Slurs and Nazi talk sat in a House candidate’s own forum

Marty O’Donnell built a political campaign around an online community. An Associated Press review now says that community contained racial slurs, Nazi talk, and defenses of white nationalist conspiracy theories.

That is the part that should slow everyone down, whatever party they belong to.

O’Donnell is a Nevada Republican running for the House in a Las Vegas area district. Before politics, he was an award-winning composer for the popular “Halo” video game franchise. His fan forum became a source of support for his campaign, and he has tried to turn it into a galvanizing force in his race.

The AP reviewed thousands of posts from the forum, called “The Marty Army,” made between 2022 and 2026. It found racial slurs, minimizations of Nazi Germany, and defenses of white nationalist conspiracy theories.

Some examples are hard to read without stopping. In March 2024, one user suggested the Nazis “did some good things” that were “completely overshadowed by the terrible things they did.” Another asked whether Hitler was really evil “aside from the Holocaust.” In February, a third posted “Heil Hitler.”

What the campaign says

O’Donnell’s campaign says he has “zero tolerance for hate” in the forum. Spokesman Keith Schipper said that after the campaign became aware of the issue in the spring, it assigned a staffer to monitor the platform and remove people posting racist or antisemitic material.

The campaign also said nearly 200 users have been banned because of hateful rhetoric, including many people flagged by the AP.

There is evidence that moderation happened. The AP found that some users who expressed Nazi sympathies were kicked off the forum. But many of their posts remained.

That distinction matters. A ban after the fact is not the same as a community where hate never took root.

What remains unclear

The most important unresolved question is what the forum says about O’Donnell himself. The AP found that many of the offensive remarks came from users, often in loose replies to ordinary comments about politics, games, or current events.

O’Donnell has said repeatedly that users who express racist or antisemitic views will be banned. He wrote on the forum that he rejects fascism. He also warned users in the spring that even a hint of antisemitism would bring an instant ban.

But he controlled the forum and chose its moderators. He used it to rally supporters and raise campaign money. A candidate cannot fairly claim no responsibility for the culture of a space he built, led, and benefited from.

At the same time, it would be wrong to treat every post by a forum member as proof of the candidate’s private beliefs. The fair question is narrower: Did he tolerate hate when it was useful, and did he act only when it became politically costly?

The public record does not settle that question. It does give voters reason to ask it.

Why this matters beyond one race

A forum is not a private diary. It is a public culture, especially when a candidate uses it to organize supporters, solicit money, and build political identity. The words people feel free to use there tell you something about what is normal in that space.

I keep thinking about the people who might read those posts and wonder whether they belong. A voter who is Jewish, Black, immigrant, gay, or simply tired of cruelty should not have to guess whether a candidate’s online base sees them as neighbors or targets.

There is also a practical issue. The district could help decide control of the House. That makes O’Donnell’s conduct and judgment relevant beyond Nevada.

The standard should be simple

Candidates should not be judged by the worst thing any stranger has ever said near them. That standard would be impossible to meet.

But they should be judged by what they build, what they permit, and what they do once hate appears. O’Donnell built a forum, led it, and made it central to his campaign. The AP found hate in it. His campaign says it has taken action.

Voters can decide whether that response was early enough, firm enough, and honest enough.

Before Election Day, they deserve a clear answer.