March 13, 2025
At 10:22 a.m. on Wednesday March 12, Curtis Gibson, a local political candidate, attempted to contact Daily Ridge regarding concerns over campaign advertising rates. Due to a prior engagement, a Daily Ridge representative responded via text, indicating a callback would follow. At 11:00 a.m., the call was returned, lasting approximately 18 minutes.
During the conversation, Gibson alleged that Daily Ridge provided his campaign team with a different political rate sheet than the one sent to the Hilligoss Campaign. Additionally, he claimed that Daily Ridge began promoting the Hilligoss campaign prior to receiving payment. In response, Daily Ridge reaffirmed its commitment to treating all candidates fairly, emphasizing that all campaign teams received the same rate sheet and advertising opportunities.
To clarify, Daily Ridge advised Gibson that digital records validate that both the Gibson and Hilligoss campaigns received the same rate sheet within hours of each other. The Hilligoss team opted for the “Victory Package” on November 14 and requested a prorated rate due to the election timeline. In response, the rate was reduced from $1,200 to $1,000. An invoice was sent, promptly paid, and the campaign’s advertisement was displayed on the website on November 16.
Gibson contested this, stating that records he obtained showed the Hilligoss campaign only paid $100. Daily Ridge refuted this, explaining that the invoice was for $1,000 and paid in full, suggesting that a clerical error might have occurred in the reported expenditure. When Gibson continued to challenge the accuracy of this information, he was advised that any further disputes would need to be handled through legal channels. Daily Ridge stressed that it had provided the truth and supporting evidence, yet Gibson continued to push false claims and double down on serious legal accusations.
Additionally, it was noted that Gibson’s campaign committed to a $600 advertising package on November 19, for which an invoice was sent. However, no payment or signed contract was received from his team. The invoice was ultimately withdrawn on March 3 due to non-payment. Gibson stated he would pay if he received the same $100 rate as Hilligoss, which was again refuted as misinformation.
Another point of contention arose when Gibson requested a podcast interview, citing fairness. It was explained that the interview was part of the Victory Package that Hilligoss purchased, and similar opportunities were available to any campaign that opted for the package. Paid Political Ad Podcast can be found here: Chattin on the Ridge
Later in the day, at approximately 6:47 p.m., a Daily Ridge reader alerted the company to a social media post by Danielle Pride, a member of Gibson’s political team. Pride questioned the discrepancy in advertising costs, implying potential price gouging. This post came hours after the conversation where Daily Ridge believed concerns had been addressed.
At 7:18 p.m., Pride followed up with another post, suggesting that either a lie or clerical error had occurred regarding campaign expenditures. These public statements, along with comments from the community, raised concerns at Daily Ridge regarding potential damage to its reputation and business relationships.
Daily Ridge remains committed to transparency and fair treatment of all political candidates. The company urges any party with concerns to seek direct clarification rather than fueling public speculation that could harm its standing in the community.
Follow-up: The Hilligoss Campaign team contacted Daily Ridge on March 13,Thursday morning, confirming that the discrepancy in their campaign expenditure report was indeed a clerical error on their side. The Hilligoss team has already submitted an amended report to the city clerk and has apologized for the mistake.
