-Lane

Wilson

The post Fontenot should forbid third-party attack ads first appeared on Restoration NewsMedia .