 |
 |
Stacey Lawson, candidate in the 2nd Congressional District, wins the award for being the target of the most blistering attacks in this election. First, she has been targeted by a relentless anonymous blogger who runs a web site titled “Who is Stacey Lawson?” which has featured regular questions about her background, voting record and visits with a guru in India. The site also focuses on Lawson’s role as board chairman of a Seattle- based women’s handbag dealer that failed to pay payroll taxes for three years. 
There’s no hint as to who is running the web site because the activity has not been reported so far on any campaign disclosure forms. Operators of the web site can avoid such reporting by spending less than $1,000. I suppose that’s possible in this case, but there seems to be a good deal of time, effort and tweeting put into this web site. The people behind this should at least have the courage to stand up and take responsibility for their work. This is gutless.
Now, as Guy Kovner reported today, Lawson also has been the target of a negative mailer sent out by the Norman Solomon campaign. The mailer targets Lawson for not voting in the majority of major elections in the five years before 2008.
This must be the year of the Pinocchio theme because as with the mailer we wrote about recently targeting John Sawyer, candidate for the 1st Supervisorial District, this one draws comparisons between Lawson and the fictional character with the long nose. It also draws comparisons between the voting histories of former gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Lawson.
Solomon has defended the mailer as factual.
My guess is that polls must be showing that Lawson, despite all of these hits, still has a good chance of finishing in the top two in Tuesday’s election along with Assemblyman Jared Huffman, the presumptive front-runner. This would leave Solomon and Marin County Supervisor Susan Adams, another strong candidate, on the outside along with Dan Roberts, considered the leading Republican candidate. As Lawson noted in today’s story, “Only people in the lead get attacked . . .”
Or in the top two in this case. What’s also true is that negative campaigning, in some cases, does work – especially among undecided voters. And there appears to be many of those still left. Either way, the race is likely to come down to which campaign does the better job of getting their voters to turn in their ballots on Tuesday. In a district that stretches from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border, that won’t be easy.
- Paul Gullixson
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Well done Paul… .
@Paul Andersen
Thank you for doing this. You have shined a light onto a candidate in a way that the Press Democrat failed to. Some of the papers in Humboldt and Mendocino were digging deeper than the PD, which isn’t really saying much. The PD knew they couldn’t endorse Lawson over Huffman, but I bet there was real debate in the editorial room. And while some will dismiss your website as a campaign mouthpiece, due to your involvement with the Adams campaign, your full disclosure cancels that out. You also substantiated everything you posted. I have wondered for awhile why Adams didn’t become the “women’s” candidate. Why didn’t she get the Emily’s List endorsement? I guess the answer comes down to women like Susan Buell, and other rich benefactors, who fund these national women’s organizations. The thought of Lawson being in Congress is chilling. Thank you for your service.
Paul Andersen in his own words: “With a strong political research background I took it upon myself…; As a professional political researcher…; I left for a variety of personal and political reasons…” Dr. Sarky’s sad analysis: unknown with personal and political problems creates secret, Walter Mitty, internet site, an imaginary closet that he can’t wait to rush out of to show us how smart he is. Far too often, politics is vanity by just another name.
It should not be about who has the best or worse mailer it should be about vision, goals and putting the people of our area first above parties, money or groups.
If anyone has any questions on the CA State Assembly race contact me at drgunderson@hotmail.com. Thank you
It’s time to come out of the closet.
I’m the mastermind behind the “Who Is Stacey Lawson?” website (http://www.staceylawson.info).
As a long-time politico on the North Coast (some may remember RiggsWatch, which was a website I set up in the mid-90′s to track former Congressman Frank Riggs’ actions in Congress), I follow politics in the region closely.
The 2nd Congressional District is a unique region of the nation and we need to be represented by someone who has a stake and vested interest in our community. Over the decades we have been ably represented by the likes of Don Clausen, Barbara Boxer, Doug Bosco, Lynn Woolsey and Mike Thompson.
This whole endeavor started because I was interested in how someone who’s a complete unknown could raise so much money — which in today’s day and age makes her an instant contender among a group of candidates that actually have significant governmental experience.
Stacey Lawson has barely lived in this district for three years. She has no public service experience in our community. She doesn’t even own a house, instead renting a mansion in her current location of San Rafael. Who had even heard of Stacey Lawson before last fall?
With a strong political research background I took it upon myself to do some digging. This is actually the type of research journalists used to do, but unfortunately there aren’t any journalists that do this at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (unless you’re declared an enemy of the editorial board, like Michael Allen).
I deliberately remained anonymous because I knew the website and my efforts would get more publicity that way. And it worked — the Press Democrat made more of an issue about who was behind the site than what the site actually said. This publicity generated many more hits on the site than I imagine would have happened otherwise, which in turn spread this information further.
As a professional political researcher, I ensured that everything on the staceylawson.info website could be verified through the public record. I utilized Lexis and online research to find out about her failed management at Chelsea Henry, her deleted Huffington Post blog and StaceyTV videos, her deep ties to her guru Dattreya Siva Baba and the mythology of her upbringing and business experience. There are no unsubstantiated facts on the site — everything is attributed.
As to the issue of whether the website is permissible under federal election law, I can assure you it is. The maximum amount an independent person or organization can spend in advocacy or opposition for a candidate without having to file with the FEC is $250 (incorrectly stated as $1000 in the Press Democrat editorial). Thus far I have spent $200 on Google Adwords and $5 on the domain name. The website hosting is free.
This effort has been a purely voluntary one on my part — I have not sought nor expect any remuneration. In the interests of full disclosure, I worked on Susan Adams’ Congressional campaign from August 2011 to the beginning os April 2012. I left for a variety of personal and political reasons. I want to state clearly that the Adams campaign had no knowledge of my activities with the “Who Is Stacey Lawson?” website.
As with anything involving politics, the best course is to “follow the money.”
As it turned out, Stacey Lawson has her own personal fortune from her well-timed sale of a failing company during the heyday of Silicon Valley in the late 1990′s when a company losing money was actually considered a winning proposition. This also allowed her to ingratiate herself with wealthy benefactors such as investment bankers and venture capitalists. She also has significant ties to the well-funded new-age community through her guru.
This is all reflected in the fact that fully 80% of her money comes from outside the 2nd Congressional District and nearly half from out of state. 70% of her money comes from people who have contributed the maximum $2500 to her primary election. Nearly 60 people have actually contributed the maximum of $5000 for her primary and potential general election campaigns.
Because she is such an unknown, we really don’t know what to expect from her which makes her funding sources so important. We don’t know what she has pledged to the high-tech and investment banking industries that are funding her campaign. The Stacey Lawson campaign is unfortunately a prime example of the power of money in politics, which I think most people would agree is one of the prime reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.
Wealthy newcomers always misjudge the environment in which they are entering, probably due to their ignorance of how politics works and their over-inflated sense of self generated from their success in the private sector.
What they fail to recognize is that the political arena is not a boardroom. The Congressperson for the 2nd Congressional District is the people’s representative in Congress. They should expect to be vetted thoroughly. Every other serious candidate in the race has gone through the same thing.
I appreciate the space to explain myself. Until the next adventure…
Please be sure to visit the “Who Is Stacey Lawson” website to learn more at http://staceylawson.info.
I think that while the PD is supposedly wringing its hands over negative mailers, what they’re really trying to do is paint Solomon in a bad light.
After all, I’m sure the editors would rather have bamboo shoots shoved under their fingernails than ever have to deal with (even) the idea of Solomon becoming a congressman. If Lawson wins in June and goes against Huffman in November, they can then start to wring their hands over the troublesome facts of Lawson’s background and the myriad of reasons she should NOT be sent to DC. After all, the public certainly won’t remember the PD not liking the “negativity” waaaaaaaay back in June.
Mr Gullixson has a great deal of nerve wagging his finger at @WhoisStaceyLawson as a coward for using anonymity in his or her posings. The Press Democrat’s Watch Sonoma County website is a harbor of cowardly, anonymous posters attacking politicians from behind that safety of their keyboards and Gullixson loves that.As long as they attack Norm Solomon, Michael Allen and Noreen Evans or Lynn Woolsey. When someone starts doing the same to his business pals it’s not so fun…Once again hypocrisy runs wild on the PD editorial page.
Very astute comments to this post. Ms. Lawson is simply attempting to gloss over the truth. Hate to give her the time or bandwidth to even comment, but the thought of her becoming a Congressperson is alarming.
While I don’t generally like negative campaigning, let’s think about this for a second:
1. What is meant by “negative campaigning”? Is it expressing falsehood designed to cast a negative impression? Or is it simply informing voters of facts that, while unfavorable to a candidate, are just that – facts?
2. The issues raised – even by the Press Democrat – are that Stacey didn’t vote in 8 out of the past twelve elections, that her business background raises some questions (outsourcing, non-payment of payroll tax on her watch), her wealth (yes, she is in the 1%), her lack of political experience (no former office, nor prior political activism), her newness to the district (she moved to San Rafael just a few years ago – seemingly simply to run for Congress).
There were many other issues they could have raised – including often bizarre writings and involvement with a huckster “guru” who sells snake oil. But the mailers instead focused on issues that are important to voters. Issues that won’t be covered in the barrage of expensive TV ads by Stacey – where she doesn’t say anything about this part of her past. It talks up the “rags to riches” myth, refers to a vague plan, and promises jobs. So how else is the voting public supposed to learn about the uncomfortable elements of Stacey’s recent past.
Even the Press Democrat said that Stacey’s port voting record was one reason they didn’t endorse her. The fact is negative. People want leaders that expect to be voted for, to have voted themselves. It’s not a positive attribute for her to have skipped some of the most important elections and now be asking for people to vote for her because it’s “her time”. After all, she did say in one of her writings that she knew she was god from an early age. Seriously.
But she is so new, most people have only seen the glitzy TV ads or fluff flyers her campaign has invested in. So how else are voters supposed to learn about such a new candidate that refuses to inform voters about her faults. Yes, there’s a photo of Pinocchio, as well as Meg Whitman. Let’s examine why:
1. The Pinocchio image is there for a reason, it’s a simple and common advertising symbol for not telling the truth – PD could have mentioned it. Stacey has changed her story several times in response to her voting record. This isn’t an opinion, or negative attack, it’s a negative reality. She first said she failed to vote because she felt disenfranchised. Then, when voters correctly expressed concern, she changed her story, saying she mailed her ballot from India and it was lost in the mail. Then she said she did vote but cannot prove it. The SF Dept. of elections records shows she in fact didn’t vote. So why all the changes in the story. While perhaps simplistic, I don’t see that using an image of Pinocchio in this context is wrong.
2. Image of Meg Whitman – well, let’s consider it. In recent memory, we had a millionaire businesswoman with no political experience and a spotty voting record, outspending a more experienced candidate, covering the air waves with TV ads, loaning herself tons of money, receiving mainly top contributions from millionaire friends, and not offering much substance on complex political issues…..sound familiar? Maybe it’s tacky, but the comparison isn’t baseless, and again, Lawson can’t refute any of these points because they are true. What she can certainly say is that she doesn’t agree with Meg’s politics, but the flyer doesn’t claim that she does. So, while it’s embarrassing to Stacey, it’s a fair criticism.
I personally feel in this case that it’s important for voters to have facts about the candidates – positive, or negative. If none of the points raised are concerning, Stacey can use her vast wealth to deny the charges or supply another explanation….”my dog ate my ballot”…but she doesn’t. Instead, she complains she’s attacked and that it shows how popular she is. No, it shows how dangerously close she is to tricking voters into ignoring the uncomfortable facts raised.
Fortunately, a difficult decision was made to better inform voters of these facts. Rather than talk about what it means in terms of Stacey’s chances, we should get back to the actual point – the issues that are known facts presented in the flyers are public record. And there’s nothing wrong with truth telling and drawing factual contrasts – this is fair politicking and not even Stacey’s campaign has bother to refute them. Instead, they simply say they are negative attacks. But that just ignores the actual facts – which people will never get watching mind numbing commercials serving up the Stacey myth.
Facts are facts. Lawson at first said she didn’t vote at all in the 2008 general election. Then she tried to claim she voted by mail from India. Unfortunately for her, there is no record of San Francisco, where she was registered to vote, receiving any ballot from Ms. Lawson. So first she admits to not voting, then she remembers she did vote? If she was in Congress would she only vote a 1/4 of the time like when she was a private citizen? Top it off with the fact that she moved into the district in 2008. She doesn’t know the North Coast and she doesn’t bother to vote. Why anyone would want such a person representing them in Congress is beyond me. Huffman, Solomon and Adams all seem quite qualified. And at least they vote…
The site seems as “fact-based” as the PD. There are quotations from the press, and from Ms. Lawson herself, to support statements made by the creator of the site. Ms. Lawson should have realized that she wished to enter politics much sooner than she did.