How to Oppo

A Progressive Guide to Oppo Research in 1972

In July 1972, a month after the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate, the Congressional Action Fund published a “Handbook for Opposition Research.” I found a reference to it in the papers of Sargent Shriver, who became George McGovern’s running mate that August after Sen. Thomas Eagleton withdrew from the ticket. The helpful staff at the Kennedy Library digitized the Handbook and sent it to me at no charge.

First, a bit about the Congressional Action Fund.

It supported “progressive” Democrats running for Congress, selected for their “antiwar position and record” as well as their “chances of election or re-election against a pro war opponent, and need for money.”

In 1972, the Fund backed a number of candidates including Pat Schroeder of Colorado, and Andrew Young of Georgia. The organization also published the “Peace Portfolio,” a selection of works on paper by 12 artists, including Robert Motherwell and Saul Steinberg, priced at $1,500 per set in an edition of 175. (In 2021, a portfolio went for $8,750 at auction, including buyer’s premium.)

Nixon White House aide Charles W. “Chuck” Colson kept a file on the Congressional Action Fund. Enough said.

The Handbook for Opposition Research reads like an ad for a shiny, new appliance or a brochure pitching life insurance:

Opposition research has something for everyone. Relative to most facets of a campaign (getting votes, for example), it is cheaper, easier to obtain, completely honest, and damned effective. You’re probably wondering what this seductive commodity is all about - and how you can get some for your campaign.

The 15-page document seems quaint at times, but overall it has aged pretty well.

What Is Opposition Research?

According to the Handbook, people sometimes conflate oppo with “negative research,” but that’s a bad rap.

…it really isn’t negative since all you’re doing is making the other guy accountable for his past actions (or lack of same).

(Note how the Handbook assumes the gender of the candidate is male.)

The Handbook goes on to ask: Is oppo research “unethical,” part of “the old politics” progressives should abhor?

Not really, although it can be used that way. The bulk of opposition research is aimed at finding out where the incumbent stands on the issues and holding him accountable. You should look beyond the occasional skeletons — the one bad vote, the isolated quotation - and find patterns in your opponent’s record, thing that will really stand up under public scrutiny.

In a previous post, I wrote about the art of using oppo to make an old story appear new and relevant. The Handbook weighs in:

There is a tendency to assume, in doing opposition research, that all the major failings of an incumbent have already been brought to light — either in previous election campaigns or in the press during his term. Not so. You will be amazed at what you find in old Congressional Records or newspaper clippings. Most likely there is a case to be made, and a good one, on any crusty incumbent — regardless of his reputation.

This theory is being tested now in California’s 41st congressional district, as Democrat Will Rollins is up with a new ad mentioning an incident in 1993 that involves his opponent, a zipper and a car.

What to Look For

Although the Handbook went to print in 1972 — well before oppo research moved online — it has some useful tips that are relevant today:

In most cases you are looking for contradictions; turnabouts on key issues, speeches which don’t jibe with votes, telling one group one thing and another something else.

When digging into campaign contributions, oppo researchers should ask themselves:

…who are your opponent’s friends (are any of them disreputable), did your opponent get a lot of money from a single group or groups (how did he serve that special interest in the Congress), and how did he raise and/or spend the money in the last election (in conformity with campaign laws or not).

The Handbook also suggests looking for any failure to bring federal spending back home:

…you should evaluate your opponent’s effectiveness in bringing programs and business to your district. In many cases, Congressmen do nothing to secure available funds or inadvertently block grants through sheer incompetence… Believe it or not, there is plenty of federal money passed up each year.

And offers a word of caution:

We recommend you speak to as many people as possible about your opponent, but there is a problem: you may not want it known that you are investigating his background… You are risking disclosure when you talk with journalists, associates of the Congressman, his staff, or supporters.

The Handbook also gives a bit of advice about timing:

But don’t be surprised if you find a quote that is outlandish on its own merits. These are the kind you will want to save for the last days of the campaign when your opponent won’t have time to formulate a good response.

There’s a name for something that comes out in the final days of a campaign, when it can do the most damage: an October Surprise.

The Handbook also includes a list of resources, including two pamphlets from the Republican National Committee, which I am in the process of tracking down.

Finally, the Handbook sends the reader off with a cheerful:

Good luck and happy hunting!

You can almost hear the 70s-era soundtrack playing in the background.

Pass the Watergate Salad, please.

(Photo credit: Shutterstock.)