First Reading: In the name of science, 314 Action labels Mike Siegel a loser

As a primary care doctor treating uninsured and underserved patients at Austin's People's Community Clinic, Gandhi was a natural fit for an organization "committed to electing more STEM candidates to office, advocating for evidence-based policy solutions to issues like climate change, and fighting the Trump administration's attacks on science." Said Gandhi at the time, "In a time where science faces a constant assault by the president, electing more leaders who will govern with evidence and facts is critical."

Given that context, it's somewhat surprising to see such aggressive attack mailers aimed at Hutcheson, an experienced civil attorney who has indeed represented corporate clients and once assisted her law partner, Alison Bowers, in representing a former Immigrations and Customs Enforcement guard who had sexually assaulted immigrant women – the Hutcheson Bowers firm defended him in a subsequent civil lawsuit.

The mailer does not mention Gandhi (it reads, "Paid for by the 314 Action Fund, not authorized by any candidate"), but concludes that Hutcheson's legal career, and her occasional support of Republican judges (fairly common among local lawyers in recent GOP-dominated years), means "She doesn't share your values." Hutcheson told the Texas Tribune that "cherry-picking" a couple of cases out of 23 years of legal practice is patently unfair, and that the "'best indicator of my values' is instead the work she has done for groups such as Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas and the SAFE Alliance ..."

A TX-10 resident brought the mailers to the attention of the Chronicle – "pretty mean stuff," they wrote, and they had no trouble making the unspoken connection to Gandhi. The mailers were sufficiently negative that the third candidate in the race, attorney Mike Siegel, felt compelled to distance himself from them. In a campaign email, Siegel wrote that a "Super PAC" had spent $200,000 in the campaign: The [two] negative mailers have attacked Shannon Hutcheson, one of my primary election opponents. The same PAC has also sent positive mailers for Pritesh Gandhi, another opponent." Added Siegel, "One of the fundamental problems with our political system is how unlimited corporate money can distort elections."

xxxxxx

It's worth noting that throughout the months-long campaign, all three candidates have assured voters that should they not win the Democratic nomination, they would support whoever is the nominee. Yet the 314 PAC mailer tells those same voters that Hutcheson "does not share your values." Campaign consultants routinely recommend "going negative" as an effective strategy for winning. It's less effective for mending primary fences and going forward in general election campaigns.

Asked to comment on the mailers, the Gandhi campaign responded: "This campaign is focused on the struggles of working families that Dr. Gandhi treats as a primary care physician at a community health center – struggles that intersect with issues like gun violence, prescription drug costs, and reproductive justice. These mailers were not approved by our campaign, which has been relentlessly focused on Dr. Gandhi's lifetime of fighting for people and policies that improve the lives of everyday Texans."

The Hutcheson campaign had this to say: "Shannon Hutcheson is a mom, MeToo survivor, and a lifelong Democrat who has represented Planned Parenthood and volunteered with Austin Children's Shelter and the SAFE Alliance to help survivors of child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault. Shannon's running for Congress to lower health care costs, protect women's reproductive rights, and to get big corporate money out of politics. She is disappointed by the offensive and misleading smear campaign from a pro-Gandhi Washington SuperPAC."

That was obviously a far harder hit on Hucheson than what 314 Action has laid on Siegel. But in both cases, the attacks seem politically instrumental but disconnected from 314 Action's pro-science mission, except, obviously as a means to elect its preferred candidate.

In March, the strategy proved effective.

Heading into the primary, I had figured that with one woman and two men, Hutcheson stood a good chance of making the runoff.

She didn't.

Yup. One campaign set up the hit and the other had the PAC money to spread it. Now- they do it to each other. So- yeah. Kind of enjoying the pearl clutching. pic.twitter.com/4DGY1Yo9nD

-- genevieve (@genvc) July 3, 2020 Contrast is fine, even hard contrast. Each camp has a glass jaw. -And you know they both asked for support from the lady they dragged so thoroughly. "Help me." "Forgive me." "They made me do it." "I'm a nice guy, really." So lame.

-- genevieve (@genvc) July 3, 2020 Genevieve Van Cleve, a longtime Democratic political consultant and operative in Austin, working mostly on behalf of women candidates, had been a consultant to Hutcheson before she got into the race but didn't work on the campaign.

The way the race went, she told me earlier this week, "broke my heart."

Watching the current consternation about 314 Action's renewed role in the race, she offers a word of caution for Siegel - "You don't own anything, because you didn't win" and for both candidates: "You've still got to win the district, otherwise you're just yelling at each other."

She also has a question about 314 Action's longterm commitment to the district.

"Is the 314 PAC dedicated to spending enough money to win this seat from McCaul. They are going to have to spend a lot of money to do it. Congressional District 10 is a gerrymandered district."

Candidates are not legally responsible for what a super PAC does on their behalf.

But in a Facebook post on June 14, nine days before the New York primary, Goroff expressed her misgivings about the way 314 Action went negative against Gershon on her behalf.

I launched this campaign last July because the people in New York's 1st Congressional District deserve better representation than Lee Zeldin, and we need more scientists with a seat at the table in Washington. I am very proud that every statement and material put out by my campaign has served to promote my background in science, commitment to evidence-based public policy, and record of accomplishment in our community.

I have addressed this in several forums, and would like to reiterate my comments here as well: As I have done in my campaign, I would have preferred that everybody participating in our race remain positive and focused on promoting the candidate of their choice. It is unfortunate that 314 Action chose negativity to draw attention to Perry Gershon's investments in oil and coal. It is not something I would have done, and certainly not in this manner. I did not know that these advertisements were coming, and I have no oversight, review, or influence over 314 Action's efforts.

A little background from a June 11 piece by Mark Chiusano, a member of the editorial board at Newsday.

The harshness out East continues in the federal elections as well. There's 314 Action Fund, a PAC associated with the pro-scientist group that endorsed CD1 hopeful Nancy Goroff in the tight race for the Democratic nomination. The group's mailers include negative attacks on Perry Gershon, who was the 2018 Democratic candidate against GOP incumbent Lee Zeldin and is seeking another run. The claims included allegations about the climate costs of some Gershon investments and that Gershon "said his solution for Long Islanders threatened by climate change is to move away." That last is a gloss on a statement from a 2018 appearance when Gershon said in full: "Long-term, as sea levels rise, we're going to need to move further back from the shore," adding the need for the Paris climate accord and alternative energy sources.

In an email, Gershon's campaign describes the investments not as an "offshore deepwater port" but "an infrastructure investment in a public utility structure that allowed oil to be brought to the US cleanly and without leakage and risk of massive contamination"; and not a "coal plant" but "an infrastructure bond of a public Ohio power company that is needed to supply electricity to residents of that state. Coal happens to be the primary source of Midwestern electricity."

Gershon on Wednesday tweeted his displeasure about the intraparty tussling and called on Goroff "to immediately denounce the dark money negative mailers that repeat the same baseless lies Zeldin used against me. Even down to the fake photos. Democrats shouldn't attack each other just to win a primary."

Gershon himself has recently benefited from some outside money. On Thursday, a pro-Gershon ad hit TV from BLUE TIDE NY-1 LLC, a single-candidate independent expenditure group created just this month whose public filings show it spent $164,850 on media production and purchase. But the filings don't yet indicate where the group's money comes from.

Goroff's campaign manager, Jacob Sarkozi, referred questions about the anti-Gershon ads to 314, and said that Goroff "has run and will continue to run a positive campaign throughout this primary because as a Stony Brook scientist with deep roots in this district, she is ready to put her record up against anybody else's."

314 Action Fund spokesman Matt Erwin, however, was happy to keep up the attack, saying that Gershon "chose to make money off of fossil fuel investments for years" and "It's time to elect someone we can trust in climate change."

Oh well, there is plenty of time for positivity down the stretch.

In June 2018, Brian Schatz wrote a story in Mother Jones with the headline, A Pro-Scientist Campaign Group is Attacking a Fellow Democrat. A new attack ad targets a frontrunner in a crowded California race.

The frontrunner, Harley Rouda, survived the attack ad and is now in Congress. But Mother Jones reported at the time that, "the 15-second ad, which dropped on Wednesday, appears to be the first time that 314 Action has come out in opposition to a Democratic candidate."

But that's not quite right.

314 Action's negative streak seems to go back to its earliest days, notably in Shaughnessy Naughton's second run for Congress in 2016.

Here from Naughton's bio on the 314 Action website:

As President of 314 Action, Shaughnessy Naughton is frequently called upon by media outlets and other interest groups to speak about the urgent need to elect more scientists at every level of government. Her passionate commitment to increasing the number of professionals with scientific training in Congress is deeply personal.

As an entrepreneur with a degree in chemistry, and a background in drug research, Shaughnessy grew increasingly concerned for the future of science in the United States, and the lack of fact-based, problem-solving solutions being initiated in Congress.

In 2014, after more than ten years in business, Shaughnessy stepped into the political arena, running for Congress in Pennsylvania's 8th District. It was a leap of faith, strengthened by a commitment to taking her scientific training and experience to Washington, D.C.

With no prior political experience, other than phoning legislators and door-knocking for campaigns, Shaunghessy faced an uphill battle. Learning the fundamentals of running a campaign through personal contact and retail politics was a lesson that stayed with her, and which she now brings to the day-to-day work of 314 Action.

Although unsuccessful with her campaign, Shaughnessy was undaunted by the result. During her campaign, she received significant support from the scientific community. It was clear like-minded STEM professionals shared her vision of bringing more trained problem-solvers into government.

Inspired by her experience in running for office and what she had learned, Shaughnessy formed 314 Action in June 2016 to encourage and unite the scientific community around the political process, and advance a pro-science agenda.

And here from the intro to a Los Angeles Times Q and A with Naughton by Javier Panzar:

Few people understand the challenges scientists face when they run for office as well as Shaughnessy Naughton. She has done it herself not once but twice.

In 2014 and again in 2016, Naughton campaigned for a congressional seat in eastern Pennsylvania, touting her experience as a researcher who helped develop drugs for breast cancer and infectious diseases. Although she had to set that career aside to help out her family's struggling publishing business, she continued to make the case that her scientific background would be an asset in Washington.

Neither of Naughton's campaigns got very far; she lost both times in the Democratic primary. But she found that scientists rallied behind her candidacy. So she switched gears and founded 314 Action to help elect candidates with backgrounds in science, engineering, technology and math.

Naughton actually came very close to winning in 2014. But her second try in 2016 drew a lot of negative attention.

As Justine McDaniel wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 11, 2016:

The race for the Eighth District seat has drawn national attention. The district covers Bucks County and a small part of Montgomery County. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican, is retiring, and with no incumbent and an electorate nearly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, the seat is viewed as up for grabs.April

From McDaniel's story:

The primary battle between two Bucks County Democrats vying in one of the nation's most-contested congressional races is heating up, with both candidates trading accusations.

A supporter of State Rep. Steve Santarsiero threatened Monday to file a Federal Election Commission complaint against Shaughnessy Naughton, Santarsiero's primary opponent. Meanwhile, Naughton's campaign has hammered the other side over taking credit for gun legislation that never became law.

After an independent science-related political action committee founded by Naughton sent a mailer blasting Santarsiero, a board member of the PAC complained Monday. The member's letter to the FEC alleges that the Naughton campaign unlawfully coordinated with the group, 314 PAC, which her office denied Monday.

Naughton's campaign said there was no violation of federal law.

Here is another account from April 20, 2016, by Tom Sofield at the Newtown, Pa., site, Now.com,with some additional information.

Campaign Calls Claims Of Possible Violation Of Federal Election Law 'Publicity Stunt'

The Democratic primary race for the Eighth Congressional District between Shaughnessy Naughton and State Rep. Steve Santarsiero has turned ugly in its final weeks.

Technology entrepreneur Det Ansinn, a Santarsiero supporter and also president of Doylestown Borough Council, filed a complaint this month with the Federal Election Commission stating that the science, technology, engineering and mathematics-focused political action committee (STEM and PAC) coordinated with the Naughton campaign.

Independent PACs and campaigns are not legally allowed to directly coordinate during an election cycle.Ansinn, an advisor for the 314 PAC, first posted about the PAC's possible coordination after a mailer attacking Santarsiero was sent out. The mailer – in addition to two others sent out – stated it was from the PAC.

The issue comes down to whether campaign advisor Josh Morrow, who is engaged to marry Naughton, violated federal election law by receiving a consulting fee of $20,000 from the 314 PAC in late 2015 and another $7,550 in the first part of 2016. Documents filed with the Federal Election Commission also show Morrow was paid $14,500 for consulting work provided to the Naughton campaign.

A spokesperson for the PAC told the Bucks County Courier Times recently that Morrow worked as a "strategist who helped with our assessment of candidates and put together dossiers."

According to the 314 PAC website, the PAC endorsed four other Democratic candidates outside of the Eighth Congressional District this election. In 2014, the PAC endorsed four Democratic candidates in the general election.

Naughton, a small business person and scientist from Point Pleasant in the upper end of the county, started the 314 PAC after her loss to Kevin Strouse in the 2014 Democratic congressional primary. A press release from September 2014 notes the 314 PAC is a "political action committee that will recruit, train, and elect Democratic candidates with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

The story then quoted from Ansinn's Facebook post from earlier that month:

314 PAC had been dormant for a while. No conference calls, emails, or meetings for months. So, you can imagine my surprise, and the surprise of other advisors, to see this hit piece land in 8th District mailboxes... including my own, today.

As you can see by the attachment, it's not some substantive issue piece about science, the environment, or other STEM interest. It doesn't even mention a STEM candidate. It is a direct nasty assault towards against Steve Santarsiero. It's the kind of crass mailer that turns people off from politics and the antithesis of why myself, and other advisors, got involved with 314 PAC in the first place.

So, why/how does the ugly piece exist? As far as I can tell, there was no process here. We weren't asked for an opinion. Heck, Shaughnessy Naughton didn't even make the list of our endorsed candidates -- I have attached them as well.

I still haven't been given an answer. In fact, everyone that I know who is/was involved with 314 PAC is just as surprised as me. I feel like my name, and the names of other advisors, are being used to lend credibility towards this nonsense.

Returning to Sofield's story:

In a statement emailed to LevittownNow.com, Santarsiero raised issue with the content of the mailers and called them a "desperate new low."

Bucks County Democratic Party boss John Cordisco sent a letter to reporters this week that stated he found the " clear and documented staffing overlap between the Naughton campaign and 314PAC troubling; the most disturbing detail is that Naughton personally founded this PAC before the election with one now-obvious intention: to smear Steve Santarsiero and distort his record."

Erik Polyak, Naughton's campaign manager, said Naughton is no longer part of the PAC and stepped down before she announced her run for Congress. In a phone interview, he called the complaint nothing more than a "publicity stunt." He added that there were no laws violated.

Dr. Ingrid Oakley-Girvan is currently leading the PAC and stepped up when Naughton resigned.

I checked with the FEC Tuesday and they can't find any record of a complaint actually being filed in the matter.

So to review, in 2016 Shaughnessy Naughton, now president of 314 Action, was a candidate for Congress, Erick Polyak, now director of campaigns for 314 Action, was her campaign manager, and Joshua Morrow, now executive director of 314 Action, was variously a strategist for 314 Action, a consultant to Naughton's congressional campaign, and engaged to marry Naughton (they didn't marry).

Here is Morrow's bio from 314 Action:

As Executive Director, Joshua oversees 314 Action's operations and runs the independent expenditure arm of 314 Action Fund. In this role, he oversees the organization's mobilization efforts, paid communications, and critical research and data collection. Joshua also liaises with progressive allies nationally, ensuring 314 Action has a place at decision-making tables.

A veteran campaign manager and communications expert, Joshua got his start as the field director for Harry Reid's U.S. Senate campaign in 1998. He has managed campaigns in eight states, and abroad in South and Central America.

Joshua's campaign experience includes managing statewide gubernatorial, senate, congressional, and mayoral campaigns in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia.

With his extensive on-the-ground campaign experience, Joshua brings a deep understanding of the nuts-and-bolts of building and running strong campaigns to the work of 314 Action and 314 Action Fund.

When the voters were counted in her second run, Naughton who had lost the Democratic primary in PA-8 by 817 votes, lost in 2016 by 16,557 votes.

From the post-election report from Amanda Burg at Levttown Now on April 27, 2016, which had some nice, ugly details.

Steve Santarsiero Beats Shaughnessy Naughton In Ugly Congressional Primary