Try telling that to Mark Sanford, however, whose full-page ad in the April 21 edition of Charleston’s Post & Courier attempts to tie them together.
In his advertisement, Sanford makes that truth-twisting name-drop four times, including “Pelosi’s PAC.”
But the California congresswoman’s “PAC to the Future” has made no contribution to Democratic candidate in South Carolina’s special election for the 1st Congressional District.
PAC to the Future has contributed to other campaigns but not a dime to Colbert Busch, as its records show (1, 2, 3). Those filings are only through March 31, but the local campaign also confirms no donation from that political action committee throughout the entire election cycle, too.
“We have not received any contributions from PAC to the Future,” says Ann Beser, a senior campaign advisor to Colbert Busch.
Pelosi hasn’t contributed personally, either.
The Sanford ad also refers to “Pelosi’s committee” making contributions to Colbert Busch, but that’s another error. In her role of Minority Leader, Pelosi doesn’t serve on committees outside of congress.
She’s also not on the Democratic Congressional Candidate Committee, which is another frequently-dropped name in Sanford’s advertisement. She’s not even part of its “Women LEAD” program.
So why is Sanford’s campaign attempting these falsehoods?
Well, it seems he’s banking on an assumed negativity that some might associate with Pelosi.
In 2010 when she was Speaker of the House, for example, Pelosi’s nation-wide public approval rating had slipped down to 29 percent, a Gallup poll reported.
That was actually higher than approval for Congress overall, though. And Pelosi’s won all of her congressional campaigns by huge margins, only twice taking less than 80 percent of the vote, so she’s apparently well-approved by her own constituency.
Sanford might also be relying on public opinion of Pelosi to be liberal in attempt to associate her with Colbert Busch with negative intentions in this more conservative district.
Actual liberals disagree, however, including liberal organizations and the liberal congresspersons with whom Pelosi has frequently squabbled over particular bills.
Or maybe after losing so many female voters due to his publicized extramarital affair, coupled with more recent news of continued disrespect for his now ex-wife, Sanford might just be trying to build up male voter support by comparing female Colbert-Busch to female Pelosi.
But if that’s the case, maybe he should remember that 55 percent of the registered voters in this district are female.
This April 21 ad also distorts historical facts.
Comparing himself to the William Travis, who led Texas Army troops in the Battle of the Alamo, Sanford cites the date of this historical event to be March of 1863, even though it actually took place in February and March of 1836.
(Sanford’s comparison is partially correct, however; Travis walked out on his pregnant wife and son, then claimed on public records that he was single, then proceeded to have an affair with another woman.)
This Sunday ad isn’t the first instance of his campaign issuing falsehoods (which are completely allowed in political advertisements, unfortunately).
For example, his most recent television ad also includes false information, claiming a union that donated to Colbert-Busch’s campaign “tried to shut down Boeing and ship 1,000 jobs out of South Carolina.”
That IAMAW union did no such thing, however, and had even included specific terms in its legal complaint specifying that it did not seek effect on the company’s North Charleston facility.
So where will these and other stunts leave him? In second place, apparently.
If he’d like to gain any support from anyone, Sanford should begin telling the truth.