Richardson's PI: An Update

The Richardson campaign takes issue with my short post about the private investigator hired by Richardson's presidential staff. That Richardson's campaign paid $12,500 to one Michael Corwin, a PI, is not in dispute. But Richardson's communications director, Pahl Shipley, said that Corwin does not perform opposition research -- in fact, no member of the Richardson campaign does. Corwin performs background checks on Richardson's own staff.

The campaign contracted with a company to perform public records background checks and research potential hires and others associated with the campaign- a standard practice. He does not do research on opponents. If the other campaigns are saying they don’t do those kinds of internal checks, they’re not telling the truth. You’ve been around long enough to know better.

Let me be clear- the campaign has not hired anyone to perform research on opponents. I could have told you that in a quick phone call.

The better Governor Richardson does in the polls and the more attention he gets the more dirt other campaigns try to shovel. It’s a shame that it is apparently so easy to have others do the dirty work for rival campaigns. Unfortunately your credibility also takes a hit.

Governor Richardson is keeping to his pledge of not engaging in negative campaigning, as difficult as that is given what the other campaigns are doing. Think about it- when was the last time our campaign sent you something negative about another candidate?

Comments

What?

"Let me be clear- the campaign has not hired anyone to perform research on opponents."

So, you have no research staff at all? No opposition researchers, nobody doing clips on the other candidates, nobody looking at the Washington Post database on votes for the 5 Senators in this race, nobody looking into any public records at all like what John Edwards pays in property taxes?

So, you're telling me that this campaign is run by criminally stupid people?

While you're at it, contemplate this one: Is it okay to do opposition research in the general election should you win?

Posted by Tom B. | July 19, 2007 2:46 PM

Marc --

So, let's review:

You write your first post without calling the campaign for comment. You say that Richardson has broken his campaign pledge, without any evidence, other than the line from a finance report, forwarded to you by someone with an admitted bias.

And then, when called on it, you say you have an "update," rather than a correction.

It's a good thing you're working for the Atlantic, and not a second-rate newspaper on the cop beat. Your editor would have torn you a new one.

Posted by Chris | July 19, 2007 7:28 PM