Urgent Press Release: Greenfield denounces Republican PAC dirty trick

It has come to my attention that today I became the unwitting, unwilling “beneficiary” of a Republican PAC in Texas that has delivered $49,000 worth of mailers, robocalls, and social media ads exclusively to registered Democrats in New York’s 19th Congressional District, attacking Antonio Delgado, and comparing him unfavorably to me. This expenditure is almost 50 times my total advertising budget.

The messages are not from me, my campaign, or any PAC supporting me. They are not from the Green Party or any PAC supporting us. They are from Republicans (details below).

I denounce both the message and the messengers. I am as much a victim of this dirty trick as the candidate it purports to undermine. It appropriates my campaign photo without the permission of me or the photographer, and deliberately and maliciously misrepresents me personally, and the themes of my campaign.

Nowhere on my website will you find the word “progressive.” I have never presented myself as a “more progressive,” or “purer,” or “truer” version of liberalism and Democrats, nor does the Green Party present itself that way. I have never targeted Democratic Party voters, nor directly compared myself to Mr. Delgado apart from comparing myself to Congressman Faso, which I have done expressly to show how completely distinct I am from both of them. I do not use the words “left” or “right” in describing my candidacy, or comparing it to others.

Furthermore, as my lone radio advertisement, going only as far as $2000 could buy, clearly states at its outset, and repeats as its theme, and as is written in my “closing argument” social media statement, my outreach has been to non-voters, not to supporters of either major party.

In closing, again, I denounce the messages and the messengers. But I also denounce the federal campaign finance laws that not only allow this to happen, but encourage it. It took both major parties, working together for decades, to make it legal, and viable in practice. For this reason and so many more, I and the Green Party support fully publicly funded elections, and ranked choice voting so that both the uninformed arguing over “spoiling,” as well as negative campaigning, can be ended forever, and put us on a path towards something resembling democracy.

I encourage the media to investigate this Super PAC and its donors.

Thank you very much,
Steve Greenfield
greenfieldforcongress@gmail.com

845-532-0280
www.stevegreenfieldforcongress.com

Citations:

https://www.fightfortomorrowny.com note it lists an Oneonta address, even though it is in Texas.

Identifying data sheet, showing location as Austin, and identity as Republican/Conservative https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00549279

Donors to the Super PAC: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2018&cmte=C00549279

Money spent — just on me, and one Republican candidate in Texas.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00549279


Steve Greenfield for Congress
www.stevegreenfieldforcongress.com

For Immediate Release
November 6, 2018

Contact:
Steve Greenfield, greenfieldforcongress@gmail.com, 845-532-0280

10 thoughts on “Urgent Press Release: Greenfield denounces Republican PAC dirty trick

  1. Starchild

    If I were running (as a Libertarian) and the Democrats or Republicans wanted, for their own dubious motives, to spend a lot of money promoting my candidacy by favorably comparing me to an opponent, my inclination would be to say “have at it!” because they’d still be promoting freedom even if for the wrong reasons.

    Greenfield’s decidedly ungrateful response to such an effort by the GOP makes me wonder how sincere a candidate he was – was he willing to run and advance his ideas only so long as it didn’t hurt the Democrats?

    His comment that, “I have never presented myself as a ‘more progressive,’ or ‘purer,’ or ‘truer’ version of liberalism and Democrats, nor does the Green Party present itself that way” raises a question: If the Green Party truly doesn’t represent itself as more progressive or purer than the Democrats, then why should people on the left support them? I thought being purer and more progressive than the Democrats was pretty much the Greens raison d’etre.

  2. dL

    my inclination would be to say “have at it!” because they’d still be promoting freedom even if for the wrong reasons.

    It does sound like free advertising…

  3. William T. Forrest

    I seriously doubt that this is what’s going on here but Green doesn’t necessarily mean progressive. The pro-environment vs pro-development question is orthagonal to the progressive vs conservative/traditionalist question. If anything, conservative and conservationist seems like a more logical fit – both seek to preserve a status quo or restore a status quo ante, whereas progressives and pro-development types both seek a type of growth or forward progress.

    It’s true however that in the US pro-development is synonymous with pro-business (as if a state-run economy can’t be pro-development) and conservationism is usually identified with social democracy or socialism (as if socialist nations have a good environmental record). As best I can tell the US Green Party is composed of three main groupings – “Blue/Greens” who basically want to be an outside progressive pressure group on Democrats (but seek a safe states strategy so they don’t hurt Democrats too much), “Watermelon Greens” who are essentially revolutionary Marxists in green camouflage, and “Red Black and Greens” who are primarily black nationalists and also tend to be Marxist as well.

    From the candidate’s reaction here I would infer a “blue/green” leaning.

  4. Jim

    The Green Party platform has a lot in it that has nothing to do with conservation of the environment and it is clearly Progressive. For example, the Green Party platform calls for criminalizing “the purchase of services from prostitutes” because prostitution is part of a “system of male domination” and that “no source in existence knows which forms of prostitution comprise forced sex and which comprise free will or choice prostitution.”

    “Progressive” just means someone willing to use the force of government to make, what they believe, are societal improvements. That comes in a lot of flavors. Anything from banning prostitution to banning corporate monopolies to mandatory ‘volunteer’ service to the mandatory purchase of health insurance. Different factions of Progressives don’t agree on what constitutes a societal improvement. One faction might want to ban alcohol, while another might want to legalize alcohol, but ban drugs. The Greens are Progressives, just like the Prohibition Party, George W Bush, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR.

    What the Greens are not is Liberal.

  5. Anon-Tipper

    Democrats did this recently to Libertarian candidates, sending out flyers to conservative/Republicans voters.

  6. William T. Forrest

    Both Democrats and Republicans have done this to Libertarians for years now but mostly Democrats. Both should be encouraged to do so.

  7. William T. Forrest

    The Green Party platform is disproportionately controlled by Marxists who are highly motivated to get on platform committees and participate heavily in the platform debates in a somewhat organized fashion. I don’t think it reflects accurately the supporters of the Green Party in the US, let alone the global green movement.

  8. Jim

    William T. Forrest –

    I’m confused here. Are you saying that banning prostitution is a Marxist position, but not a Progressive one? Earlier you described three main factions in the US GP, 2 of which were Marxist and 1 Progressive, and now you say the Marxists control the platform. Presumably that means the Progressives do not and they disagree with the prostitution plank. That may be true within the US GP, but it is not out of line, historically, for Progressives to support anti-prostitution laws. It was Progressives who pushed through a lot of anti-prostitution laws in the early 1900s and the feminist sex wars have been going on for 4 decades.

  9. William T. Forrest

    I don’t think I said any of that. Just that a relatively small number of people attend national Green Party conventions, less than LP by far, especially because they have proxy voting at GP but not LP conventions. And out of those only relatively few get into platform debates. And out of those, very small but ideologically committed and organized groups – in this case, members of tiny Marxist sects which work within the Greens for ballot access and popular front reasons – have very disproportionate control of the platform debates. So, it would be a mistake to think the resulting platform accurately reflects the views of all Greens. I do not mean to venture out as far as considering what that means for any particular [plank, just a general principle we should take into account when we consider whether the platform accurately reflects Green beliefs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *