It’s expected in the heat of an election that media will follow the scent of any trail that smacks of scandal or controversy, but the net effect of this pursuit may be negligible with the public. That’s likely the case with two ‘controversies’ that have surfaced in connection with U.S. Senate candidates David Perdue and Michelle Nunn.
In the case of Perdue, the plot is thick: There’s an advisor to a Super PAC who is related by marriage to a former governor who is the cousin of GOP senatorial nominee Perdue. There’s an out-of-state non-profit “social welfare” organization that’s contributed money to a Super PAC that then launched attack ads on Perdue’s Republican runoff opponent.
What’s at issue in the controversy is whether the David Perdue campaign, through its affiliation or acquaintanceship with political strategist Nick Ayers, has somehow illegally coordinated a campaign advertising strategy with a PAC. It seems like a lot of speculation right now.
If you’re already yawning at the prospect of following the twisted trails of evidence in this matter, then welcome to the point we’re making. If the relationships in all this are knotty enough that muckraking journalists and lawyers can’t untangle them, it’s safe to say voters won’t be able to either. Even if they wanted to. Which most don’t. (Right on the heels of this story came a poll that showed Perdue leading Nunn by nine points. Other polls show a closer race.)
As for Michelle Nunn, it has surfaced that Points of Light, the charitable organization she has chaired since 2007, has contributed about $33,000 to an organization that turns out to have been affiliated with the terrorist group Hamas.
Michelle Nunn, terrorist sympathizer! Give us a break. Terrorist organizations hide and launder money when and where they can – preferably through channels that appear above board. That’s why it’s called money laundering. But the notion that Nunn is somehow sympathetic to Middle East terrorism is silly. The only voters likely to be persuaded otherwise are ones predisposed to find fault with Nunn, and with Democrats in general. (Similarly, those ready to condemn David Perdue for allegedly sidestepping campaign disclosure laws are probably convinced already that Republicans are crooks.)
One could argue that Nunn’s possible plummet in the polls over the past days is traceable to this ‘controversy.’ Call us skeptical. More likely, the general election Senate race is simply taking shape, now that the Republican primary runoff – with its savage TV commercial attacks on Perdue – is over. Georgia is still a red state, after all.
That said, Nunn’s ‘controversy’ is possibly more damaging to her than Perdue’s is to him. Her leadership at Points of Light is the bulk of her public service resume. Any hint of a lack of competent stewardship could be at least unflattering. Nunn has less margin for error than Perdue does.
The only way these headaches for Perdue and Nunn might cost them a significant number of votes in November is if they are the subject of effective attack ads that take as their subjects these two ‘follow-the-money’ stories. But that would speak less to the relevance of Super PACs and terrorist organizations than to the effectiveness of well-crafted negative ads. In the GOP Senate runoff there was an ad that labeled David Perdue “just another career politician.” This, about a man who has never been an elected official. Sepia color tones and confessional-sounding narrative can make a case for just about any scenario of supposed nefarious deeds.
