Countdown

Home > Stories > Dirty Politics – Part Two

Dirty Politics – Part Two

Opposition Research and the Also-Rans

In March 2006, the conservative American Spectator’s front cover featured a photograph of Mitt Romney, with the headline “Romney Rocks!” The story suggested that he could become president and quoted prominent conservatives praising him and the idea of a Romney administration. Despite this early enthusiasm, the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign struggled to win conservative voters and managed to garner only 272 delegates out of the 1,191 needed to win the nomination.

One apparent reason for this was a series of television and radio ads run by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt “independent” group that works within the GOP for gay and lesbian equality.  Angry over Romney’s rightward shift, the group dug up clips from his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign in which he defended abortion rights and distanced himself from Ronald Reagan, and catalogued what it described as his “long list of flip-flops.” In addition to the group’s modest ad buys, the ads were replayed on several national news programs.

“I think we got good bang for our buck in terms of the media coverage,” notes the group’s president, Patrick Sammon. “Mitt Romney lost in part because he couldn’t get over the flip-flop problem. Our ads helped cement that perception about him.” Jason Stanford, a Democratic opposition researcher, concurred.  “[Romney’s] old statements played a pretty big role in blunting his ability to get more Republican votes,” he says.

The Log Cabin Republicans’ use of opposition research is not unusual. Political campaigns, special interest groups, and others all employ it to dig up dirt on those they oppose. Compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars that campaigns and outside groups spend on broadcast advertising, opposition research is a relatively modest expense — but one that can dramatically reshape events, as Romney seemingly learned. When the researchers turn up mud that gets broad media exposure, it costs far less than buying advertising with as much impact.  By the time November rolls around, it’s widely projected that the candidates will have raised and spent more than $1 billion — and opposition research is such an efficient use of campaign money that it actually holds down costs.

Before he left the 2008 race, John Edwards was haunted by an opposition research theme first aimed at him when he ran four years earlier and became the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.

Early in this primary season, someone posted on YouTube a video of Edwards primping his hair before a TV appearance, set to Julie Andrews singing “I Feel Pretty” from West Side Story. The video attracted almost a million hits, in part because it fit the narrative that opposition researchers for George W. Bush created for him in 2004. The video creator remained anonymous, and the anti-Edwards forces scored a direct hit, virtually for free. Democratic strategist Chris Lehane observes: “YouTube videos can go viral very quickly. You can’t see who’s behind it.” Comparing the impact to paid ads, he says, “Two, three, four million hits, that’s a significant buy.”

Edwards, who certain right-wing pundits dubbed the “Breck Girl of politics,” also made headlines after campaign expenditure reports he filed with the Federal Election Commission revealed that he had spent $800 for two haircuts from a celebrity stylist in Hollywood and $225 on two makeup applications provided by a trendy salon in New Hampshire called the Pink Sapphire.

“The best negative story lines work best where there is a pre-existing public perception,” says Lehane, who worked for John Kerry in 2004.