Behind the Curtain: How Political Campaigns Dig for Dirt

With candidates gearing up for the November elections, the South Shore Press is taking readers behind the scenes of modern political campaigns. This week, we examine the often unseen world of opposition research and vulnerability assessments—the painstaking process candidates use to scrutinize both their opponents and themselves.

For many voters, opposition research conjures images of private investigators digging through trash cans or campaigns hunting for personal scandals. Veteran political researcher Tom Jones says the reality is far less glamorous and far more methodical.

Research, he said, serves as the factual foundation for nearly every aspect of a campaign, from crafting advertisements and debate strategy to preparing candidates for attacks and identifying their own weaknesses before opponents do.

“Research is a tool that makes everything you do in a campaign more effective,” said Jones, president of the American Accountability Foundation, during a recent Leadership Institute training webinar.

Rather than simply collecting damaging information, campaigns use research to build persuasive narratives. Financial irregularities, for example, become part of a broader message about trustworthiness, while controversial votes are framed as evidence of a candidate’s priorities and judgment.

Thorough opposition research examines nearly every aspect of a candidate’s life, including court records, legislative history, professional experience, political activities, campaign finance reports and public statements. Contrary to popular belief, Jones said, sensational personal scandals are rare.

“Finding personal improprieties on a candidate is like a plane wreck,” he said. “Sensational, deadly and incredibly infrequent.”

Far more common are tax liens, questionable business dealings, controversial votes, inaccurate public statements and other issues that can be documented and explained to voters.

Campaign finance filings are another favorite source for researchers, revealing not only who finances a campaign but also the organizations and individuals with whom candidates may be associated. Those connections can become powerful political ammunition, which is why candidates are advised to think carefully before accepting donations that could become liabilities.

Research doesn’t stop with opponents. Campaigns also vet their own staff, consultants, fundraisers and prominent supporters to avoid embarrassing revelations after Election Day draws near.

Equally important is conducting a vulnerability assessment on the candidate. The process is designed to uncover weaknesses early enough to address them, prepare responses and prevent opponents from controlling the narrative.

“Our job is to bring bad news,” Jones said. “It’s no fun to have these conversations with the candidates.”

He urged campaigns to begin that process as early as possible. During his presentation, Jones stressed that candidates should begin tracking their own records long before filing for office, giving themselves time to correct mistakes and prepare for inevitable attacks.

That preparation extends to social media. Jones advised prospective candidates to carefully scrub years of posts, comments and online activity before launching a campaign.

“Platner should have deleted his Reddit account long before he was a candidate,” Jones said, referring to Maine Democrat Dave Platner, whose U.S. Senate campaign unraveled after intense scrutiny of his years-old online posts.

Jones also cautioned campaigns against relying on reporters to uncover damaging information about an opponent, arguing that campaigns must do that work themselves. He stressed that any claims used in advertising must be backed by airtight documentation to withstand legal scrutiny and public fact-checking.

He encouraged campaigns to make their messaging specific rather than generic. Instead of merely promising to cut taxes, for example, a campaign should point to an opponent’s voting record, such as repeated votes to increase taxes, giving voters a concrete reason to support its argument.

Professional opposition research can cost $15,000 or more for statewide or congressional campaigns, while local races often rely on volunteers or smaller research budgets.

Jones said the investment is worthwhile because research strengthens virtually every other aspect of a campaign.

“Don’t wait until you’re drowning to get started on research,” he said.