Eight days before the special election, and the campaign activity is really heating up.  Today’s roundup includes the latest endorsements, media coverage, and, of course, your absolute favorite…more attack mailers!

This will be somewhat lengthy and slightly opinionated–so come beneath the flip.

All three candidates have some positive endorsements and media coverage to report.

Over the weekend, the Cedillo campaign announced a couple of media endorsements: the Senator received the endorsement of La Opinion, one of the L.A. area’s most prominent Spanish-language newspapers.  For those that can read Spanish, here’s the key graf:

Gil Cedillo es el candidato más adecuado para representar los intereses de un distrito con el perfil demográfico y socio económico como el 32. Tiene la experiencia demostrada y prioridades centradas en la reforma de salud, inmigración y en la sociedad privada-pública para el desarrollo. ¡Vote por Cedillo!

In addition to that, the Cedillo team also reports the endorsement of Eastern Group Publications, which, according to the campaign’s release, runs 11 bilingual community newspapers in the district.

Judy Chu has claimed some prominent endorsements of her own, including the endorsement of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.  Given how the Cedillo campaign reacted to Chu’s endorsement by Villaraigosa, combined with the fact that Congresswoman Sanchez has had a longstanding public feud with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus over Congressman Baca, I am eagerly licking my chops in anticipation of any release that Cedillo’s team sends out to countervail the Sanchez endorsement.

Chu has also obtained the very wordy endorsement of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.  Key graf:

We’ll lean toward the more policy-wonky candidacy of Chu, currently serving as an elected member of the state’s taxation body, the Board of Equalization. A math major and former professor of psychology, Chu isn’t as flashy as some. But she has garnered the endorsements of most area city council members because she served for 13 years on the Monterey Park City Council herself, and therefore knows our cities’ interests deeply, before her election to the Assembly. She’s close to Solis. Through her equalization position, she’s become an expert at getting revenues into government coffers – in these times, nothing could be more crucial.

The endorsement is very even-handed and worth reading.  It also takes a stab at the propositions, with some interesting and unique conclusions.  Editorial boards across the state are really all over the map on these things.

Pleitez also had a good media day–he and his campaign have received positive coverage on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.  The main gist of the piece is that Pleitez is running a spirited race who will be able to attract a number of votes significant enough to alter the complexion of a multi-candidate low-turnout election–though Cedillo’s campaign manager Derek Humphrey disagrees publicly with the assessments of the other political experts mentioned by saying that the only people who care about Pleitez are the “chattering class”–i.e. media.  Only the voters will get to determine who’s right.

Interestingly, the piece also takes note of the “party animal” negative mailer story that was first broken in a big way here on Calitics.  Here’s what the Times has to say:

Nonetheless, the Cedillo campaign sent out a mailer recently that featured photos of a partying Pleitez that it said it got from his Facebook page. “Should this man represent you in the House of Representatives?” the mailer asks, “Or in Animal House?”

Most saw the mailer as evidence that Cedillo is worried.

“If they didn’t feel he was a serious candidate, they wouldn’t be attacking him,” said John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College who co-wrote “Epic Journey,” a book on the 2008 presidential election.

My take, of course, is the same take that I posted before in the first thread about this piece.  We in the “chattering class” may not consider a candidate who draws even 5% to be a serious candidate.  But in a special election like this where every vote matters, that 5% could be serious, especially if most of the votes that Pleitez gets are in the Latino areas of unincorporated East Los Angeles and El Sereno.

But now to the part you’ve all been waiting for…attack mailers!

Our first offering comes from Judy Chu, attacking Gil Cedillo not only on using campaign money for travel, but also for being absent on such travel–specifically, being in India–while the legislature was working on the budget situation.  You can see the images from these below.  Cedillo has defended himself on the matter of the campaign contributions–I happened to interview him on the day that the original L.A. Times story broke–but I am hoping for a response from the campaign regarding the accusation about the timing of the travel as well.  I have a call into the campaign, and am expecting a response tomorrow, since I have no way of knowing whether this was a legitimate fact-finding trip that other legislators went on or what the purpose was, both of which would be useful to know before providing any further commentary.

India mailer 1

India mailer 2

India mailer 3

Cedillo’s team has dropped more negative literature of its own.  This one, again, explicitly accuses Judy Chu of “pay-to-play” regarding the Chu’s votes to grant tax refunds to corporations that gave her contributions.  The language is pretty explicit, as you can see:

Whirlwind 1

Whirlwind 2

Whirlwind 3

Whirlwind 4

Whirlwind 5

I do have a problem with this.  And it’s not that it’s negative.  I’m expecting negative mailers as a prime campaign strategy.  The problem is that this seems to be the Cedillo campaign’s main attack against Chu–it’s not the first time that the campaign has attacked along these lines.  And, as the L.A. Times has documented, it’s patently false:

The “tax breaks” cited in Cedillo’s mailings are actually refunds of tax overpayments by corporations, according to Board of Equalization records and documentation the Cedillo campaign provided to The Times.

Most, if not all, were routine, noncontroversial matters approved by unanimous vote upon recommendation of the agency’s staff, according to Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for the Board of Equalization.

Gore said it is common practice for some corporations to pay more taxes than they owe — sometimes as a hedge against inadvertently paying too little and being penalized — then seek refunds for the overpayments. All refund requests are carefully vetted by the staff, Gore said.

The Cedillo team’s attacks, after all, aren’t just questioning the integrity of one public official–they’re questioning the entire reputation of the state’s tax collecting authority.  And even the refutation of the refutation leaves a little to be desired:

Abalos also said making a distinction between “tax breaks” and “tax refunds” was not as important as Chu’s voting on the matters.

If honesty is a value, it actually is.  If I file my return and I’ve overpaid taxes, I get a refund.  That’s not a tax break.  A tax break is a special favor.  A tax refund isn’t.  In the same article, another high-level person in the Cedillo campaign called the refunds “tax relief.”  Sorry, but no, they aren’t.  “Tax relief” is a Luntzian expression for a tax cut.  An overpayment refund isn’t a tax cut.  Now, I’m willing to listen to the argument that Chu should have excused herself in order to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of-interest.  But that’s not the case the campaign was originally making.  Of course, the voters of the district are going to read the mailer far more than they’re going to read Calitics or the political section of the L.A. Times, so…I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about what constitutes a good campaign strategy.

The Chu campaign has also submitted an official response, which I quote in part:

Despite the fact that Cedillo’s claim that Judy Chu has voted for tax breaks for corporate contributors have been thoroughly discredited, Cedillo devotes a panel of his latest hit mailer to recycling them.

Cedillo is however now calling the tax refunds “tax favors.”  (A tax refund is a favor?) Cedillo claims that Judy Chu should have abstained on the tax refunds (Apparently he thinks everyone should abstain on votes.)

And that’s what I’ve got for today, with the promise of more tomorrow.  If you’ve made it this far, I salute you.