A Republican running for Congress in Virginia’s 7th District is trying to get one of his primary opponent’s attack ads taken down because he says it falsely accuses him of being investigated for fraud.
At issue is an accusation in a 2023 article by The Daily Beast that candidate Derrick Anderson may not live in the district he’s running in, which Mr. Anderson has refuted.
Cameron Hamilton, his chief primary rival, paid for an ad running on YouTube TV that attacks his opponent as “DC Derrick Anderson” and revives the residency allegation with a line that the Anderson campaign considers defamatory.
“Derrick claims he lives here, but he’s under investigation for fraud, lying about his residency,” the ad claims.
The Anderson campaign sent a cease and desist letter, shared exclusively with The Washington Times, to YouTube TV saying that the statement is “false and defamatory” and “cannot be supported by any facts.”
The 7th District seat is open this cycle since Rep. Abigail Spanberger opted to run for governor in 2025 instead of for reelection to the House this year. Both parties view the seat as competitive. In 2018, Ms. Spanberger, a Democrat, beat then GOP Rep. Dave Brat in the district located south of Washington, including the towns of Fredericksburg and Culpeper.
Several Republicans are running in the June 18 primary, but Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hamilton are considered the front-runners.
Mr. Anderson, who served in the Army Special Forces, is backed by GOP leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, is supported by several members of the anti-establishment House Freedom Caucus, including its chairman, Rep. Bob Good, who is facing a tough primary of his own in Virginia’s 5th District.
The Anderson campaign said it did not send a cease and desist letter to the Hamilton campaign because standard practice is to first try to get the provider to take the ad down.
Mr. Anderson previously raised the issue with Mr. Hamilton during a May 24 candidate forum, asking him to take down an earlier version posted online.
“It’s not a false ad because it’s true,” Mr. Hamilton said, citing concern that Eugene Vindman, the leading Democratic candidate, is an ethics attorney who would use the issue in the general election. “Voters deserve to know the full breadth of information.”
Mr. Anderson responded that he lives in Spotsylvania County and “there is no investigation against me right now.”
He and his campaign say the issue stems from a confidential complaint submitted to the District of Columbia’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel seeking to get Mr. Anderson, a licensed D.C. attorney, disbarred. The complaint cites The Daily Beast article “and introduces no additional facts,” the campaign says in its letter to YouTube TV.
The residency question stems from Mr. Anderson’s ownership of an Alexandria home, which he bought using a Veterans Affairs loan that requires the home to be the recipient’s primary residence for a year. Neither side disputes that.
The Hamilton campaign claims that a few months after purchasing his Alexandria home, Mr. Anderson used a rented apartment to register to vote in Spotsylvania County.
“Both addresses cannot legally be his primary residence so the question becomes: did Derrick commit mortgage fraud and defraud the VA or did he commit voter fraud?” Hamilton campaign manager Jonathon Nave said. “One of the two is true, which legitimizes the allegation made in the complaint.”
The Anderson campaign reiterated that the candidate lives in his home district and slammed the fraud allegation as an “absurd” and false attack.
“We would ask that voters remember not to trust people who will lie and mislead to achieve power,” Anderson campaign manager Diego de la Pena said. “That’s not a characteristic we want in our leaders.”
But more importantly, the Anderson campaign argues, is that Mr. Anderson is not under investigation for fraud. The D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel verified that the complaint, which would not normally be made public but was leaked to The Daily Beast for a follow-up article, is categorized as “undocketed” and no decision has been made on whether to open an investigation.
The assertion that Mr. Anderson is under investigation for fraud “is a deliberate falsehood that is quite clearly defamatory,” the letter said. They requested that YouTube immediately remove the ad and refuse to air any subsequent advertisements with similar content.
The Hamilton campaign called the letter “petulant” in a statement to The Times and provided documentation from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel explaining that its rules require it to defer a decision on whether to investigate the complaint until after the primary election because it was filed within 90 days of the election.
The Hamilton campaign said the office “will have every reason” to investigate after the primary, while the Anderson campaign expects the complaint to be dismissed as “unfounded on its face.”
• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.