If you are a Democratic voter living somewhere in that gerrymander along the Pflugerville corridor in Katy which is Texas' 10th congressional district, you may have received a campaign mailer – or two or three or four or five – from a super PAC called 314 Action, telling you, or by the third, fourth or fifth delivery, simply by offering a friendly reminder, that Mike Siegel, who was the Democratic Party candidate in the tenth in 2018, is a proven loser. "Siegel has already lost to McCaul," says the message on the screen in front of a full theater, in one mailer. "We've already seen this show and it doesn't end well for the Texan Democrats." "Once Mike Siegel lost to Mike McCaul," says another in a Grimms typeface. "Mike Siegel lives in a fairy tale. He can't beat Mike McCaul. Dr. Pritesh Gandhi can do it." 314 Action is what is known as a Carey Committee or a hybrid political action committee that was born after Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that reversed the long-term restrictions of the election campaign, allowing companies and other external groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. It is a hybrid because it has two different parts which must obey different rules. The PAC can approve applicants and collect and spend money within the normal contribution limits. Advertising The other independent side of spending, can collect and spend unlimited amounts of money for or against candidates as long as they do not coordinate with such campaigns.314 The action is called 314 The action as a nod to the pi, which, well, let Scientific American explain: in short, pi– which is written as the Greek letter for p, or p– is the relationship between the circumference of any circle and the diameter of that circle. Regardless of the size of the circle, this ratio will always be equal to pi. In decimal form, the value of pi is approximately 3.14. But pi is an irrational number, in the sense that its decimal form does not end (like 1/4 = 0.25) nor does it become repetitive (like 1/6 = 0.166666 …). (With only 18 decimal places, pi is 3.141592653589793238). Therefore, it is useful to have a shortcut for this relationship between circumference and diameter. According to its website: Our mission is unique: to recruit, train and elect scientists and other sciences, technological, engineering and mathematical leaders (STEM) to public office. In 2018, with basic national support, we helped elect eight scientists from the United States House of Representatives, one from the United States Senate and more than 30 others to legislate states across the country. You may have noticed recently how vital our state is and local leaders are and the importance of being elected with scientific backgrounds. Check out these STEM scientists and professionals who run https://t.co/jI2DVwZKy7– Brooke Bainum (@BrookeBainum) May 28, 2020 314 Quotes on the Action website by Albert Einstein: we are in a moment of reckoning. Are we going to guide our future from science, reason and knowledge, or will we succumb to superstition, ignorance and propaganda? While 314 Action supports many candidates, it invests heavily only in a handful of campaigns. election cycle, Texas-10 is, and the candidacy of Pritesh Gandhi, his biggest single investment. Overall, he spent $ 411,528 on Ghandi's behalf, $ 107,532 against Siegel. Previously, in the March 3 primary, 314 Action also spent $ 67,170 against a third Democratic candidate, Shannon Hutcheson. In the outflow, it produced six mailers, five reminding voters of Siegel's losing ways and the latter strictly in support of Gandhi. He also created a TV ad you may have seen promoting Gandhi and reminding voters that: Mike Siegel. I can't win. The often repeated basic claim that Siegel is the victim of a loser is a mathematical fact. He lost to Michael McCaul, Republican MP and fellow Austinite who in 2018 won his eighth term with 157,166 votes against Siegel's 144,034, a margin of 51.06% to 46.79%, a spread of 4.27%. It is also true that two years earlier, McCaul won the district with 179,221 votes, equal to 57.33%, against the 120,170 of the democratic Tawana Cadien, or 38.4%, with a margin of 18.79%. At the time, the narrowing of the gap caught me and McCaul, among others, by surprise. but it was still a loss. Surely Beto O & # 39; Rourke carried the district from the smallest fragment, but that was Beto O & # 39; Rourke, on top of the ticket, a phenomenon that collected and spent more money than any Senate candidate in the history of Texas and got more media earnings than any other state candidate in the country in 2018. Surely Beto sustained Siegel's fortunes, but just because Siegel was not up to the win wouldn't seem to deserve it by immersing him in a perpetual loser loser. Alternatively, his performance two years ago also means that he is necessarily the strongest candidate to finish the job in a district that is, after all, elaborately gerrymander to maintain Republican control. Electricity is and has always been clearly a legitimate issue, perhaps never more serious than that of Democrats in 2020, shaping voter calculations from the presidential race to the bottom.314 Action knows that it is a potentially effective argument for Gandhi and probably the most devastating line of attack against Siegel. That's why we put their money on it. It is central to Ghandi's theory of his case. As Gandhi said when I interviewed him last month: I think voters recognize a few things. They recognize that in 2018 Mike underperformed not only Beto O & # 39; Rourke, but underperformed almost all state candidates in this district. And I think people understand that the stakes are too high to risk losing again. I have confidence in our ability not only to overcome this outflow, but to have a clear and overwhelming performance in the general elections that reflect where the district is located.This is the topic exposed in the chart often tweeted by Erik Polyak, director of the campaigns of 314 Action. We have already seen this film and it does not end well for the Democrats # TX10. @SiegelforTexas can't beat Mike McCaul. These are the facts pic.twitter.com/3BOJBS6RUL– Erik Polyak (@ErikPolyak) June 27, 2020 Shows that Siegel had a lower share of the vote of the two parties in TX-10 than Democratic Senate candidates, the attorney general or commissioner for agriculture. But what it doesn't show is that he had a larger share than the other Democratic candidates across the state – governor, controller, land commissioner and railroad commissioner. I spoke to Siegel on Monday: to say that if you lose a single race you are a loser is absurd, because some of these races cannot be won in a cycle. It's like climbing a mountain. If you want to climb Everest, you must first establish a base camp. And when I started this job in 2017, nobody thought we had a chance. Almost none of the donors wanted to invest. Even unions and other progressive groups thought it was not a good use of their resources. And so in the last cycle, we had to prove that this breed was viable and this is the result of all our work, and it is the equity that we have gained that Gandhi and 314 Action are trying to capitalize on and that the sophisticated Democrats see through it. They see that we have created this opportunity. And I don't mean just me, I mean, the hundreds and hundreds of people who have sweated through the Texas summers to establish these contacts with the voters, to meet the people where they are. We created this opportunity. You know I sacrificed two and a half years of my life to create this opportunity and they are trying to swoop in and take it. But I think they will be rejected satisfactorily by the people of this district. I also spoke to Texas AFL-CIO President Rick Levy, who supports Siegel. I think that characterizing Mike as a loser based on the previous race is really just a serious wrong characterization of what happened. I think he dramatically outperformed and put that race on the radar. And I think he continued building a coalition in that district to win. And I think the idea in that district of trying to bring someone down based on some sort of wrong characterization of the story about it isn't appropriate. I think, since there are two candidates who are at the progressive end of the spectrum, it just seems like we should keep in mind that the final prize is November and manage your campaign with this in mind. I asked Levy how he learned about the negative campaign against Siegel. I think I just saw a flyer that tried to marginalize Mike's efforts and I thought it wasn't a very productive approach for someone who had his eyes on the same prize. I just thought we wouldn't need to have republican discussions right now. The moment is too full of dangers and opportunities. I wondered if when people contributed 314 Action they imagined that their dollars would be used to attack a mostly mind-like Democrat, if they would appreciate the approach embodied by the 314 Action mailers and Polyak tweets. the facts about the political loser @SiegelForTexas pic.twitter.com/UrThGGEWoM– Erik Polyak (@ErikPolyak) June 23, 2020 If Mike had brought # TX10 even a hundredth of a percentage point, we wouldn't have this conversation. In the best year for Texas Dems in a generation, Mike underperformed the rest of the ticket. Mike had his chance, and he blew it .– Erik Polyak (@ErikPolyak) June 27, 2020. I expect a better message from a PAC that promotes the scientists of this partisan drama .– Andy aka Miguel Sanchez aka Dr. Nguyen van Phuoc (@ drrocks1982) July 2, 2020 But when I asked if their beating on Democratic colleague Siegel as a loser was the way his donors expected to see their dollars be distributed, 314 Action made the same request for Levy about urgent moment of danger and opportunity. From Brook Bainum, spokesman for the 314 Action Fund: while our nation is grappling with a global pandemic that is killing our citizens by the thousands and climate change that will fundamentally change our world and cause devastating damage, America cannot afford to continue with the status quo of sending politicians and career lawyers to Congress. Today more than ever it is essential to elect scientists in public office. We can no longer afford to lose the election for the same old politicians who put us in this mess. 314 Action Fund is proud to be funded by 393,782 individual contributions averaging $ 23.58 from grassroots donors across the country who are committed to electing more STEM scientists and professionals with the experience these times require. We agree with the American-state editorial board in Austin that Dr. Pritesh Gandhi is the best chance for Democrats to reverse the seat of Representative Michael McCaul, and is the best candidate for "presenting an urgently persuasive case to unreliable voters" on issues such as public health, shoddy houses, racial inequalities and Access to early childhood education: are Siegel and his supporters simply too skinny and too quick to claim to have a prime position in the race because he ran before? In his advertisements, 314 Action cites Ghandi's support from the American statesman from Austin and a February 21 story about Naomi Andu's Texas Tribune race to support his claims about Gandhi's increased electicity. Here is the February Statesman editor, in a March primary dvance when the camp still included Shannon Hutcheson as well. Two years ago the Democrats came at an impressive distance from several US seats in central Texas. Their best chance this year to make those places blue: Select Democratic candidates who are pragmatic and can make an urgently persuasive case for disaffected voters. We see those qualities in Dr. Pritesh Gandhi, our choice in the extremely competitive field of Democrats trying to overthrow American representative Michael McCaul, a republican who has no primary opponent. District 10 comprises parts of Travis County to the north and northeast, the northern half of Bastrop and parts of seven other counties that extend to Houston. At the People's Community Clinic, an East Austin safety net for people with little or no insurance, Gandhi treats patients who may not wait for a years-long political battle over Medicare for everyone to end. He wants a public option, something more than two thirds of the Americans' support. "The American people are suffering," he told our editorial board. "We must be able to compromise." He also knows when to fight: after the filming of Sandy Hook, Gandhi founded Doctors Against Armed Violence to promote research-based reforms and in 2018 he was among the medical professionals who protested against the treatment of migrant children in a border camp in Tornillo. A Fulbright scholar who is now at the Dell Medical School faculty, Gandhi wants policymakers to see that public health conversations must attract issues such as poor housing, racial inequalities and access to 39; Early childhood education. A good case can be made for other Democrats in this field. Mike Siegel, a former Austin city attorney, is an energetic progressive who put District 10 in the competitive column in 2018, when he got 4 percentage points from the incredible McCaul. Shannon Hutcheson, a lawyer who represented Planned Parenthood of Texas, makes a compelling argument for the safety net programs that have enabled her to achieve success. District 10 Democrats have a difficult choice, but in our opinion Gandhi has the greatest potential to move the needle in Congress And here is the story of the Texas Tribune on the race from which 314 Action drew the pull quote in its advertisements – But Siegel has opinions that could raise doubts that he is the right candidate to overturn a traditionally red district. From Tribune Story: When Mike Siegel made a long-term offer to undo US representative Michael McCaul, R-Austin two years ago, few were looking – until he surprised political observers and came to 5 points from overturning the long-standing Republican seat. Now the polling station is back in office for the elections, and national Democrats are paying attention. The 2018 diiegel result means that the 10th congressional district, which extends from the Austin subway to the northwest suburbs of Houston, is finally considered to be at stake. after a 2003 redistribution left it deeply gerrymander and solidly red. Many other eyes are now focused on the race, including that of the Democratic Congress Campaign Committee. But for Siegel, which has resulted in a tougher competition. A former Austin city attorney, Siegel is vying for the Democratic nomination along with two new arrivals: Labor and Employment Attorney Shannon Hutcheson and Doctor Pritesh Gandhi, both also from Austin. the outflow is likely in TX-10, but with two weeks before the Super Tuesday, it is still unclear who will make the cut. Siegel and his supporters put the district "on the map" the last cycle after "the state and the national party had gone dead," Siegel told The Interccept in June "People in this district remember me when I appeared for decades Democrats hadn't really showed up, in some of these rural communities in particular, "Siegel told the Texas Tribune. "They appreciate the fact that we brought this race so close without much external support." Siegel faced even more primary opponents in 2018, but won the nomination relatively easily. He scored more than double the votes of each of his opponents in the first round of voting and continued to win the outflow of nearly 40 percentage points, but Siegel has opinions that could raise doubts that he is the right candidate to traditionally flip a red Neighborhood. Since he is the most progressive and the only candidate to support "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal, his offer could be seen as a riskier choice for challenging McCaul in the historically republican district. Hutcheson and Gandhi have taken more moderate positions and everyone is getting national support. Hutcheson has been approved by EMILY & # 39; s List, the influential group that works to elect democratic women who advocate for abortion rights. Gandhi, meanwhile, has the support of 314 Action, which supports scientists running for the office. In addition to the Texas-10, 314 of Action's main investments are in the campaigns of Cameron Webb, an African American physician in Virginia, and Nancy Goroff, a Jewish Doctor in New York, who completed a trio of candidates for the well-diversified selection of marquee candidates. Here are some of them from the 314 Action website.A practicing doctor of internal medicine, Dr. Cameron Webb currently serves as a Hospitalist at UVA Health, where he was directly involved in assisting patients during the response COVID-19. Not only would Webb be the first African-American to represent Virginia's 5th congressional district, he would also be the first black doctor in the House of Representatives. Democrats have one of our best opportunities to turn the VA-05 upside down for years: Roll Call has just named Webb's Republican opponent, Denver Riggleman, as one of the ten most vulnerable chamber operators this year. (Note: Riggleman was. He lost in the Republican primaries.) According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 314 Action spent $ 307,214 on supporting Webb, who easily won the Democratic nomination in June. They didn't advertise badly in that race. Here's what Action said about Goroff: if elected, Dr. Nancy Goroff would be the first female doctor. scientist to serve in Congress. He is running against Republican Lee Zeldin, a zealous Trump defender who makes the list of the most vulnerable members of the House of Republicans, in a competitive district that Governor Andrew Cuomo brought with him from 49.1 to 48.6 in 2018. Stony Brook University, where she taught for 23 years, Nancy has conducted crucial research to make environmentally friendly energy sources more accessible and accessible. While presiding over the Department of Chemistry, Nancy obtained more than $ 22 million in funding from the United States Department of Energy to establish research centers for the development of renewable energy production technology. Nancy also worked to develop entrepreneurial programs at Stony Brook. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 314 Action spent $ 452,863 in support of Goroff and $ 63,807 attacking his opponent Perry Gershon, who was the Democratic candidate, almost presumably losing the same margin as Siegel.Counting is progressing slowly in an extraordinarily tight race where votes are still counted weeks after the June 23 New York primary. In a Facebook post yesterday, Goroff said he followed Gershon by 229 votes, with final accounting likely today. In TX-10, 314 the spending of the action is significant, particularly for a generally low outflow of turnout and generally disputed. While Gandhi outperformed Siegel during the cycle – from $ 1.2 million to over $ 864,000 as of June 24 – they both claim to have raised approximately the same amount of money in the second quarter, with around $ 256,000 for Gandhi and around $ 250,000 for Siegel. . The super PAC has already shaped the run with his role in the primary where he trained his focus on the third candidate, Shannon Hutcheson, using his money to give legs to a very critical November 2019 piece on Hutcheson in Texas Observer. Austin Chronicle on February 26, on the eve of primary to March 3, presented what happened in a piece by Michael King: PAC "314 Action" based on science attacks the congressional candidate for his legal work The PAC launches a hard ball against Shannon Hutcheson in the TX-10 game As a general practitioner treating uninsured and poorly served patients at Austin Gandhi's People's Community Clinic he naturally adapted to an organization "committed to electing multiple STEM candidates in office, supporting evidence-based political solutions to problems such as climate change and fighting Trump administration's attacks on science. " Gandhi said at the time: "At a time when science faces a constant assault by the president, electing more leaders who will rule with evidence and facts is crucial." Given that background, it is somewhat surprising to see such aggressive attack mailers addressed to Hutcheson, an experienced civil lawyer who actually represented corporate clients and once assisted his legal partner, Alison Bowers, in representing an ex-guard for the & Immigration and customs that had sexually assaulted immigrant women – the Hutcheson Bowers company defended him in a subsequent civil lawsuit. mailer does not mention Gandhi (it reads, "Paid by the 314 Action Fund, not authorized by any candidate"), but concludes that Hutcheson's legal career and his occasional support for Republican judges (quite common among local lawyers in the recent GOP- years dominated), means "Do not share your values". Hutcheson told the Texas Tribune that "carefully choosing" a couple of cases out of 23 years of legal practice is patently unfair and that the "best indicator of my values" is the work he has done for groups like Grande's Planned Parenthood Texas and the SAFE Alliance … "A TX-10 resident brought the mailers to the Chronicler's attention -" rather petty things, "they wrote, and had no trouble establishing the undeclared connection with Gandhi. The mailers were sufficiently negative that the third candidate in the race, lawyer Mike Siegel, felt compelled to distance himself from them. In an email from the campaign, Siegel wrote that a "Super PAC" had spent $ 200,000 in the campaign: the (two) negative mailers attacked Shannon Hutcheson, one of my main election opponents. The same PAC also sent positive mailers to Pritesh Gandhi, another opponent. "Siegel added," One of the foundational problems with our political system, it's how unlimited corporate money can distort elections. " Xxxxxx It is worth noting that over the course of the campaign of months, all three candidates assured voters that if they did not win the Democratic nomination, they would support whoever the candidate was. However, the PAC 314 mailer tells those same voters that Hutcheson "doesn't share your values." Campaign advisors routinely recommend "becoming negative" as an effective strategy for winning. It is less effective for repairing primary fences and moving forward in general election campaigns. When asked to comment on the mailers, the Gandhi campaign replied: "This campaign is focused on the struggles of working families that Dr. Gandhi treats as a GP at a community health center – struggles that intersect with problems such as armed violence , the cost of prescription drugs, and true justice reproduction. These mailers have not been approved by our campaign, which has been incessantly focused on Dr. Gandhi's life in the fight for people and policies that improve the lives of newspapers. Texans. "Hutcheson's campaign had this to say:" Shannon Hutcheson is a mom, surviving MeToo and a permanent Democrat who represented Planned Parenthood and volunteered with Austin Children & # 39; s Shelter and SAFE Alliance to help survivors child abuse, domestic violence and sexual assault. Shannon is running for Congress to cut the cost of Healthcare, protect women's reproductive rights and get large sums of money from politics. She is disappointed with the offensive and misleading defamatory campaign of a pro-Gandhi SuperPAC in Washington. "This was obviously a much harder blow on Hucheson than what 314 Action has placed on Siegel. But in both cases, the attacks seem politically instrumental but disconnected from 314 Action's pro-science mission, except, of course, as means to elect his favorite candidate. In March, the strategy turned out to be effective. In the primitive, I thought that with a woman and two men, Hutcheson had a good chance of making the runoff. He did not do it.Yup. One campaign organized the hit and the other had the PAC money to spread it. Now – they do it to each other. So – yes. A little bit like enjoying the hold della perla. pic.twitter .com / 4DGY1Yo9nD– genevieve (@genvc) 3 July 2020 The contrast is fine, even a strong contrast. Each field has a glass jaw. -And you know that both have asked for the support of the lady who they dragged so carefully. "Help me" "Forgive me. "" They forced me to do it. "" I am a good boy, really. "So lame. – genevieve (@genvc) July 3, 2020 Genevieve Van Cleve, longtime Democratic political consultant and operative in Austin, who worked mainly on behalf of female candidates, had been a consultant to Hutcheson before entering the race but not he worked on The way the race went, he told me earlier this week, "it broke my heart." Looking at the current dismay on the renewed role of 314 Action in the race, it offers a word of caution to Siegel – "You don't own anything, because you haven't won" and for both candidates: "You still have to win the district, otherwise you're just screaming at each other. "He also has a question about the long-term commitment of 314 Action in the district." PAC 314 is dedicated to spending enough money to win this place from McCaul. They will have to spend a lot of money to do it. Congressional District 10 is a gerrymander district. "Candidates are not legally responsible for what a super PAC does on their behalf. But in a Facebook post on June 14, nine days before the New York primary, Goroff expressed his doubts as to how 314 Action is turned negative against Gershon on his behalf. I launched this campaign last July because people in New York's 1st convention district deserve better representation than Lee Zeldin, and we need more scientists with a seat at the table in Washington. They are very proud that every statement and material published by my campaign has served to promote my scientific background, commitment to evidence based public policies and the record of achievements in our community. I have addressed this topic in several forums and I would like to reiterate my comments here as well: as I did in my campaign, I would have preferred that all participants in our race remained positive and focus on promoting the candidate of their choice. unfortunate that 314 Action chose negativity to draw attention to Perry Gershon's investments in oil and coal. It is not something I would have done, and certainly not in this way. I didn't know these ads would come and I don't have any oversight, review or influence on Action 314's efforts. A small backstage of a June 11 piece by Mark Chiusano, member of the Newsday editorial board. also continues in federal elections. There is 314 Action Fund, a PAC associated with the pro-scientist group that supported CD1 promise Nancy Goroff in the race for the Democratic nomination. The group's mailers include negative attacks on Perry Gershon, who was the 2018 Democratic candidate against GOP incumbent operator Lee Zeldin and is looking for another run. The claims included accusations about the climatic costs of some of Gershon's investments and that Gershon "said his solution for Long Islanders threatened by climate change is to move away." The latter is a gloss on a 2018 appearance statement when Gershon stated in full: "In the long term, with sea level rise, we will need to move further back from the coast. ", adding the need for the Paris climate agreement and alternative energy sources. In una e-mail, la campagna di Gershon descrive gli investimenti non come un "porto di acque profonde in mare aperto" ma "un investimento di infrastruttura in una struttura di pubblica utilità che ha permesso di portare il petrolio negli Stati Uniti in modo pulito e senza perdite e rischi di enormi contaminazione"; e non una "centrale a carbone", ma "un legame infrastrutturale di una società elettrica pubblica dell'Ohio che è necessario per fornire elettricità ai residenti di quello stato. Il carbone è la principale fonte di elettricità del Midwest". Gershon mercoledì ha twittato il suo scontento per il intraprendente litigare e ha invitato Goroff "a denunciare immediatamente i postini negativi con soldi scuri che ripetono le stesse menzogne infondate che Zeldin ha usato contro di me. Anche fino alle foto false. I democratici non dovrebbero attaccarsi a vicenda solo per vincere una primaria." Gershon stesso ha recentemente ha beneficiato di alcuni soldi esterni. Giovedì, un annuncio pro-Gershon ha colpito la TV della BLUE TIDE NY-1 LLC, un gruppo di spesa indipendente a candidato singolo creato proprio questo mese i cui archivi pubblici mostrano che ha speso $ 164,850 per la produzione e l'acquisto di media. Ma i documenti non indicano ancora da dove provengono i soldi del gruppo. Il responsabile della campagna di Goroff, Jacob Sarkozi, ha posto le domande sugli annunci anti-Gershon a 314, e ha detto che Goroff "ha funzionato e continuerà a condurre una campagna positiva in tutto questo primario perché come scienziata Stony Brook con profonde radici in questo distretto, è pronta a mettere a confronto con chiunque altro. "Il portavoce del 314 Action Fund Matt Erwin, tuttavia, è stato felice di continuare l'attacco, dicendo che Gershon" ha scelto di fare soldi con gli investimenti di combustibili fossili per anni "e" È tempo di eleggere qualcuno di cui possiamo fidarci dei cambiamenti climatici. "Oh beh, c'è un sacco di tempo per la positività lungo il tratto. Nel giugno 2018, Brian Schatz ha scritto una storia su Mother Jones con il titolo, A Pro-Scientist Campaign Group sta attaccando un collega democratico. Un nuovo annuncio di attacco prende di mira un leader in un'affollata gara californiana. Il leader, Harley Rouda, è sopravvissuto alla pubblicità di attacco ed è ora al Congresso. Ma all'epoca Mother Jones riferì che "l'annuncio di 15 secondi, che è stato pubblicato mercoledì, sembra essere la prima volta in cui 314 Action è uscito in opposizione a un candidato democratico." Ma non è del tutto corretto.314 L'azione è negativa la serie sembra risalire ai suoi primi giorni, in particolare nel secondo episodio di Shaughnessy Naughton per il Congresso del 2016.Qui dalla biografia di Naughton sul sito Web di 314 Action: Come presidente di 314 Action, Shaughnessy Naughton è spesso chiamata dai media e da altri gruppi di interesse parlare dell'urgente necessità di eleggere più scienziati a tutti i livelli di governo. Il suo impegno appassionato nell'aumentare il numero di professionisti con formazione scientifica al Congresso è profondamente personale. Come imprenditore con una laurea in chimica e un background nella ricerca sulla droga, Shaughnessy si è sempre più preoccupato per il futuro della scienza negli Stati Uniti e mancanza di soluzioni basate sui fatti e di soluzione dei problemi avviate al Congresso. Nel 2014, dopo più di dieci anni di attività, Shaughnessy è entrato nell'arena politica, candidandosi per il Congresso nell'ottavo distretto della Pennsylvania. Fu un atto di fede, rafforzato dall'impegno a portare la sua formazione scientifica e la sua esperienza a Washington, D.C. Senza alcuna esperienza politica precedente, oltre a telefonare ai legislatori e bussare alla porta per le campagne, Shaunghessy dovette affrontare una dura battaglia. Imparare i fondamenti della gestione di una campagna attraverso il contatto personale e la politica della vendita al dettaglio è stata una lezione che è rimasta con lei e che ora porta al lavoro quotidiano di 314 Action. Anche se non ha avuto successo con la sua campagna, Shaughnessy non è stata scoraggiata dal risultato . During her campaign, she received significant support from the scientific community. It was clear like-minded STEM professionals shared her vision of bringing more trained problem-solvers into government.Inspired by her experience in running for office and what she had learned, Shaughnessy formed 314 Action in June 2016 to encourage and unite the scientific community around the political process, and advance a pro-science agenda.And here from the intro to a Los Angeles Times Q and A with Naughton by Javier Panzar:Few people understand the challenges scientists face when they run for office as well as Shaughnessy Naughton. She has done it herself not once but twice.In 2014 and again in 2016, Naughton campaigned for a congressional seat in eastern Pennsylvania, touting her experience as a researcher who helped develop drugs for breast cancer and infectious diseases. Although she had to set that career aside to help out her family's struggling publishing business, she continued to make the case that her scientific background would be an asset in Washington.Neither of Naughton's campaigns got very far; she lost both times in the Democratic primary. But she found that scientists rallied behind her candidacy. So she switched gears and founded 314 Action to help elect candidates with backgrounds in science, engineering, technology and math.Naughton actually came very close to winning in 2014. But her second try in 2016 drew a lot of negative attention.As Justine McDaniel wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer on April 11, 2016:The race for the Eighth District seat has drawn national attention. The district covers Bucks County and a small part of Montgomery County. Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican, is retiring, and with no incumbent and an electorate nearly evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, the seat is viewed as up for grabs.AprilFrom McDaniel's story:The primary battle between two Bucks County Democrats vying in one of the nation's most-contested congressional races is heating up, with both candidates trading accusations.A supporter of State Rep. Steve Santarsiero threatened Monday to file a Federal Election Commission complaint against Shaughnessy Naughton, Santarsiero's primary opponent. Meanwhile, Naughton's campaign has hammered the other side over taking credit for gun legislation that never became law.After an independent science-related political action committee founded by Naughton sent a mailer blasting Santarsiero, a board member of the PAC complained Monday. The member's letter to the FEC alleges that the Naughton campaign unlawfully coordinated with the group, 314 PAC, which her office denied Monday.Naughton's campaign said there was no violation of federal law.Here is another account from April 20, 2016, by Tom Sofield at the Newtown, Pa., site, Now.com,with some additional information.Campaign Calls Claims Of Possible Violation Of Federal Election Law 'Publicity Stunt'The Democratic primary race for the Eighth Congressional District between Shaughnessy Naughton and State Rep. Steve Santarsiero has turned ugly in its final weeks.Technology entrepreneur Det Ansinn, a Santarsiero supporter and also president of Doylestown Borough Council, filed a complaint this month with the Federal Election Commission stating that the science, technology, engineering and mathematics-focused political action committee (STEM and PAC) coordinated with the Naughton campaign.Independent PACs and campaigns are not legally allowed to directly co ordinate during an election cycle.Ansinn, an advisor for the 314 PAC, first posted about the PAC's possible coordination after a mailer attacking Santarsiero was sent out. The mailer – in addition to two others sent out – stated it was from the PAC.The issue comes down to whether campaign advisor Josh Morrow, who is engaged to marry Naughton, violated federal election law by receiving a consulting fee of $20,000 from the 314 PAC in late 2015 and another $7,550 in the first part of 2016. Documents filed with the Federal Election Commission also show Morrow was paid $14,500 for consulting work provided to the Naughton campaign.A spokesperson for the PAC told the Bucks County Courier Times recently that Morrow worked as a "strategist who helped with our assessment of candidates and put together dossiers."According to the 314 PAC website, the PAC endorsed four other Democratic candidates outside of the Eighth Congressional District this election. In 2014, the PAC endorsed four Democratic candidates in the general election.Naughton, a small business person and scientist from Point Pleasant in the upper end of the county, started the 314 PAC after her loss to Kevin Strouse in the 2014 Democratic congressional primary. A press release from September 2014 notes the 314 PAC is a "political action committee that will recruit, train, and elect Democratic candidates with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.The story then quoted from Ansinn's Facebook post from earlier that month:314 PAC had been dormant for a while. No conference calls, emails, or meetings for months. So, you can imagine my surprise, and the surprise of other advisors, to see this hit piece land in 8th District mailboxes… including my own, today.As you can see by the attachment, it's not some substantive issue piece about science, the environment, or other STEM interest. It doesn't even mention a STEM candidate. It is a direct nasty assault towards against Steve Santarsiero. It's the kind of crass mailer that turns people off from politics and the antithesis of why myself, and other advisors, got involved with 314 PAC in the first place.So, why/how does the ugly piece exist? As far as I can t ell, there was n o process here. We weren't asked for an opinion. Heck, Shaughnessy Naughton didn't even make the list of our endorsed candidates — I have attached them as well.I still haven't been given an answer. In fact, everyone that I know who is/was involved with 314 PAC is just as surprised as me. I feel like my name, and the names of other advisors, are being used to lend credibility towards this nonsense.Returning to Sofield's story:In a statement emailed to LevittownNow.com, Santarsiero raised issue with the content of the mailers and called them a "desperate new low."Bucks County Democratic Party boss John Cordisco sent a letter to reporters this week that stated he found the " clear and documented staffing overlap between the Naughton campaign and 314PAC troubling; the most disturbing detail is that Naughton personally founded this PAC before the election with one now-obvious intention: to smear Steve Santarsiero and distort his record."Erik Polyak, Naughton's campaign manager, said Naughton is no longer part of the PAC and stepped down before she announced her run for Congress. In a phone interview, he called the complaint nothing more than a "publicity stunt." He added that there were no laws violated.Dr. Ingrid Oakley-Girvan is currently leading the PAC and stepped up when Naughton resigned.I checked with the FEC Tuesday and they can't find any record of a complaint actually being filed in the matter.So to review, in 2016 Shaughnessy Naughton, now president of 314 Action, was a candidate for Congress, Erick Polyak, now director of campaigns for 314 Action, was her campaign manager, and Joshua Morrow, now executive director of 314 Action, was variously a strategist for 314 Action, a consultant to Naughton's congressional campaign, and engaged to marry Naughton (they didn't marry).Here is Morrow's bio from 314 Action:As Executive Director, Joshua oversees 314 Action's operations and runs the independent expenditure arm of 314 Action Fund. In this role, he oversees the organization's mobilization efforts, paid communications, and critical research and data collection. Joshua also liaises with progressive allies nationally, ensuring 314 Action has a place at decision-making tables.A veteran campaign manager and communications expert, Joshua got his start as the field director for Harry Reid's U.S. Senate campaign in 1998. He has managed campaigns in eight states, and abroad in South and Central America.Joshua's campaign experience includes managing statewide gubernatorial, senate, congressional, and mayoral campaigns in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City, and Philadelphia.With his extensive on-the-ground campaign experience, Joshua brings a deep understanding of the nuts-and-bolts of building and running strong campaigns to the work of 314 Action and 314 Action Fund.When the voters were counted in her second run, Naughton who had lost the Democratic primary in PA-8 by 817 votes, lost in 2016 by 16,557 votes.From the post-election report from Amanda Burg at Levttown Now on April 27, 2016, which had some nice, ugly details.Steve Santarsiero Beat s Shaughnessy Naughton In Ugly Congressional PrimaryOne of the ugliest Democratic Eighth District Congressional primary season races in memory came to an end Tuesday night when State Rep. Steve Santarsiero declared victory over Shaughnessy Naughton.Santarsiero claimed victory after achieving 50,367 votes in Bucks County and Montgomery County. Naughton, who unsuccessfully ran for the same seat in 2014, garnered only 33,810 votes.xxxxxThe race turned ugly in its final weeks when a PAC started by Naughton mailed negative ads that called out Santarsiero's record of getting zero bills passed in Harrisburg and showed him with blacked out teeth. (note: the allegation was that he was "toothless" legislator) The mailers led to allegations that members of Naughton's campaign had violated Federal Election Commission rules. On Twitter, the two campaign's managers sparred back and forth in recent weeks."It was a hard fought race, and it's never a good thing when Democrats fight Democrats," he said. Santarsiero noted that the race will hopefully help bring different sections of the party together."I want to make something clear to everyone, while I am very happy to have won this battle, I did not get into this race 16 months ago just to win a primary," he said. "I know we can win this race in November and I know that with the support of everyone in this room, we are going to reach thousands and thousands of voters in the Eighth district, and it's important that we do that, not for me, not for the Democratic Party, but for the people of the Eighth district and for the people of our country."I like 314 Action's use of "blacked-out teeth," in its hit piece. Very sciency.Very early in that race, in Augus 2015, Nick Field of Politics PA had a story under the headline PA-8: Santarsiero Goes Nuclear on Naughton that foreshadowed bigger trouble ahead for Morrow owing to his political relationship with then Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, who in 2012 Morrow helped elect as the first Democrat and first woman elected to that office in Pennsylvania history, receiving more votes than President Barack Obama or Sen. Bob Casey.From Field's story:This race has gotten very personal, very early.State Rep. Steve Santarsiero's campaign sent out a press release yesterday blasting Shaughnessy Naughton's chief strategist (and fiance) Joshua Morrow.The statement refers to Morrow as "Kane's political hatchet-man" because he received information from Deputy Attorney General Adrian King and gave it to Chris Brennan of the Daily News.Brennan's subsequent article triggered the investigation of the AG.In the criminal complaint agains t Kane (which the Sa ntarsiero campaign included as an attachment in their email) Morrow describes an April 22, 2014 phone call with the Attorney General."(Kane) asked me to do her a favor, and to give Adrian King a call because he had something that she wanted to give to a reporter, I asked her what it was and she told me it involved an investigation into Jerry Mondesire by Frank Fina and that he had shut it down," Morrow testified."Ms. Naughton and her political team have a habit of back channeling and planting hit jobs," said Santarsiero campaign manager, Gabrielle Quintana Greenfield. "Now it is clear that her campaign treasurer and close confidante, Josh Morrow, is willing to break the law to benefit his candidates."Morrow has not been charged with any crime and it does not appear he will be.Greenfield's statement goes on to state that Morrow and Naughton "have a long history". It points out he was her top staffer in 2014 and is the campaign treasurer this time around. While noting that they are both registered at the same address, it does not mention the fact that they are engaged."The fact that Ms. Naughton would allow Morrow to command such a public leadership role in both her campaigns is telling of how she would run her congressional office," Greenfield concluded. "She should explain to the voters why she would allow someone involved with a criminal case to be such an integral part of her campaign."Politi csPA reached out to the Naughton camp and received the following statement from the candidate."State Representative Steve Santarsiero has a long history of launching over the top and dirty attacks in a veiled attempt to disparage his opponents, and it's exactly the same culture of corruption and ugly retribution that he learned in Harrisburg and that we don't need in Washington. The corruption charges against Kathleen Kane and so many other Harrisburg politicians reveal a system where insiders engage in out-of-bounds mudslinging and the politics of personal destruction. As Rep. Santarsiero falls back into these dangerous habits, I'm focused on talking to Pennsylvanians about issues that matter to them."While it certainly can't ever be surprising when a political campaign gets personal or negative, it is rare to see it this early. The Democratic primary election between Naughton and Santarsiero is still over eight months away.They are fighting to represent Pennsylvania's 8th district, a seat currently held by retiring Congressman Mike FitzpatrickA year after that story appeared and a few months after Naughton's defeat in the 2016 primary, Morrow was in court acknowledging that he had lied to a grand jury and was now providing testimony, under immunity, that would help send Kane to prison.From Peter Hall writing in The Morning Call:NORRISTOWN — In damaging testimony, Attorney General Kathleen Kane's former political consultant said Thursday he and Kane agreed to cover up her role in a grand jury leak she orchestrated to discredit he r rivals.Philadelphi a political strategist Josh Morrow admitted under the protection of immunity orders that the agreement called for him to tell investigators that Kane never saw grand jury documents she's accused of leaking and lying under oath to cover up.Morrow told jurors he persisted with the lie in prior grand jury testimony and a June 2015 meeting with investigators, testifying about the conspiracy for the first time Thursday because it weighed on him too heavily."The burden of keeping the lie is affecting me personally, in relationships and professionally," Morrow testified.Here is the top of an Aug. 13, 2016 Philadelpha Inquirer story by Craig R. McCoy and Laura McCrystal, From friend to courtroom enemy, the odyssey of Kane's political consultantFor an isolated Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, political consultant Joshua Morrow may have been the ultimate frenemy.In a rapid-fire exchange of texts just before 10 p.m. one day in early 2014, Morrow told the embattled Kane: "It's time for your friends to fight back."I agree," Kane replied. "I wish they would.""Happy to lead the charge," Morrow said.That would be the same Josh Morrow who delivered devastating testimony against Kane last week as a prosecution witness at her criminal trial, saying she had been deeply involved in a plot to leak confidential grand jury documents and later conspired with him to pin the crime on a former aide.On the witness stand, Morrow bluntly admitted his own guilt and vividly painted Kane as a remorseless lawbreaker.Prosecutors and defense lawyers rested their cases Friday in Kane's trial on charges of perjury, conspiracy, obstruction, and other crimes. Kane, 50, did not take the stand in her own defense, and her lawyers did not call a single witness to rebut the testimony of Morrow and 13 other government witnesses.In closing arguments Monday, defense lawyers are expected to label Morrow and other key witnesses as liars , saying their lack of credibility means prosecutors have fallen short of meeting their burden of proof.Prosecutors, on the other hand, will likely argue that their witnesses – along with emails, texts, an FBI wiretap, and other evidence – show that Kane orchestrated the unlawful release of confidential investigative documents. They say she did so by planting a newspaper story in a bid to embarrass a critic, former state prosecutor Frank Fina – and later lied about her actions under oath.The June 2014 story in the Philadelphia Daily News, which was critical of Fina, was based on material provided to the newspaper by Morrow and Adrian King Jr., then Kane's second in command. Later, Morrow said, he and Kane conspired to blame King for the leak, agreeing to lie to hide their own roles.Seth Farber, one of Kane's six lawyers, said Morrow had lied repeatedly – including after prosecutors gave him immunity from prosecution."Would it be fair to say, Mr. Morrow, that no matter what you've said, no matter how much you change your testimony, you don't get charged with a crime?" Farber asked."Correct," Morrow replied.'Hell-bent'In opening arguments, Kane's legal team denied that she had set out to savage Fina, whom they described as a low-ranking prosecutor she had met only once.But Morrow and other witnesses say Kane was obsessed with Fina, blaming him for a March 2014 article in the Inquirer disclosing that she had secretly shut down an undercover corruption investigation that had caught Philadelphia elected officials on tape accepting cash. Fina led that probe."She was just hell-bent on getting back at Frank Fina," Morrow testified.On the stand, Morrow, 43, came across as earnest and unguarded, regretful about his own conduct. He was "embarrassed," he said, as he admitted lying to grand jurors and investigators."The reality is, I lied in the grand jury," he said. "I was given an opportunity to come back in and tell the truth, and I did."Morrow has worked for Democratic candidates up and down the East Coast. In his testimony, he called his work on Kane's 2012 landslide victory a "crowning achievement" of his 18 years in politics.Last August Kane was released from prison after serving eight months for perjury and obstruction of justice.___(c)2020 Austin American-Statesman, TexasVisit Austin American-Statesman, Texas at www.statesman.comDistributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.