A Friday afternoon counterpunch from McConnell on energy

On the most eventful day in the race in weeks, the candidates for Kentucky's U.S. Senate seat continue to jab at each other today in the wake of incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-Louisville) release of the first television ad of the general election campaign.

This afternoon, McConnell's campaign dispatched a retaliatory response to Lunsford's earlier critique of the ad.

The ad attacks Lunsford for his work in 1980, supporting a restructuring of Kentucky's gas tax system that tied tax rates to wholesale prices.

The ad also accuses Lunsford of wanting to "pump taxpayers for even more," but bases that accusation on an article referencing Lunsford's support of the windfall profits tax on oil companies.

After Lunsford's campaign levelled a series of charges about McConnell's energy policy in response, the McConnell campaign questioned why the substance of the ad wasn't addressed.

"I have read the Lunsford campaign's response to our ad three times. Nowhere do they deny that Bruce Lunsford fought for an ever-increasing gas tax, which is remarkable," said McConnell's campaign manager, Justin Brasell, in an afternoon statement.

The McConnell campaign also provided their own "fact check" of the Lunsford charges.

McConnell's campaign took issue with Lunsford's assertion that he does not support a gas tax holiday, pointing to a 2000 vote by McConnell in support of a bill that would temporarily repeal the federal gas tax.

The response release also heavily touts McConnell's support of the "Gas Price Reduction Act" which is a formalization of Republican proposals to expand domestic oil exploration.

McConnell's campaign contends this legislation is a counterpoint to Lunsford's claim that McConnell opposes "commonsense solutions to immediate relief."

 Details of some of the accusations by either side appear to soften some of the blows thrown by both campaigns or at least confuse the issue.

Lunsford's campaign earlier said that McConnell opposed closing the so-called "Enron Loophole" - the provision that deregulates certain speculation on energy markets.

For evidence, Lunsford's campaign cited McConnell's June 2008 vote against the Consumer First Energy Act. That bill would have addressed the loophole by instituting reporting requirements and a margin requirement on speculation.

McConnell's countered this particular charge by Lunsford's team, calling it "blatantly false."

They pointed to McConnell's support of the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act - a bill which passed in May and targeted the "Enron Loophole" in its own right by creating a new method of speculation regulation.

Regulation procedures in the latter legislation, however, have come under fire for not effectivey regulating speculation and led to further calls for more "loophole-closing" legislation.

In testimony before Congress, some experts noted all energy futures contracts are not subject to regulation under the May legislation - only those proven to be potentially "manipulative" in a contract-by-contract evaluation process that could take months.

Meanwhile the Commodities Futures Trading Commission argues the "Enron Loophole" is effectively closed. The issue nonetheless seems up for some debate. Presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said last month he believed more needed to be done to regulate energy market speculation.