American Conservative Union Says No Endorsement Made In GA-9 Race; UPDATED

The following is a statement from the American Conservative Union:

“To be clear, the American Conservative Union does not endorse candidates. Our ACU PAC, however, does endorse candidates but has no plans to endorse a primary candidate in the race for the Republican seat for the 9th Congressional District of Georgia.”

This statement conflicts with both a press release sent yesterday by Martha Zoller’s campaign, and a follow up e-mail supplied to Peach Pundit indicating a board member of the ACU PAC had expressly given permission to the Zoller campaign to use the word “endorsement”.  That email neither included an ACU letterhead nor was from an ACU email address, however.

Regardless, it does appear that Zoller had the right to believe there was an endorsement, but the official statement from the ACU is clear.  There is no endorsement from them in this race.

Updated: The American Conservative Union is now distributing the following statement with additional clarification:

Statement by ACU Communications Director Laura Rigas:

“The American Conservative Union does not endorse candidates. Our ACU PAC, however, does endorse candidates but has no plans to endorse a primary candidate in the race for the Republican seat for the 9th Congressional District of Georgia. We mistakenly communicated that an endorsement had been made where there was no such endorsement. We accept responsibility for this mistake and apologize for any inconvenience. Both candidates are strong conservatives and we wish them well.”

11 comments

  1. Dave Bearse says:

    Not bothering to confirm is nothing short of sloppy. Is this what constituents can expect from Zoller representation?

  2. I don’t mean to throw stones at you Charlie as you are just reporting what you have been told, but saying “it does appear that Zoller had the right to believe there was an endorsement” is a bit of a stretch. Either this board member is acting way out of bounds by personally speaking for the whole organization or someone in Zoller’s camp “misheard” what they were being told. In any event, they should have known to wait for the official endorsement ON LETTERHEAD.

    I’m not in the 9th, but it seems from everything I’ve read and understood about this race that Collins is a proven conservative with a 100% ACU voting record to prove it and Zoller is a “talk show host” who can talk a good game, but who probably would serve the cause better staying in the radio booth.

    • bullFrog says:

      There has been little press on this race even within the 9th. That may have something to do with conclusion to which you have jumped.

      I won’t knock ACU’s rating system, but it’s not all-inclusive, resulting in many getting on their list that should raise an eyebrow. Americans for Prosperity gave Mr. Collins a low ‘B’ on their 2011-2012 Legislator Score Card. He has supported tax increases and debt ceiling raises. He voted for restrictions to firearm carry permits, yet NRA endorsed him? Go figure. Maybe NRA doesn’t do an adequate job on research.

      If Charlie says she had a right to believe the endorsement was there, then I’m sure the light of day will clarify things before, say, Collins starts calling her a liar. Oh, wait, he already has. Isn’t that special!

    • Joshua Morris says:

      Seriously, Luke? Anyone who has been close to a race like this knows that a candidate will go ahead and publicize an endorsement when given even verbal confirmation from a spokesperson for a particular organization, especially less than a month out from the election.

      And if you want to be honest about your second paragraph, neither of these candidates is really more conservative than the other. They are working minute details to try to differentiate themselves from each other. Plus, this is the first contested race for either of them, and this has been evident throughout.

  3. Or maybe, just maybe, there were some imperfect human beings involved in the process and an actual miscommunication occurred. Must we really look for a conspiracy or negative meaning in everything? We don’t know the complete story, so we shouldn’t just fill in the blanks.

    • Napoleon says:

      I think how both campaigns deal with this will speak volumes about the individual candidates. I think Martha needs to quickly (meaning today) admit the mistake and apologize without making excuses (buck stops here) and Doug needs to give her campaign a short bit of leeway to do that before it attacks her for making up endorsements.

      As for the endorsement, Martha should have used Reagan’s philosophy, “trust but verify” when it did not come on official letterhead.

Comments are closed.