Is There Really a "Stain" on Luetkemeyer's Record?

For the first time in years, Missourians will not be given the choice between a Republican and Democratic candidate for Missouri’s 9th Congressional district. Instead, voters will have to choose between Republican Blaine Luetkemeyer and Libertarian Christopher Dwyer. While conventional wisdom dictates that Missourians are a two party state; according to the Columbia Missourian, Libertarian candidate Christopher Dwyer thinks he has a chance in this election because: “What you may see is Democrats who will by no means vote Republican, and might take a chance on a Libertarian.”

All of this is a rather roundabout way of saying that even though third party candidates don’t usually have a chance at winning Missouri elections, and therefore spend much less money in advertising,  Libertarians are thinking this year might be different, which is why we’ve already seen an ad campaign launched against Luetkemeyer by the Sierra club, under the guise “The league of Conservation Voters.”

 

According to “Stain” special interests gave Luetkemeyer over 28,000 dollars in campaign cash. Open Secrets confirmed that Luetkemeyer received $12,000 from BASF Global “The World’s Leading Chemical Company,” $8,000 from Ameren UE, the Utilities company, and $8,400 from Emerson Electric Company. The Watchdogs find this statement to be based in fact. The Ad states that Luetkemeyer voted no on The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which, according to The Washington Post, is true. While Luetkemeyer voted No on the bill, the bill still passed.

The last series of attacks is more Nebulous: “Luetkemeyer said No to 1.9 million new jobs. No to less carbon pollution. And no to more energy independence for America.” While the Sierra club has based these statements on estimates by studies in support of The American Clean Energy and Securities Act they are still just estimates. Another factor to consider is that Luetkemeyer does not believe in Global Warming, which means he sees carbon pollution as carbon emission, which he doesn’t deem a problem. He also supports American energy independence, but instead of green energy he supports traditional fossil fuel harvesting, which would also increase our energy independence and add new jobs. So, while the statements are not false, they are not as hardline fact as the first two assertions made by the ad.

The Watchdogs are excited to watch this race start to heat up, and are up to the task of keeping ads for and against the Republican party in check.