Vivek Ramaswamy stops airing attack ad against Amy Acton

Oct 30 · Court and police records confirm Amy Acton's family lived in a tent Updated 10:46

Amy Acton released a new ad and public statements accusing Vivek Ramaswamy of exploiting childhood sexual abuse to save a struggling campaign. The Guardian reported that Donna Arthur lost custody of Acton after Acton's stepfather was charged with raping her as a child. The Guardian also reported that some of the ad's producers were concerned that Arthur may have mental health challenges and that the original 60-second version of the ad was edited to 30 seconds to remove a claim by Arthur regarding living in a tent that was contradicted by court records. Newsweek reported that court and police records confirm Acton's family lived in a tent. Ramaswamy stated the ad ran to completion, expressed a desire for the campaign to focus on policy, and criticized Acton for refusing to debate. Newsweek reported that JD Vance defended Ramaswamy's decision to run the advertisement, while former governors of Ohio condemned the advertisement as despicable and indecent.

The debate over whether the ad was a legitimate tactic has shifted toward the credibility of the source and the campaign's internal vetting. The Guardian provided evidence that the campaign edited the ad's length specifically to remove a claim by Donna Arthur that contradicted court records. This suggests the campaign was aware of the mother's unreliable testimony while still using her to attack the candidate.

Newsweek provided a notable independent verification by using court and police records to confirm that Acton's family did indeed live in a tent. This confirms that the campaign's decision to cut that specific claim from the ad was based on a factual contradiction, not a mere preference for brevity.

Reports that producers expressed concern over Arthur's mental health further complicate the campaign's claim that they were simply using a primary source. The focus is no longer just on the morality of using an estranged parent, but on whether the campaign knowingly used a compromised witness to create a false narrative.

Readers should now watch whether the campaign provides a detailed explanation for the editing process or continues to maintain that the ad simply ran its course.