Some local supporters of state representative Jaime Herrera’s campaign to secure the Third Congressional District seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Brian Baird are expressing outrage at a robo-call Thursday from the Castillo campaign discussing Herrera’s travel to Washington D.C. for a campaign fund raiser while our state legislature is in session still.
I wasn’t home to actually hear the call, but a member of a private online group I frequent was kind enough to record it and make it available to group members, as he too joined the chorus of outraged “neutral” people who announce they have not decided on who to support.
Listening to the call I am immediately struck by not hearing anything that I can point out that isn’t true. The call begins by pointing out that Ms. Herrera has accepted donations from the SEIU, which is confirmed by the Washington Public Disclosure Commission.
The call says nothing about $800 accepted from the AFSCME Council 28, Washington Federation of State Employees, in addition to the $500 received from SEIU 925 PAC or the endorsements from the SEIU, verified from Progressive Voter Guide and Equal Rights Washington, both liberal groups.
In expressing “outrage” over the claims made in the call, some have indicated that Castillo would gladly accept campaign funds from unions as well, but a quick review of the Federal Elections Commission web site reveals no such donations received to date for the Castillo campaign.
Next on the call was mention of Ms. Herrera being gone on Thursday to attend a fundraiser on her behalf in Washington D.C. while the state legislature remains in session.
Again, the February 25 fundraiser is documented in a February 25 Columbian article as well as in a post by Liz Mair.
Some “neutral” people are firing back at the Castillo campaign claiming what is said in the call is “false!” Yet, if the claims are documented, is it false?
Unsaid by some of these “neutral’ people is the whisper campaign that has been going on around the district, targeting Castillo’s heritage and his position on some issues.
I find whisper campaigns more offensive than robo-calls that speak truthful about an opponent as it is rumor spreading and denigrates a candidate in a way that they may not defend themselves. They often begin from within a campaign but do not tie the candidate directly to the claims being spread silently.
That does not mean that Jaime Herrera herself is engaging in such rumor spreading, but undoubtedly some who must support her are, even if they do falsely claim to still be “neutral.”
I realize this might not set well with some, but I find all of this sudden outrage somewhat questionable, coming from those who also claim they do not support either candidate just yet.
I also wonder why such facts about one candidate should remain hidden to appease those who claim to have yet decided on who they will support. Isn’t this the sort of information conservatives should want to know about a candidate claiming to be one of them?
Could it be that some of this “outrage” being expressed over such a simple robo-call is manufactured in hopes of turning people towards a candidate that isn’t supposed to even be campaigning until the legislative session ends?
Is this sudden “outrage” nothing more than raising the level of the whisper campaign against Castillo up a few notches?
For those who claim to be “neutral” and undecided on just who they will support, it comes across to me as disingenuous and with intent.
What say those who are engaging in the whisper campaign knock it off and let’s compare issues to issues for the candidates? After all, if your candidate is that good, why the need to spread rumors?
