Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indianapolis mayoral candidate Jefferson Shreve had a lawyer send cease-and-desist letters to local television stations on Monday over Mayor Joe Hogsett’s newest campaign advertisement, alleging it is “false, misleading and defamatory.”
In the letter provided to IBJ, Shreve campaign lawyer John J. Morse denies claims made in the 30-second ad that Shreve supported former President Donald Trump, a fellow Republican, and indicated opposition to gun regulations in an April interview with the “Mouthwash Talk Show.”
The Hogsett campaign ad, titled “Proud” says Shreve was “proud to be on the Trump campaign” and tells viewers to “listen to Jefferson Shreve on gun rights this April.” In the “Mouthwash Talk Show” interview, Lucy Benton, a Libertarian, asks Shreve, “How do you intend to protect the individual liberty of the citizens of Indianapolis from the encroachment by local, municipal, federal and state governments? How are you going to keep our rights from being infringed by those by those big, bad entities?”
In the clip presented by the ad, Shreve says, “Well, I don’t think we need any more laws.” It implies that he previously did not support laws regulating guns, an opinion that contradicts gun-control measures he recently introduced in a lengthy public safety plan.
In the full interview, Shreve continues: “You know, I’m not—like I think we’ve got a highly developed democracy. I don’t think we need to add more or infringe more.”
Morse writes in the letter that gun regulation is not specifically brought up in the interview, so the implication that Shreve is speaking about his position on gun policy is “demonstrably false.”
Shreve’s campaign spokesperson, Jennifer Erbacher, noted in an email to IBJ that the interview occurred after state legislators had intervened to stop Indianapolis officials from banning right turns at red lights throughout downtown.
Blake Hesch, campaign manager for Hogsett, said in an email that Brenton confirmed to Adam Wren of political newsletter Importantville that her question was gun-rights related.
“I think it was very clear from the context of the show that I was referring to the Second Amendment,” Brenton told Wren.
On the statement that Shreve was “proud to be on the Trump campaign,” the letter said the citations referenced do not indicate Shreve’s support. Instead, Morse wrote that Shreve “fulfilled his binding obligation” as a 2016 Republican National Convention delegate to suport Trump, the winner of the state’s primary.
Media clips provided to IBJ by the Hogsett campaign from The Indianapolis Star and Fox 59 show Shreve’s selection as an RNC delegate, but do not mention explicitly if Shreve was “proud” to cast a vote for Trump to be the Republican nominee for president.
Shreve could have withdrawn as a delegate, but “he instead maintained this role after Trump clinched the nomination and attended the convention personally,” Hesch said in an email.
The Indiana Democratic Party released a statement in response to the cease and desist letter:
“I think it should trouble every Indianapolis resident that one day after a federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s attempts to sue media outlets over coverage he didn’t like, Jefferson Shreve is pulling a page out of the Trump playbook and trying to bully our local television stations,” said Indiana Democratic Party Chair Mike Schmuhl in the statement. “Jefferson and his lawyers may not want voters to see the truth, but the facts are clear that Jefferson has a long record of being pro-Trump, pro-gun lobby, and anti-choice.”
Amid the contentious race to be the next mayor of Indianapolis, the Shreve campaign previously attempted to debunk a Hogsett ad touting police recruitment and investment with its own video.
The advertising back-and-forth between well-funded candidates is an early sign of a costly race leading to the Nov. 7 general election, experts told IBJ last month.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
What amazes me–Republicans have cozied-up to broad “definitions” of dog-whistle campaign phrases like “family” and “freedom/” Which is exactly what Shreve did in the video clip from their national convention, where he was a delegate.
For years the Statehouse NRA position has been that ANY gun regulation, however sensible, was an attack on personal freedoms.
So when Hogsett uses Shreve’s own words to box him in, Shreve not only whines, but threatens legal action.
A mayor has ot hahve very thick skin.
Only in liberal Indianapolis are terms like “family” and “freedom” offensive.
Some people apparently do not understand nuance. And many fail to grasp the ridiculousness of broad generalizations for as “liberals” and “conservatives” when each individual holds a range of base beliefs that often do not fit either generalization.
Yes, some indeed have co-opted the terms “freedom” and “family” as if these aspects are not critically important to every individual. However, each individual is entitled to freedom as defined by the Bill of Rights and to their defined family — the absurd issue rests with those who define these “freedoms” and “families” only in their personal viewpoint; and that fact reflects the problem and encapsulates the dog-whistle aspects of some campaign verbiage.
Donald: please don’t get it twisted. The terms “family” and “freedom” are not offensive. Misuse of those terms is.
Rick. Thank you for the clarification. But, who determines what a “misuse” is? Kinda reminds me of the famous quote, “depends on what is, is”.
Shreve lost any hope when he targeted law-abiding gun owners. See ya!
I think most republicans see Shreve’s position on gun control as a betrayal, and since county wide, republicans are in the minority, it was a calculated move to give a Republican a chance to win. I think most Democrats see the flip flop as a calculated move by a politician that would say anything to win office.
I think Shreve feels safe in now saying he supports sensible gun laws, knowing nothing he says or does will make a difference.
I get it, Shreve tried to appeal to the heavily democrat voters of Marion County. He wanted to seem likable to democrats in Marion County so he to a political gamble on gun control to sway votes. In doing so, he alienated his republican base. Note sure who his advisor is but they should be fired!
lol yikes
Wow. So Shreve is saying that he didn’t support Trump and to say otherwise is defamatory. What say his Republican supporters about that?
Funny how Retrumplicans don’t want anyone to know they supported Trump even though they voted for him, twice. Why would that be, I wonder?
Some want to ride the wave to trumpism to capitalize on a base who would support the ex-president in all cases, defined wrongdoing notwithstanding.
But others what to capture the trump base but appear more moderate by extolling the virtues of what were once base values of the GOP: low taxes, small efficient government, and local control, unless of course law-abiding citizens who democratically elect Democrats or democratically pass laws that displease some of the other party become hapless victims of Statehouse targeting, a most shameful disregard to democracy hiding behind a veil of so-called concern.
While base GOP values remain important for some, the aspects of authoritarianism, vitriol, scapegoating and lying along with a total lack of decorum and respect have become the face of the GOP, invective after invective. Few in the GOP have the guts to stand up for base values and denounce Congressional theater and its extravagant waste of taxpayer dollars on vengeance investigations and sophomoric stunts.
The ads are not defamatory. The bar is high to prove such a claim.
Are the statements false? Taken out of context does not mean false; this may be misleading to some. However, this is subjective.
And is this new for political campaigns? Seems as if maligning, misinforming, misgendering, and meanness as in the political bully pulpit has captured the attention the populace.
The candidates could have agreed to certain parameters. Or, perhaps a pubic forum or debate would allow response to alleged misinformation.
No, what’s new is candidates lawyering up just because they’re bad campaigners and/or they lose an election.
Voters should demand that political ads, particularly attack ads, are factual and pass the smell test. That said, after learning about this conflict I watched the episode of the Mouthwash Talk Show that is the basis for the Hogsett ad. The question that appears in the story was posed by Lucy Brenton to each of the three GOP candidates participating that evening.
There was no introduction or framing to put this question into any particular context. Neither the Second Amendment, nor gun control were mentioned in the response of any candidate. In fact, these topics were not raised at any time during the nearly 90-minute program.
Brenton did attempt to put the question into context when she interrupted one respondent (not Shreve) to state her belief that we have an occupying force in Indianapolis today that is infringing on our rights, and that is the FBI. She then asked if the candidate is willing to evict the FBI from the city.
Later, Brenton shared a personal story of how she was stopped at the US-Canadian border and was denied entry into Canada because she had too many guns.
The Hogsett campaign ad is deceitful. This exposes a character flaw of the sitting mayor. He should pull the ad on his own accord.
The Shreve flip-flop is what is deceitful here. He’ll clearly say or do anything to win an election.
Not at all. I noted above, that the broad terms used by most Republicans for the last 30 years are specifically meant to lean into multiple dog-whistle issues. “taking away our freedoms” is shorthand for the NRA’s anti-gun control posture. Mimicked by the delegates attending the GOP National Convention where Shreve is pictured. Need affirmation? Here’s the 2016 Republican National Convention-approved platform:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2016-republican-party-platform
The language InRe: Second Amendment is heavily-cloaked in these glittery general terms.
It’s all moot. The gun laws cannot be changed locally or new laws cannot be implemented. It all comes from the state. Both candidates already know this as they are just pandering to an uneducated (about this issue) base to win an election. If Shreve was smart, and Lubbers (his main advisor) was smart, their ads should point this out, letting the voters in Center Township know that they are being played (again). Neither obviously understand this. All of this just proves that money not only can’t buy happiness, it also cannot buy common sense in politics. It is painful to see yet another lame candidate wasting our time in Marion County. Idiots.
I think T.D. missed the point of the Hogsett gun plan. He acknowledged right up front he couldn’t change the laws. Those changes needed to come from the state legislature. He said he would go to the legislature to lobby for those changes. And, in his copy-cat proposal, Shreve said the same thing…but implied he’d have a better chance of getting the change, since he’d be a fellow Republican lobbying his “friends” in the legislature. There was no attempt by Hogsett to misrepresent anything, or to prey upon anyone in Center Township or any of the Townships that comprise Indianapolis. He identified what he thought was a plan that voters would support. And, apparently it was seen by the Shreve campaign as such a good idea he basically copied it.
As for Republican claiming all the family and freedom for their side, I’ve seen that repeatedly. I’m a moderate liberal, of a kind that is disappearing from the ranks of the Democratic party (just as moderate conservatives are disappearing from the Republican party, a party that would no longer accept Richard Lugar or William Hudnut). For most of my recent adult life, my displays of an American Flag pin, or flying the American flag from my home, have been disparaged by Republican extremists who claim I have no right to display the flag, since I’m a communist. Because a Democrat like me couldn’t possibly care about things like family or faith or freedom. And they’re not too pleased when I remind them the Bill of Rights gives me the rights to speak my mind, practice my faith, and have a family, just as it does the same for them. We all own the Constitution; we just disagree sometimes on what it says and means. But the Constitution, and faith and family and freedom, are not the exclusive domain of the radical Republicans.
New gun laws won’t solve the crime problem in Indianapolis. Look back at the recent, and even not so recent crimes in Indy. The perps used stolen guns, or guns “borrowed” from others; and a lot of times the perps were under age and so not even legally allowed to own a gun.
Besides, if Trump were the Mayor, the crime issue would have been taken care of a LONG time ago.
Yeah, the FBI, the local police and the prosecutors office would have all been discredited and defunded and everything would be take care of with vigilante thugs (see Jan 6).
Actually, that’s not true. A majority of the guns use din 2022 homicides were legally purchased.
The problem is and was: too many guns, in the hands of too many unstable people.
Gloria, when Republicans abolished the requirement for gun permits, we lost the ability to do anything about gun ownership and use (legal or illegal). What the pro-gun advocates refuse to acknowledge is that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, that some “infringements” on firearms are both legal and acceptable. To wit, you cannot own a gun if you are a convicted felon. And you most certainly cannot go into the State Capitol with a gun. It is a shame that Indianapolis cannot enact its own laws to combat the gun violence within our borders. Typical of Indiana is our tendency to be “penny wise and pound foolish.”
Simply put, Shreve is not the answer.