Reporting the news is something that I hold to be a higher calling, a patriotic priesthood which as a commentator, I take care not to ordain myself to. An Irish statesmen named Edmund Burke called journalism the Fourth Estate of government, a defacto branch of democracy endowed as a final protection to hold political forces in check to the people they represent.

In my column at The Good Men Project, The Daily Brief, I write my opinions on news that has already been broken by qualified journalists, stories that I think are important to the electorate when making decisions on who they want to represent them in government. However, as it turns out, an important story has been dropped right into my lap, and since I’m deviating from that a bit, I am publishing here on Medium.

On April 17th, I published an article called A Call to Action for Democrats, at The Good Men Project, in which I wrote about the importance of the primary race in California’s Congressional District 23. That seat is held by Republican Kevin McCarthy, who is now in his sixth term and is expected to become the next Speaker of the House, following Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin’s surprise announcement that he will retire at the age of 48.

Within the article I discussed the history of the district and highlighted the closing gap between Congressman McCarthy, and Democratic challengers the last few elections including Wendy Reed, who is currently one of two viable candidates in a primary race along with Tatiana Matta.

Last Wednesday night, at about 10:30, I received a surprise message from Wendy Reed asking why I supported Matta over her, stating that I gave no evidence to support my endorsement.

And while I feel that is a completely inaccurate read of the article, which was about unseating Congressman McCarthy more than an endorsement of any candidate, I did state at the end of the piece that my personal preference was for Candidate Matta and that was not to imply an endorsement. I politely responded with some of my reasons for my preference and wished her well in her campaign.

Then things got weird.

“Your piece will influence people, even though you would not be a poor person having their water polluted here and lacking a representative to fight for them. It’s not a game, it really matters.”

I informed Ms. Reed that I was not playing a game, that I grew up in the district and that my family still lives there. I then reminded her that her comments were on the record.

She goes on to say:

“I think you have left out any good reason for recommending, personal or otherwise why you prefer an out-of-area, inexperienced candidate, who just wants to get elected so she can move to DC. Journalists ignore the realities of the situations… She [Tatiana Matta] was recruited by Chevron’s fracking interests to run against me. I have no concern about you publicizing anything I say on the record. As a region we are stunned that journalists do not cover the corruption of the Kern County Central Committee that recruited her to push Democrats off the Central Committee to have control over the endorsement process. Journalism is failing us. People’s lives are affected every day, and some of us have fought for them everyday while Ms. Matta was entering beauty contests. I hope you will reconsider editing your piece when you have done more research on the candidates.”

There were a handful of things that alarmed me about this response.

First, she accuses a fellow Democrat of being recruited by a “corrupt” political committee in league with a major oil corporation to spoil the race for her. Which if true, would certainly be a scandal. However, according to the website for Ms. Matta’s campaign, her environmental platform states the following:

Our district is negatively impacted by destructive environmental policies and deregulation. Dirty water and worsening air quality have severe effects on our citizens’ health and undermine our ability to attract businesses. Climate change costs our state billions of dollars a year and threatens our national security. Citizens throughout our communities cannot even drink the water from their taps without fear. I am committed to leading our district forward by reducing the destruction of the current administration’s environmental policies. We will start with: Investing in our water infrastructure and enforcing regulatory measures aimed at protecting our water supplies at the source. Leading initiatives for clean energy technologies such as solar and wind, so California can work towards energy independence. Protecting our waters from drilling, defending our natural resources, and preserving our wildlife from overdevelopment.

This would be in direct contrast to the interests of Chevron Oil in Kern County, who owns what is the fifth largest oil field in the country. Since most of the oil has already been removed from the field, “enhanced production technologies” such as steam flooding is utilized, the waste water being used to irrigate crops in an industry so large it’s known as “The Food Basket of the World”. The campaign has not reported any donations from Chevron Oil, or any PAC affiliated with Chevron, according to their FEC Disclosures.

So I reached out to the Matta campaign to look into Ms. Reed’s claims and asked if Ms. Matta had been recruited by Chevron Oil and a “corrupt KCDCC” to push Wendy Reed from the party.

“Absolutely not,” said campaign manager Elena Kim, “My understanding of the Kern County Central Committee is that it’s mostly part time volunteers, not big political operatives. We are not working together against Wendy.”

The Kern County Central Committee did not return my requests for comment.

When I asked for comment from Ms. Matta herself, she said: “There is a lot to unpack in my opponent’s attacks, none of it accurate or focused on how we work together to strengthen CA-23 for our families, our young people, and our seniors. I am determined to ensure that the people of our District finally have someone fighting for them in Washington, D.C., on affordable health care, education and economic development. I encourage my opponent’s to focus on these issues as well.”

There is a marked difference in the tone of response by both candidates, with the “inexperienced” candidate sounding much more like what one would expect from someone trying to unseat a six term incumbent.

According to another source close to Matta, Ms. Reed has had several run ins with the Matta campaign. While filming a segment for local station KGET’s Kern County In Depth, the source claims that Ms. Reed had become incensed that a single staffer for Ms. Matta had come to the taping saying that “I didn’t show up with an entourage, and [the staffer] must leave the room” before taping. After a few minutes of argument, KGET’s Jim Scott stepped in to allow the staffer to remain.“I’ve worked campaigns in DC, and I’ve worked campaigns in heavily conservative districts, I’ve never experienced anything like her from my own party. You are not the first journalist she’s contacted this way” the source said. KGET did not respond to requests for comment.

It’s been whispered in local politics that Reed is somewhat of a bully, and her tactics against fellow Democrats have been rumored to be the reason why Robert Owen, a Democratic attorney who had raised almost $20,000 dollars, more than any of the other five democrats running combined, mysteriously dropped out of the race last August.

The second, and much more alarming part for this writer, was the request to edit my article, remove my one line personal support of Tatiana Matta,, and replace it with an endorsment of Ms. Reed. After claiming that journalists are somehow colluding with the Democratic party in Kern County to not cover corruption, one cannot help but hear echoes of President Trump’s claims of “Fake News” when receiving what he considers unfavorable press.

To this writer, behavior such as this is deeply troubling from one of two viable candidates to stop Kevin McCarthy before becoming two heartbeats away from the Presidency. No political writer who takes themselves seriously would ever “edit” their publications based on unsupported conspiracy theory claims, offered without evidence, from a subject of their writing. No candidate who takes themselves seriously should be intimidated by their opposition’s staffers.

If issues like this can throw Ms. Reed into such spirals, she is woefully unprepared for national politics.

I asked Nathan Gonzales, political analyst for Roll Call and publisher of Inside Elections, what he thinks about the race in CA-23.

“I think Democrats face a couple of hurdles. Not only is it a Trump 58% district, but Romney and McCain won it with 61%, as well. So I don’t think Democrats can just boost Democratic turnout to get over the top. They need a Democratic surge and depressed Republicans to not show up to vote. There’s also a fundraising issue: McCarthy had $4.1 million on March 31, and would have outside allies’ help, while none of the Democrats had more than $10,000. Of course it’s not impossible, just incredibly unlikely right now.”

And he’s absolutely right, the Democrats face an unlikely uphill battle, which is why it’s so important that the DNC begins funding the race after the primaries. In the view of this writer, the country cannot afford to have a Speaker McCarthy at the right hand of a President Trump, and in this tale of two candidates, there’s a clear choice to be made. Democrats can support establishment politics and tactics, which have so far been unsuccessful in swaying a deeply Red district purple, or they can support something new, something different.

You’ve got two weeks, CA23. Vote for someone on June 5th.