In the past eight years, as political campaigns have become increasingly competitive, many constituents across the United States have reported instances of unusual and sometimes questionable campaign tactics. In an age where digital reach can magnify any scandal or unusual practice, stories of manipulation, misinformation, and underhanded strategies have surfaced, adding a darker hue to modern politics. Here’s a closer look at some of the more notable shady campaign tactics reported by constituents in recent elections. Which leads to the odd photo I pulled from the Washington Post today. The Harris/Walz Campaign has taken it a step further this election season by have their squadron post handy notes in any and every location a woman might be found alone—the ladies’ room.
1. Astroturfing and Fake Grassroots Movements
Astroturfing, or the creation of fake grassroots support for a candidate, has become a frequent tool in modern campaigns. Instead of genuine constituent support, some campaigns have orchestrated fake rallies, social media support, and even fabricated endorsements. Voters in states like Texas and Florida have reported suspect groups that suddenly appear to endorse candidates with no real connection to local concerns. These groups often vanish after the election, leaving constituents feeling manipulated and questioning the authenticity of candidate support.
Example: In the 2020 election, fake local organizations in Pennsylvania suddenly began posting about supporting a particular candidate with almost identical messaging across multiple platforms. Investigation later revealed these groups were run by out-of-state PR firms with ties to the candidate’s campaign.
2. “Dark Money” Influence and Mysterious Donors
Campaign finance laws in the U.S. allow for certain loopholes that enable “dark money” contributions. Dark money refers to funds that come from anonymous sources, making it difficult to trace the origins of campaign funding. While legal, it allows campaigns to be heavily influenced by unknown donors, some of whom may not even reside in the candidate’s state.
Constituents have voiced concerns over local elections in Arizona and Nevada, where significant campaign funds were traced back to out-of-state PACs with undisclosed donors. These donations often push a candidate’s campaign forward but leave voters uneasy about who is really behind the curtain.
Example: During the 2022 midterms, a sizable donation from a PAC with unclear intentions helped sway the results in a crucial Arizona race. Local voters later discovered that a significant portion of the funds came from outside entities, raising questions about the PAC’s motives and potential influence over elected officials.
3. Manipulative Messaging and Microtargeting on Social Media
Political campaigns now have the power to target voters at an individual level using data analytics and social media algorithms. Through microtargeting, campaigns can deliver specific messages to selected demographics, based on personal information like age, income, and even browsing history. While this has proven effective, it also opens doors for misinformation and manipulation, especially with attack ads and fear-mongering messages.
In key swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan, voters reported seeing tailored ads that played to their fears and biases, sometimes exaggerating or even misrepresenting the opposing candidate’s positions. Constituents felt uneasy about the extent to which campaigns seemed to know their personal concerns and vulnerabilities.
Example: In the 2020 election, social media platforms were rife with ads that were only visible to specific user groups, promoting misleading information about both major presidential candidates. In some cases, these ads were so specific that voters felt “targeted” rather than informed.
4. Push Polling: Surveys with an Agenda
Push polling is a tactic used to influence voters under the guise of a survey. Constituents in battleground states such as Ohio and North Carolina have reported receiving phone calls claiming to be legitimate surveys. However, these “surveys” often ask leading questions designed to sway opinions rather than gauge them, subtly discrediting opposing candidates.
Push polling, while difficult to track due to its discreet nature, is particularly insidious because it catches voters off guard, presenting itself as an unbiased inquiry. Often, the questions asked are framed to cast doubts or plant seeds of mistrust about an opponent, leading voters to question their choices based on skewed information.
Example: Ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, a notable push poll in North Carolina asked residents, “Would you be less likely to vote for Candidate X if you knew they supported policies that could increase taxes by 50%?” Despite no real plan to increase taxes, the phrasing subtly encouraged voters to distrust the candidate.
5. Ballot Harvesting and Potential Voter Coercion
While the legality of ballot harvesting varies from state to state, it remains controversial. Ballot harvesting involves collecting absentee or mail-in ballots on behalf of others, a practice that has raised concerns about undue influence and voter coercion. In states like California and Georgia, constituents have raised concerns that certain campaign operatives used this tactic to influence voters, especially among vulnerable communities like the elderly or low-income families.
In some reported cases, individuals have recounted experiences where campaign representatives encouraged them to vote a certain way in exchange for assistance in submitting their ballots, an act that, while not always illegal, can border on coercion.
Example: During the 2020 election, a community in rural California expressed concerns after campaign workers were seen collecting ballots from seniors. Some seniors later reported feeling pressured to vote in a specific way, calling into question the ethics of the practice.
6. Deepfake and Misinformation Campaigns
Deepfake technology has rapidly advanced, and it’s now possible to create video and audio that convincingly mimic real candidates saying things they never actually said. In some instances, voters in states like New York and Virginia reported seeing videos circulating on social media that later turned out to be manipulated to exaggerate or misrepresent a candidate’s stance on issues.
While these deepfakes were often quickly debunked by fact-checkers, their circulation had a lasting impact, as not every constituent saw the corrections. Misinformation campaigns of this nature undermine public trust and make it harder for voters to discern reality from fiction.
Example: In 2022, a video of a high-profile Senate candidate in New York seemingly endorsing a controversial stance circulated widely before being debunked as a deepfake. Although corrected, it had already cast doubt and distrust among thousands of viewers.
The Need for Transparency and Vigilance
As election cycles become more intense, the pressure to secure victory has led some campaigns to push ethical boundaries. From data manipulation to dark money and deepfakes, constituents report an erosion of transparency and trust. These shady tactics not only jeopardize the integrity of the democratic process but also deepen divisions among the electorate.
For voters, the challenge is to remain vigilant, discerning fact from fiction and demanding accountability from those running for office. Only through collective awareness and a commitment to fair play can the political arena return to a more transparent, respectful exchange of ideas — where campaigns are won on policy and principle, not manipulation.
Final Thought: As more stories of questionable campaign tactics emerge, constituents are reminded of their role as watchdogs. Reporting suspicious activities and calling for reform can help restore trust in the electoral system.
