In the world of campaigns, specifically AG campaigns, lying, or simply getting ones facts wrong can be devastating to a candidate and his or her campaign.  One would think that a political campaign would go out of its way to make sure that the facts behind either their attacks, or the credentials they’re attempting to burnish, are dead on accurate.  Apparently, for at least two Democrat AG candidates in two different states, that’s just not the case.

Ohio Democrat AG nominee Senator Marc Dann has been forced to admit that both he and his campaign had lied (they said erred, but come on you don’t make mistakes like that at this level – that’s just trying to pull a fast one on the electorate) when it “asserted that opponent Betty D. Montgomery “carried and voted for” legislation that allowed the Bureau of Workers Compensation to invest in rare coins.”  This issue has been the lynch pin to Dann’s entire campaign.  It’s not good news for a guy hovering around 20% name ID with only $500,000 in the bank running against a well known, over 80% statewide name ID, statewide officeholder with $2.2 million in the bank and counting. 

Over in New York Democrat AG candidate front runner Andrew Cuomo is taking heat, apparently a second time, for vastly overstating statistics that “as federal housing secretary he dramatically increased anti-discrimination efforts and doubled fair housing “enforcement actions,” but a 2001 report by a federal disability-rights panel contradicts that claim.”  Sadly for Cuomo this isn’t the first time he’s tried to use these inflated numbers – he tried to pull the exact same thing early in his Gubernatorial run 4 years ago. 

“Questions about Cuomo's “doubling” claim were first raised in a Newsday article in 2001, when he ran for governor. In 2002, the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, a Washington group that monitors civil rights policy, published a critical report on Cuomo's tenure that called the doubling claim “false.””

Andrew Cuomo is doing EVERYTHING he can to look like he has the resume to be New York’s top prosecutor – it’s telling that he’s playing the same tired card that burned him in his last run for statewide office in New York.  Don’t people like this have any other skills so they can avoid such desperate ploys?

What’s it all mean?  Both Dann’s and Cuomo’s predicaments are unique in their genesis, and the end results will be similar.  Both campaigns have now entered into a miserable place in their relationships with reporters who cover their races.  They get no freebies, everything they say will now be viewed through a prism of doubt for two reasons – first – no reporter wants to print easily verified lies – columnists – yes – reporters – no.  Second, as a result of the first, the sell for any future attacks by the campaign manager, spokesperson, whoever, will be a much heavier lift – the veracity of future hits will be doubted more than before, and as a result may not be picked up.  This is a testy area if you’re trying to push a story.

And you can’t forget your opponents and how they benefit here.  Anytime Dann or Cuomo go on the attack the first card their opponents get to play is the “remember what Andrew said about his HUD record”, or “come on, Dann couldn’t even figure out he was wrong on the coin story”.  That’s all insider baseball, externally both sets of opponents get headlines and messages to whack Dann and Cuomo with in the run up to Election Day – Cuomo has to deal with the hits twice – once in the 9/12 Dem primary, and a second time in November (if he wins) against Republican AG nominee Jeanine Pirro.

Oh, and if you’re wondering about the headline for this post – it was said to the Los Angeles Times in 1990 by a campaign operative named Marc Dann – yes, that Marc Dann.