If I wanted to prove Ron Paul is a bigot, I'd work hard at finding a person who could testify honestly to the bigoted ways in which Ron Paul treated him or her.
And if I was unable to find such a person, then I would have two choices.
I could conclude that Ron Paul isn't a bigot.
Or I could hold fast to my prejudice against Ron Paul, and look for ways to assassinate his character by such devices as guilt-by-association.
Guilt-by-association is one of the weapons used by people who have little to no evidence of personal guilt on the part of the accused. Without evidence of the accused's malicious or otherwise wrongful acts or intent, the accuser is left with character assassination in service of the proof burden.
...the tactics used by a canvasser or "outreach" person on behalf of any Congresscritter are not conclusive evidence that the Critter clearly endorses the tactics or language used.
At most they are evidence that the Critter hired and used a person who employs such tactics or language.
And I don't think anyone who's run a business, or has held a supervisory role in an organization, would rush to agree that every employee or underling is without exception a mere conduit of the business owner or supervisor.
I'll break that down more simply:
In a team sport such as American Soccer (elsewhere on Earth = "football"), when a player fouls an opponent and earns a yellow card, is it fair to assume that player's coach instructed the foul, ordered its occurrence, mandated its execution?
Or is it more fair to recognize independent agency on the foul-committing player's part?
Think about that one before you go assuming Ron Paul is a "bigot" or "racist" by dint of what an outreach person did.