The objective: Help an independent expenditure committee elect a favored candidate in a race between two high-profile Democratic elected officials.

The strategy: Contrast the candidates’ records in public office and personal backgrounds to demonstrate that the favored candidate is a better fit for the district than his opponent.

The research: A thorough review of the candidates’ public office records revealed a number of salient points, including that the opponent had voted to increase public transit fares while taking thousands from transit contractors; had taken thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded trips, including a $2,000 trip to Hawaii, and – now running in a heavily Democratic district – had previously positioned himself as a conservative.

The results: We worked with the committee to integrate the research with a focused television, direct mail, and GOTV campaign. Throughout, we stayed in close contact with the committee’s pollsters and communications team to help develop messaging, provide research support for paid media, fact-check, and conduct follow-up research as the campaign developed. The committee’s favored candidate won the election.

The objective: Knock a potential opponent off-stride before he enters the race.

The strategy: Scrutinize the opponent’s public and business activities for potentially questionable behavior.

The research: The opponent appeared as a television pundit and hosted a talk radio program while also handling government relations for a prominent law/lobbying firm. We compiled a list of all known clients of the firm and reviewed the opponent’s television appearances and radio shows to identify instances in which he mentioned the clients or polices affecting them. Advocating for policies on-air that would benefit your clients constitutes a conflict of interest, and a violation of Federal Communications Commission rules if the conflict is not disclosed. We identified multiple such instances.

The results: Our client filed an official complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against the opponent, generating news coverage in every major local news outlet, raising questions about the opponent’s ethics and career, forcing the opponent onto the defensive, and helping to drive the message of the opponent as a shill for corporate interests. The opponent was ultimately defeated.

The objective: Persuade state legislators to buck their leadership and oppose a prison privatization bill.

The strategy: Demonstrate that the company that would take over management of state prisons is a bad actor with a weak record, and work with members of a coalition opposed to the legislation on a lobbying and advocacy campaign.

The research: A review of news articles, litigation, interest group reports, private prison company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, campaign finance reports, and other sources identified several salient points, including that the company in question had been repeatedly accused of mismanagement and abuse in other states.

The results: Nine Republican state legislators voted to reject a proposal by their leadership to privatize state prisons, dooming the legislation. We worked daily with the lobbyists and communications staff to organize news conferences, phone calls to legislators, and other efforts.

The objective: Determine the viability of a candidate before committing to a launch a major effort to elect him.

The strategy: Scan public records and other available sources to identify the candidate’s vulnerabilities.

The research: A review of county and federal court cases, recorded documents, and candidate filings involving the research subject revealed that the candidate had been sued dozens of times for fraud, was delinquent on his taxes, had failed to pay child support, and had twice been arrested as a young man.

The results: The client withheld support from the candidate, averting a major expenditure of funds and effort. The candidate dropped out.