It is disappointing(concerning?) that a Jr. Member e-whore would have gotten a 5 month upfront payment from aTriz on a 3 year contract with a clause stating that red trust doesn't matter. 
That is not correct I believe. There is no clause addressing a potential trust rating of any kind; there are also no clauses addresses other potential *situations* I'm going based off of what aTriz stated himself here:
Do you get your money back if she gets negative trust?
Nope 
I don't that was in the contract. Technically the contract means I have to buy her sig for 3 years, correct? Maybe it is because I'm not active in the campaign management business but this seems highly irrational to me? 
I guess I can separate the two as a publicly run signature campaign and a privately run signature campaign, but in either case, why would a private advertising deal on this forum include a clause allowing the user to get red trust and still be paid for advertising? Campaign management has nothing to do with striking private (custom) advertising deals. In campaign management, negative trust of members is usually a no-go.
UPDATE:
Again, there is no clause at all let alone one exempting someone from negative trust. Read the actual contract: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3017111.msg31023940#msg31023940.
Thanks, I did not realize the private deal was publicly posted 
I'm not quite sure what aTriz meant with his post then?