U.S. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is threatening legal action against Democratic challenger Leela Gray over a campaign ad accusing the Republican incumbent of giving inside information to a donor, escalating an increasingly personal fight over money and ethics in Florida’s 13th Congressional District.
Attorneys representing Luna sent Gray a cease-and-desist letter Wednesday demanding that her campaign remove the ad, retract several statements and preserve records related to its creation. The letter gives Gray until 5 p.m. Friday to confirm compliance and says Luna is prepared to pursue legal remedies if she does not.
The dispute stems from “Mission,” Gray’s first general election television ad, which launched Tuesday as part of a six-figure television and digital buy. The 30-second spot casts Luna as part of a “culture of corruption” in Washington and says she is “giving insider information to her donor.”
Luna’s attorneys say the campaign transformed an unproven allegation into a statement of fact and misrepresented the news report it cited.
The ad references a July Tampa Bay Times story headlined, “Anna Paulina Luna had insider info, may have helped influencer make bets: report.” That story followed reporting from the Wall Street Journal involving conservative social media personality Rogan O’Handley, known online as DC Draino, and a wager on the prediction market Polymarket.
The allegation was that Luna may have told O’Handley that Donald Trump planned to select JD Vance as his 2024 running mate before the decision became public, potentially giving him information useful for placing a wager. Luna and O’Handley have denied that she provided information for that purpose.
Luna’s attorneys focused on two changes in Gray’s presentation of that reporting.
The letter says Gray’s campaign reproduced the Times headline while removing the words “may have,” changing what Luna’s attorneys characterize as a qualified allegation into an assertion of fact. It also objects to Gray describing O’Handley as a Luna “donor,” noting that the cited Times story described him as a commentator and social media figure.
“Your Advertisement is false,” attorneys Charles Spies and Dahlyn Sugrue wrote. “It is also demonstrably not supported by the source it cites.”
The Department of Justice subsequently told Luna that it had not investigated her over the allegation and had received no criminal referral related to it, according to a letter Luna made public in August. The Times separately reported the DOJ response.
Luna’s cease-and-desist letter goes beyond the Polymarket dispute. Her attorneys also object to statements from Gray alleging that Luna “got rich” while serving in Congress and trades stocks.
The letter points to Luna’s congressional financial disclosures, which her attorneys say show no publicly traded stock or reportable securities transactions. Florida Politics independently reported this week that Luna’s latest disclosure shows she owns no stocks.
That does not mean Luna has no private investments.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has separately attacked Luna over an investment in America First Natural Resources, a private company founded by political donor Bruce Rosenthal. Financial disclosures previously showed Luna valued that investment at between $250,000 and $500,000. Because the company is privately held, the investment is distinct from publicly traded stock and would not necessarily be covered by proposals aimed specifically at congressional stock trading.
Luna has made banning congressional stock trading one of her signature ethics issues. The competing claims have now become part of the campaign itself, with each candidate scrutinizing the other’s finances.
Luna’s campaign recently released its own ad targeting Gray’s investments, including holdings in Pfizer, Alphabet and Nvidia. The campaign argues those investments conflict with Gray’s rhetoric about pharmaceutical companies, technology companies and data centers. The investments themselves are disclosed assets; Florida Politics reported no allegation that Gray made prohibited trades or violated congressional ethics rules, which do not currently apply to her as a candidate.
Gray, a retired Army brigadier general, has taken the opposite approach in her opening general election advertising, using Luna’s finances and the Polymarket allegation to support a broader argument about corruption in Washington.
The legal letter contends that Gray crossed a line from political criticism into defamation. Luna’s attorneys cite Florida defamation law and a state election statute governing knowingly false statements about opposing candidates. Those are arguments advanced by Luna’s lawyers; the letter itself is not a court finding that Gray defamed Luna or violated election law.
They demand that Gray remove the advertisement and related posts, issue a retraction and apology, and stop repeating claims that Luna engaged in insider trading, trades stocks or became rich while in office.
Florida Politics reported Friday that Gray’s campaign did not immediately respond to the demands but said it was preparing a response.
The confrontation comes less than seven weeks before the Nov. 3 election and just as both campaigns begin spending more heavily to define their opponent.
Gray has raised more than $1.2 million through late July, while Luna has raised more than $3.2 million during the cycle. The district was also redrawn this year, changing the electorate both candidates are trying to reach.