Pink Heels and Political Warfare: How a Viral 2023 Video Is Shaping the Pennsylvania 8th District Race

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. How a Charitable Moment Was Repurposed into a Campaign Asset
4. The People at the Center
5. Why Visuals Are Central to Modern Negative Ads
6. Legal and Ethical Complexities of Using Someone’s Likeness in Political Ads
7. The Broader Political Strategy: Why Parties Use Cultural Flashpoints
8. Media Amplification and the Speed of Viral Political Content
9. Voter Impact: Turnout Patterns and What May Decide the Race
10. Ethical Considerations for Campaigns and Media Outlets
11. Potential Legal Pathways and Their Likely Effectiveness
12. The Risks Campaigns Accept When They Weaponize Third Parties
13. Crisis Communication and How Campaigns Can Respond
14. What This Episode Reveals About the State of American Campaigns
15. Steps Voters and Third Parties Can Take When Faced with Politically Charged Ads
16. A Narrow Moment, a Wide Lesson
17. FAQ

Key Highlights

• A 2023 charity video of Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan trying on hot-pink high heels has resurfaced and become a political weapon as Democrats use it to push back against an NRCC ad targeting Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti and a local drag performer.
• The dispute raises legal and ethical questions about the use of a person's image in political advertising, the bounds of political speech, and the way culture-war issues are being deployed to mobilize voters in a competitive Pennsylvania district.
• The episode illustrates a broader strategic pattern: negative ads that spotlight nontraditional public figures and emotionally charged imagery can shift attention from policy to personality—and can produce both political risks and legal entanglements for campaigns.

Introduction

A short, playful clip shot during a 2023 charity event has become a central skirmish in one of Pennsylvania's most watched congressional contests. The footage shows incumbent Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan trying on and testing hot-pink high heels ahead of Pittston’s Paint Pittston Pink Gentlemen's Dash, a race that raises money for cancer research. The image reappeared this summer as Democrats circulated the video in response to an NRCC-backed ad that used a photograph of Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti standing with drag performer Lady Lydia (Frank Carey) at a Pride flag-raising—an ad that framed the mayor as endorsing policies tied to transgender athletes and bathroom access.

The exchange escalated when the drag performer launched a fundraiser to pay for legal action to remove the ad, arguing that the campaign improperly used his likeness. Campaign spokespeople and party organizations traded sharp public statements. Voters in the Pennsylvania 8th Congressional District now see culture-war imagery—and questions about privacy and political boundaries—front and center as the fall contest approaches.

The clash illustrates how a single, lighthearted moment can be repurposed into a political tool, how parties use social and cultural flashpoints to energize their bases, and how third-party individuals can find themselves navigating both legal options and the glare of national politics.

How a Charitable Moment Was Repurposed into a Campaign Asset

The original video surfaced in 2023 during a community event in Pittston called the Paint Pittston Pink Gentlemen’s Dash, an annual fundraiser in which men don high heels to raise funds for cancer research. Bresnahan’s clip—him trying on several pairs of women's shoes and joking while testing a pair on a treadmill—was filmed in the spirit of that local charitable tradition.

Campaigns thrive on visual narratives. Opponents and party committees routinely mine social media, local news footage, and community event photos for material that can be edited into ads or spread on digital platforms. The National Republican Congressional Committee and Bresnahan’s campaign used images and messaging aimed at framing Cognetti as aligned with left-wing activists; their commercial included a photograph of Mayor Cognetti with a drag performer from a Pride celebration. The ad accused Cognetti of supporting policies that would "force grown men in girls' bathrooms and women's sports."

Democrats rapidly countered by circulating the pink-heel video. Their argument reframed the conversation: if Republicans were willing to run an ad spotlighting a drag performer to make an emotional point about policy, then a playful, non-sexual instance of a Republican candidate dressing in heels to raise money for cancer research should be fair game. The exchange shows how modern campaigns can flip imagery to turn an opponent’s wedge strategy back on them.

The People at the Center

Rob Bresnahan: The incumbent Republican ran unopposed in the May primary and received more than 38,000 votes. He has now become the subject of new attention not for legislation or constituency work, but for a short clip in which he tried on bright pink heels as part of a fundraising dash. Bresnahan’s campaign and the NRCC framed the use of the drag performer’s image as proof of Cognetti’s poor judgment and alignment with left-leaning activist causes.

Paige Cognetti: The Scranton mayor secured all Democratic primary votes in the 8th District on May 19, winning about 58,726 votes. Cognetti previously attended a Scranton event welcoming transgender and nonbinary residents and has publicly expressed support for transgender youth, saying that "trans youth belong here in PA" and framing schools as places for education rather than discrimination. There is no public record of Cognetti advocating specifically for men in women's bathrooms or for men to participate in women's sports; those are claims made by opponents in the ad’s narrative rather than sourced statements by Cognetti.

Lady Lydia (Frank Carey): The drag performer featured in the Scranton Pride photo that appeared in the NRCC ad responded by launching an online fundraiser to pay for legal action aiming to remove the commercial and defend his privacy. On social media he described the experience as unexpected and emotionally difficult. The GoFundMe filed under "NOT a Political Prop: Stand with Lady Lydia" criticized the advertisement for singling him out and using his image in a way that suggested activism to be shameful.

NRCC and Campaign Voices: The National Republican Congressional Committee’s spokesman Reilly Richardson pointed to photos showing children at the Pride event and referenced online monikers used by the performer. Bresnahan’s campaign spokesperson called the Democrats’ response "abhorrent," accusing opponents of drawing false equivalencies between raising money for breast cancer and men dressing in drag in front of children.

Why Visuals Are Central to Modern Negative Ads

Political advertising has always relied on imagery as shorthand for character, intent, and judgment. That has only intensified with social media and short-form video formats. Images of a candidate in an unexpected context can be repurposed to imply inconsistency, hypocrisy, or moral failings. Negative messaging doesn’t always present new policy differences; it often aims to create a memorable emotional impression.

This cycle—image mined, ad produced, counter-image circulated—unfolds quickly in battleground districts. The NRCC’s decision to use a photo of a drag performer standing with Cognetti at a Pride ceremony was calculated: it compresses a longer set of policy debates about LGBTQ+ rights, education, and parental concerns into a single visual. The Bresnahan campaign’s critics pointed out that such visuals can distort nuance. When Democrats used Bresnahan’s own playful clip, they leveraged the same mechanism: a single frame suggesting incongruity. Both sides rely on short, emotionally resonant content that travels rapidly across platforms and into voters’ social feeds.

The strategic logic behind such ads is straightforward: they capture attention, provoke conversation, and shape early perceptions. But the approach has risks. It can backfire if voters view the creative choice as petty, hypocritical, or unrelated to pressing policy questions like the economy, healthcare, or public safety. It also exposes both campaigns and the individuals photographed to legal and reputational fallout.

Legal and Ethical Complexities of Using Someone’s Likeness in Political Ads

When a political campaign uses a photograph or video of a person, the legal questions that follow are rarely simple. Several legal concepts typically enter the discussion: the right of publicity (the right to control commercial use of one’s likeness), privacy claims, defamation, and First Amendment protections for political speech.

Right of Publicity and Privacy: The right of publicity protects individuals against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity. That right varies by jurisdiction and can be contested when the use is political rather than purely commercial. Public events—parades, rallies, and official ceremonies—are generally understood to have lowered expectations of privacy. Photographs taken at public events are frequently used by journalists and political actors. Yet the line blurs when a campaign uses an image in a paid advertisement with a clear political message, particularly if the portrayal could be damaging or misleading.

Defamation and False Light: If an ad suggests false facts about a person—such as alleging they endorse a specific policy or perform illegal acts—there may be room for defamation or "false light" invasion-of-privacy claims. These claims require showing that false statements were made about the individual; in many cases, political speech is afforded broad protection, and courts weigh the public interest in free expression heavily.

First Amendment Defenses: Political speech ranks among the most protected kinds of expression in the United States. Defendants in lawsuits challenging political ads often invoke First Amendment protections, arguing that discussion of public affairs, including the political associations of public figures, is constitutionally safeguarded—even if it is controversial or offensive.

Practical Remedies: In practice, individuals who object to the use of their image have several non-judicial options: they can request a takedown from the platform hosting the ad (social media platforms and broadcasters have terms of service and advertising policies that may apply), demand the campaign stop using the image, or issue a public statement to reframe the narrative. Litigation is costly and uncertain. It requires balancing potential legal remedies against reputational goals, the publicity that litigation will generate, and the time and expense involved.

In this Pennsylvania episode, Lady Lydia’s fundraiser reflects that reality. He framed the issue as one of privacy and unauthorized use, asking supporters to help finance legal options. His situation underscores how third-party individuals—performers, activists, and ordinary citizens—can suddenly become entangled in high-stakes legal and political battles.

The Broader Political Strategy: Why Parties Use Cultural Flashpoints

Culture-war issues—transgender rights, drag performances, bathroom access, and school curricula—have emerged as potent wedge topics. These issues can mobilize core party constituencies, frame opponents as out of step with community norms, and serve as a proxy for broader debates about identity, values, and governance.

Why these themes work for some campaigns:

• Emotional Intensity: Cultural issues evoke strong reactions that drive engagement, donations, and turnout.
• Simplicity: Complex policy debates condense into easily digestible narratives: safety, children, or tradition versus inclusion and rights.
• Base Activation: Messages centered on culture often mobilize the party’s base more reliably than one-off policy proposals.

But these strategies also carry costs:

• Polarization: They can deepen divides and make compromise harder.
• Backlash: Voters fatigued by negative campaigning or that see the approach as manipulative may be pushed away.
• Relevance: In districts where voters are more concerned with bread-and-butter issues, culture-war messaging may not translate into votes.

Pennsylvania’s 8th District is a microcosm of these calculations. Southeastern and northeastern Pennsylvania contain pockets where social issues resonate strongly; they also include voters who prioritize economics, infrastructure, and healthcare. Campaigns must balance the energizing effect of culture-war messaging against the risk of alienating moderates and independents.

Media Amplification and the Speed of Viral Political Content

Digital platforms make it possible for local moments to become national talking points. A short clip—whether humorous, awkward, or provocative—can travel from a small-town event to millions of timelines within hours. That speed changes how campaigns operate. Rapid responses are essential to seize control of a narrative before it calcifies.

In the Bresnahan-Cognetti episode, both campaigns raced to produce content: Republicans with an ad framing Cognetti as permissive toward activists, and Democrats pushing Bresnahan’s heels video to raise questions about the ad’s fairness. The speed of distribution means mistakes become expensive. Misattributed images, misleading framing, or the use of images without permission trigger immediate backlash and can dominate news cycles.

Platforms themselves exert influence. Social networks, search companies, and broadcasters enforce rules about political advertising and image use, though enforcement is uneven. Campaigns that miscalculate platform responses find their material less effective if it is removed or labeled. Conversely, the attention generated by takedown attempts or legal disputes can amplify the very message the complainant wanted suppressed.

Voter Impact: Turnout Patterns and What May Decide the Race

Primary numbers offer a partial preview of general-election dynamics. In May’s primary, Democratic turnout in the 8th District outpaced Republican turnout. Cognetti’s 58,726 votes compared to Bresnahan’s 38,075 indicate a strong Democratic mobilization during the nomination phase. Whether that advantage holds in a general election depends on turnout differences, independent voters’ leanings, and how successfully each campaign frames the contest.

Key voter considerations in this district:

• Economic Issues: Jobs, wages, manufacturing, and healthcare remain top issues for many voters who prioritize day-to-day material concerns over cultural debates.
• Cultural Messaging: For some voters, imagery tied to LGBTQ+ events and drag performances will be decisive, particularly in suburban and rural precincts where cultural conservatism is stronger.
• Candidate Character: Negative ads can sway perceptions of character and trustworthiness. If voters see a campaign as unfairly targeting private individuals or misrepresenting facts, the backlash can hurt the advertiser.
• Local vs National Dynamics: The nationalization of local races can change campaign dynamics. Outside groups and national party committees funnel money into ads, amplifying narratives that may not reflect local priorities.

Campaigns tailor messages to micro-targeted voter groups. Republicans may deploy culture-war ads to turn out conservative-leaning voters, while Democrats may aim to portray these attacks as petty and focus on governance. The interplay of these strategies will shape turnout and, ultimately, the result.

Ethical Considerations for Campaigns and Media Outlets

Beyond legal questions lie ethical considerations that govern campaign behavior and journalistic practice. Campaigns that prioritize sensationalism over substance risk eroding public trust. Media organizations must decide how to cover emotionally charged ads without amplifying misleading claims.

Ethical questions include:

• Consent and Context: Was a subject made aware that their image might appear in a political context? Even if legally permissible, using an image out of context can mislead viewers.
• Vulnerable Parties: Are minors or non-consenting third parties depicted? The presence of children at public events complicates ethical assessments.
• Accuracy: Do ad narratives conflate association with endorsement? Political actors often stand near a range of community members; equating proximity with advocacy misrepresents nuance.
• Proportionality: Does the political value of the image outweigh potential harm to the person depicted?

Journalists, meanwhile, must separate the spectacle from the policy implications. Reporting the facts about ad content, campaign statements, and the legal claims of those depicted helps voters make informed choices. Editorial choices—what to emphasize, what context to provide—shape public understanding.

Potential Legal Pathways and Their Likely Effectiveness

If an individual sues to stop a political ad that uses their image, courts weigh several factors. The outcome depends on the jurisdiction’s laws, whether the person is a public figure, the context in which the photo was taken, and whether the ad’s claims are true or misleading.

Common legal claims and likely hurdles:

• Right of Publicity: Suits based on unauthorized commercial exploitation face counterarguments that political speech is noncommercial and constitutionally protected. Some courts differentiate between commercial advertising and political speech, giving more protection to the latter.
• False Light and Defamation: Proving false light or defamation requires showing that the ad presented false facts and did so with negligence or malice, depending on the plaintiff’s status as a public or private figure. It is difficult to win unless the ad contains demonstrably false factual assertions.
• Invasion of Privacy: Where a photo is taken in a public setting, invasion-of-privacy claims tend to be weak. Private events or staged photos create stronger privacy claims.
• Contract and Release Issues: If the event organizer secured broad photo releases or if the performer signed a contract permitting image use, legal remedies may be limited.

Litigation can produce injunctions, damages, or public clarifications, but it also draws attention. Many individuals choose to pursue platform takedowns, public statements, and media outreach instead of—or in addition to—court action, because those routes can be faster, cheaper, and more likely to achieve immediate practical results.

The Risks Campaigns Accept When They Weaponize Third Parties

When a campaign uses the image of a third party to make a political point, it accepts several risks:

• Legal Exposure: The campaign may face costly legal challenges or regulatory complaints.
• Reputational Costs: Voters and independent media may criticize campaigns that appear to bully or misrepresent an individual.
• Counterattack Vulnerability: Opponents can flip the tactic by publicizing the campaign’s own moments that appear incongruous or hypocritical.
• Unintended Narrative Shifts: Instead of focusing on their preferred policy message, campaigns can end up embroiled in sympathetic narratives for the person targeted.

The Bresnahan-Cognetti exchange underscores these hazards. Republicans’ ad intended to paint Cognetti as aligned with activists on contentious questions, but the pushback and subsequent circulation of the pink-heels clip reframed the dispute as one about fairness and image-scrutiny rather than policy substance.

Crisis Communication and How Campaigns Can Respond

When an ad generates controversy, effective crisis communication matters. Practical steps campaigns and individuals can take include:

• Rapid Fact-Checking: Release clear, factual statements about the origin of the photo or footage and the context in which it was taken.
• Legal Review: Determine whether existing releases, licenses, or platform rules affect the ad’s status. Legal counsel can advise on whether a cease-and-desist is warranted and likely to succeed.
• Platform Complaints: If a platform’s advertising policies are violated, pursue formal takedown requests or appeals.
• Media Engagement: Get the subject’s perspective into the press quickly to control the narrative.
• De-escalation: When possible, remove or replace content that is legally risky or that produces disproportionate backlash.

Third parties such as performers and event organizers are advised to negotiate image releases carefully, particularly when interacting with politicians or public events. For performers who want to avoid inadvertent political use, explicit restrictions in agreements can limit how images are distributed.

What This Episode Reveals About the State of American Campaigns

The exchange between the Bresnahan and Cognetti campaigns captures several enduring trends in contemporary politics:

• Personalization of Conflict: Campaigns now target personal moments and relationships, not just voting records or policy positions.
• Visual Economy: A simple image or short video clip can shape a narrative far more efficiently than long-form argumentation.
• Weaponization of Culture: Social and cultural disputes are powerful motivators and simple frames for negative ads.
• Collateral Impact: Nonpolitical actors—performers, volunteers, attendees—can be thrust into the political arena with limited preparation or protection.
• Legal Gray Zones: The intersection of image rights, free speech, and political advertising remains contested and often unresolved until litigated.

These dynamics yield a political environment where messaging speed and emotional clarity sometimes trump nuance. The consequence is a higher probability of misrepresentation, legal disputes, and public fatigue with conflict-driven campaigns.

Steps Voters and Third Parties Can Take When Faced with Politically Charged Ads

For voters:

• Verify Claims: Look for independent reporting and fact checks that evaluate the ad’s assertions.
• Consider Context: Assess whether an image was taken at a public event and whether the ad’s narrative accurately reflects the subjects’ statements and positions.
• Focus on Policy: Evaluate candidates based on their records and proposals, not only on emotionally charged ads.

For performers and community participants:

• Document Your Agreements: If you participate in public events, request written photo-release terms and clarify political use restrictions.
• Be Prepared: If you’re a public performer, have a plan for responding to unexpected political use of your image.
• Seek Advice: Nonprofit groups and arts organizations often provide resources on media and legal questions.

For campaigns:

• Vet Third-Party Content: Secure releases when possible and conduct a risk analysis before deploying emotionally charged images.
• Use Accurate Framing: Avoid implying endorsements or stances that are not supported by clear evidence.
• Plan for Rapid Response: Have legal and communications teams ready to address disputes or takedown requests.

A Narrow Moment, a Wide Lesson

A short, lighthearted recording from a local charity event became a symbolic object in a high-profile electoral contest. That transformation reveals how modern campaigns operate: fast, image-driven, and willing to engage controversies that resonate emotionally. For candidates and parties, the calculus is straightforward—use what works to motivate supporters. For those unexpectedly caught in the crossfire, the stakes include reputation, privacy, and sometimes legal exposure.

This dispute in Pennsylvania’s 8th District does more than highlight one campaign’s tactics. It illuminates the friction between political speech and individual rights, the ethical choices campaigns face in how they portray opponents and third parties, and the strategic trade-offs involved in leveraging cultural flashpoints. Voters watching the race must weigh whether the images showcased truly reflect a candidate’s fitness to serve or are simply convenient shortcuts to provoke feeling. Meanwhile, performers and private citizens confronted with political uses of their likenesses now confront a familiar modern reality: a moment filmed for charity can become a national headline.

FAQ

Q: Who is Rob Bresnahan, and what is the clip showing him? A: Rob Bresnahan is the Republican incumbent in Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District. The clip shows him trying on and testing hot-pink high heels during the 2023 Paint Pittston Pink Gentlemen’s Dash, a charity event in Pittston that raises funds for cancer research. The footage was filmed with a community, fundraising purpose.

Q: What did the NRCC ad allege about Paige Cognetti? A: The ad featured a photograph of Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti standing with a drag performer at a Pride flag-raising ceremony and accused her of supporting policies framed as letting "grown men in girls' bathrooms and women's sports." Those claims were presented in the ad as rhetorical arguments rather than documented statements by Cognetti.

Q: Did Cognetti explicitly support "men in girls' bathrooms" or men competing in women's sports? A: There is no public record presented in the coverage that Cognetti expressly advocated for the policies phrased in that way. She has expressed support for transgender youth and supported events for transgender and nonbinary residents, but direct support for specific claims in the ad is not documented in the reporting.

Q: Who is Lady Lydia (Frank Carey), and why did he start a GoFundMe? A: Lady Lydia is the stage name of drag performer Frank Carey. He started a GoFundMe fundraiser called "NOT a Political Prop: Stand with Lady Lydia" to raise money for potential legal action and to seek removal of the political ad that used his image. His stated objections focus on privacy and unauthorized use of his likeness in a political context.

Q: What legal options exist if someone’s image is used in a political ad without consent? A: Legal options can include claims based on the right of publicity, invasion of privacy, false light, or defamation—depending on the ad’s content and jurisdiction. The success of such claims varies. Political speech receives strong First Amendment protection, and images taken at public events often weaken privacy claims. Many opt for non-litigious remedies first, such as takedown requests to platforms and public statements.

Q: Are political campaigns allowed to use photos taken at public events? A: Generally, photos and videos taken at public events can be used for news reporting and political commentary. However, the context matters: using an image in a paid campaign ad that alleges endorsement or depicts someone in a misleading way can raise legal and ethical questions. Platform policies and local laws also influence what is permissible.

Q: Could this ad be removed from social platforms? A: Platforms have their own advertising policies, and campaigns must comply with platform rules. If an ad violates those policies—on grounds such as misuse of image, deceptive content, or other terms—platforms may remove or label the content. Success often depends on the specific platform’s rules and whether a formal complaint is filed.

Q: How might this dispute influence the outcome of the race? A: The dispute could mobilize voters on both sides. Cultural messaging can increase turnout among motivated bases, but it can also alienate moderates focused on economic or local governance issues. Primary turnout figures showed stronger Democratic participation in May, but general-election dynamics will determine the final outcome.

Q: What can campaigns do to avoid controversies over image use? A: Best practices include obtaining written image releases when possible, vetting third-party content before use, ensuring ad claims are accurate and not misleading, and preparing a rapid-response plan for takedowns or clarifications. Consulting legal counsel before deploying potentially sensitive images reduces legal risk.

Q: What should performers or attendees do when they don’t want their images used in political ads? A: Where feasible, request explicit restrictions in photo releases or event agreements. If an image is used without permission, consider contacting the campaign to request removal, file a complaint with the hosting platform, issue a public statement to clarify context, and consult legal counsel about potential claims.

Q: Will the legal action likely succeed in removing the ad? A: Outcomes depend on many factors. Courts balance the right to control one’s likeness against strong First Amendment protections for political speech. If the ad contains demonstrably false statements or uses the image in a way that violates platform rules or contractual agreements, a takedown or successful legal claim is more plausible. Litigation outcomes are uncertain and can be costly and time-consuming.

Q: What larger lesson should voters take from this episode? A: Voters should scrutinize political ads for accuracy and context and separate emotion-driven messaging from substantive policy positions. Images can be powerful and persuasive, but they do not always capture the full picture of a candidate’s record or intentions. Consider candidate records and proposals alongside the narratives presented in ads.

Q: How can citizens stay informed about the accuracy of political ads? A: Rely on reputable news sources, fact-checking organizations, and statements from campaigns that provide context. Look for primary sources—such as speeches, official statements, and voting records—rather than relying solely on short-form ads or social media posts. If an ad makes a factual claim, check whether independent reporting corroborates it.

Q: Are there examples from other races where similar tactics were used? A: Across recent election cycles, campaigns have used cultural and identity-based imagery to frame opponents. These tactics have appeared in races at local, state, and national levels, often sparking debate about fairness, privacy, and the political use of nontraditional public figures. Each case has its own legal and political context.

Q: What role do national party committees play in such local disputes? A: National committees like the NRCC provide funding, advertising support, and strategic messaging to local campaigns. Their involvement can nationalize a local contest by injecting resources and narratives designed to resonate with broader party constituencies.

Q: If I’m a voter in the 8th District, where can I find reliable information about candidates? A: Official campaign websites, public records of votes and policy positions, local news outlets, nonpartisan voter guides, and verified statements and debates are good starting points. Cross-reference claims made in ads with these sources for a clearer picture.

Q: What happens if both parties continue to trade personal attacks? A: Continued personalization of conflict can shift focus away from policy debates, increase polarization, and deepen voter cynicism. It can also lead to more media attention and short-term engagement. Ultimately, the effectiveness of such tactics depends on local voter priorities and the broader political environment.