Opposition researchers are famous for conjuring up “macaca" moments, but one of our greatest contributions to a candidate is self-defense.
That might sound counterintuitive given that the image many have of our profession, courtesy of depictions like this one in the New York Times, is one of young nerds cramped into an office war room where information is constantly pouring in. There’s also the more outdated version of the private investigator in a trench coat riffling through a rival candidate’s trash.
The reality is that while some candidates may shy away from using oppo for fear of dabbling in dirty tricks, the absence of opposition research has the ability to kill a campaign. Investing in research early not only gives a campaign the tools to protect itself against attacks from an opponent, it provides the weapons necessary to take the fight to that opponent when needed.
The ultimate misconception is that we as oppo researchers focus all of our energies on the opponent. Sure, it’s important to know who the opponent is, to understand their background, positions, vulnerabilities, and their strengths. But in order to win, which is our ultimate objective, we first need to study the client.
By putting ourselves in the shoes of the “enemy” we can independently research the candidate to determine a few things. For instance, how is the client publicly defined? And if there isn’t already a public definition affixed to that client, how will the opponent try to define the client? Moreover, will the opponent seek to re-define the client? What are the client’s greatest strengths and vulnerabilities?
Even though we may have found everything that the opponent can find on our client, we need to know the entire story. To serve that end, we’ll have confidential communications with the client. This is one of the reasons why it’s good to retain an opposition research firm that has at least one attorney on the payroll because that attorney is going to ask questions that you as the candidate don’t necessarily want the public to learn about. In that case, it’s good to have attorney-client privilege on your side.
Now, the average candidate isn’t thrilled when I say: “We are going to have to schedule a meeting where you tell me your darkest secrets — the ones our team may not have been able to find through our initial research process.” It’s a scary thought, right? The typical candidate is more fearful than the average person to engage in that type of conversation.
As a result, it’s incumbent upon the researcher to do everything in their power to make the candidate feel comfortable. At our firm, I will tender a letter of engagement to the client in my capacity as a licensed and practicing attorney thereby entering an attorney-client relationship for the purposes stated in the letter of engagement.
Part of the client formally retaining my law firm is that they are protected by attorney-client privilege (within the scope of my representation as outlined in the letter of engagement). In other words, the information provided to me by the client will forever remain private: absent extreme circumstances, not even a court of law can compel me to testify to the contents of my private communication with the candidate.
Let’s face it, we’ve all made mistakes. We all have vulnerabilities. In the end, what we do as researchers is all about framing the issue, and properly communicating that message to your audience. But before communicating that message, we need to know everything. As a candidate, don’t be afraid to let your oppo researchers help build the foundation for a winning campaign.
Jacob G. Daniels is an attorney and a GOP political operative. In addition to his practice of law, Daniels is a Senior Partner at Oregon Research Consultants.