Golden Campaign Responds to GOP Lobbyist Attack

Jeff Golden

"I was blunt with upstate power players after I won the Democratic primary. My campaign communicated the same message again and again: don't bust into this race with independent expenditures; the record shows that that's more likely to hurt than help."

                       Jeff Golden, candidate for State Senate


Jeff Golden has made clean money a key element of his campaign and political brand. A GOP lobbyist cried foul. 

The Political Director, Evan Ridley, of the GOP PAC charged with getting Republicans elected to the State Senate, said the Oregon Education Association was doing ads on its own that praised Jeff Golden. He said Golden was therefore indirectly getting help from a PAC, and was therefore a hypocrite.

Negative campaign charges have a bad history in this Senate District, but it pops up nevertheless, done by the upstate lobbies. The GOP Political Director called Golden "completely disingenuous," and said his campaign is doing "a shell game," and making "insincere attempts at ignorance," as he dishonestly "professes political purity."

In past cycles negative ads by this same PAC have embarrassed and damaged the public reputations of two prior Republican candidates. The Mail Tribune editorialized about one such campaign as "Beneath Contempt."  Click: Ads backfire badly.

GOP lobbyist levels charge

Last cycle it was the Democrat with an ad funded by the an upstate PAC that backfired.

Still, they persist. This campaign hit is the first one of this cycle.

As I wrote yesterday, I thought his argument described a relationship between candidates and PACs that insulted all candidates, including his own. It presumed candidates were either patsies or dishonest, and it reflected not just on Golden but upon Jessica Gomez, too. Still, I thought it fair to let him make his case on his own and at length in a Guest Post.

His problem in attacking Golden for getting OEA support is that he is a very poor one to make the criticism—as would be Jessica Gomez or anyone else associated with her campaign. He is accusing Golden of association with a donor. That is the concern Jessica Gomez is pushing against in her own relationship to her financial and political benefactors. Her current TV ad starts with trying to resolve that very point, with a man talking, and her standing up to face the camera and say that she will speak for herself.

Ridley made it harder for her, and put that sensitive issue for her right back on the table. This is yet another example of overconfident upstate PAC meddling causing damage.

Jeff Golden and his campaign made their own responses, and the downside of lobbyist "help" was top of their minds. Golden says he insisted that he did not request nor want others to run ads on his "behalf," calling it dangerous for him. His campaign manager Cathy Shaw's comment is that their efforts were unwelcome because they were worthless and a waste of money, something she has said in print.

Jeff Golden:

"I don't think Mr. Ridley's being straight with us. As Political Director of the Republican Senate Fund working hard for my opponent, he knows better than any of us how independent PACs and spending work. He's probably worked that beat a lot. So he knows that they can't have any contact with their favored candidate's campaign. He knows that outside parties get to spend the money they want and run the ads they want regardless of what the candidate they favor wants. And he may know how badly this tactic has boomeranged in this senate district.  

I was blunt with upstate power players after I won the Democratic primary. My campaign communicated the same message again and again: don't bust into this race with independent expenditures, the record shows that that's more likely to hurt than help. 

They listened politely. They told me they had the right to do it if they wanted. They told me it's common practice. Mr. Ridley's protest aside, something's seriously wrong here. We've reached the point where candidates have no control over big chunks of advertising supporting them or criticizing their opponents. How does accountability work then?"

Cathy Shaw:

Amazon: $40.31

"All credible research conducted on the efficacy of persuasion thru direct mail, television, and even canvassing, is unambiguous: they do not persuade, only activate. Television is largely an un-targeted activity. That means, if the Gomez campaign advertises on TV, she activates her support and Golden’s support.  Given that, why would I ask Jeff Golden to waste money on television? 

I have very specific approaches to voter activation that does not involve direct mail or television, all of which I have published for the world to read, including my opponent and her handlers.

Problem is, no one who oversees campaigns from “leadership”,[i.e. Leadership PACs like the one Ridley leads or its Democratic equivalent] bothers to do any research. All they want is to throw big wads of cash against a wall to see what sticks. And, of course the benefit of that approach is that one hand washes the other and vendors and staffers working for “leadership” get rich.

Campaigns should be about building community, not tearing it down."