The Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, is running ads on TV and social media that distort Democratic House candidate Josh Riley’s positions on crime.

One ad misleadingly claims that the New York Democrat said he “supports help not handcuffs” for criminals. Another ad from the super PAC accurately says that Riley is supported by the Working Families Party, but misleadingly implies he shares that group’s position on defunding the police. 

Riley, an attorney and former Democratic congressional staffer, is running against Duchess County Executive Marcus Molinaro, a Republican who lost the governor’s race in 2018. The pair are competing for the seat representing New York’s 19th Congressional District, which was recently redrawn due to redistricting. The seat is currently held by Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan, who is now seeking the seat for the redrawn 18th Congressional District.

Contrary to the CLF ads, Riley has said he doesn’t support defunding the police, and the “help not handcuffs” quote was edited from Riley’s statement during a candidate forum, where he actually said that “folks having a mental health crisis deserve help not handcuffs.”

He was quoting a phrase used by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, which promotes “help not handcuffs” in instances when the police are called on someone experiencing a mental health crisis. 

The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC dedicated to “winning a Republican Majority” in the House, paid for at least four ads focused on Riley.

“For criminals, Josh Riley supports help not handcuffs,” says the narrator in the ad titled, “Vote Against Josh Riley: Not On Our Side.” The ad’s description on YouTube repeats the claim. CLF began running the ad on TV on Sept. 30, according to Kantar Media, a media company that tracks political ads. CLF is currently running three versions of a Facebook ad that says “When it comes to CRIME, Josh Riley supports HELP over HANDCUFFS.” 

CLF also posted the ad on Facebook with the caption, “As crime runs rampant throughout #NY19, Josh Riley continues to put criminals before New Yorkers. New York does not need another criminal coddling politician like Josh Riley.”

In small print, the ad cites a forum hosted by the Tompkins County Democratic Committee in June as proof for the claim that Riley said he supports “help not handcuffs” for criminals during the forum. After the citation, the ad says in parentheses, “quoting National Alliance on Mental Illness.”  

When we asked about the ad’s claim that “for criminals, Josh Riley supports help not handcuffs,” Calvin Moore, CLF communications director, told us in an email: “Josh Riley is literally on video saying he wants ‘help not handcuffs,’ and that clip is played in the ad, so you have the video proof right there.” 

But as we said, the ad edits Riley’s quote. In Riley’s full comment during the forum, he said he supports a concept advocated by the National Alliance on Mental Illness that “folks having a mental health crisis deserve help not handcuffs.” His comment followed a statement from Osun Zotique, who was one of Riley’s opponents in the primary.

Riley, Jun. 21: Osun was right when they said that the mental health issue and the intersection between the mental health system and the criminal justice system is a huge challenge that we need to address. So, when I was working as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I was hearing both from law enforcement officials and also advocates in the community that because our mental health system is so badly underfunded, a lot of folks in crisis end up not getting the care that they need, not getting the services they need, and then their first encounter with anybody is with law enforcement because of a 911 call. That’s really bad for folks in crisis. You know the National Alliance on Mental Illness says folks in crisis deserve help not handcuffs and I believe that is really, really true. But the system as we have designed it doesn’t operate that way, so when people in the mental health crisis are interacting with the criminal justice system, it’s bad for folks in crisis, it’s bad for law enforcement officials who have to make do those responses, and it’s really bad for the taxpayer because one of the least efficient things you can do is take somebody who’s having a crisis and lock them up when what they really need is help.

Riley’s campaign spokesperson told us in an Oct. 20 email that the ad takes Riley’s comments “out of context and presents them to voters in a shamefully deceitful manner.” 

“Josh has never said any such thing. Rather, Josh has a clear position supporting law enforcement and community safety, and he has a proven record to back it up,”  the spokesperson said. “Josh repeatedly and explicitly said that people in mental health crisis – not criminals – deserve help, not handcuffs, and he was quoting the National Alliance on Mental Illness when he did so.”

“In fact, just seconds before Josh said that people in mental health crisis deserve help, not handcuffs, Josh said the following about law enforcement: ‘Our folks in law enforcement put their lives on the line everyday to serve and protect our community and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for that,’” the spokesperson added.

Support for Law Enforcement Funding 

The CLF ad titled, “Vote Against Josh Riley: Whose Side Is He On? Not Ours,” says Riley is supported by “a radical group that wants to defund the police,” referring to the Working Families Party. The ad, which also repeats the “help not handcuffs” claim, began airing on TV on Oct. 11, according to Kantar Media.

Moore said the ad’s claim that Riley “is supported by a radical group that wants to defund the police” is “100% correct and indisputably true.”

It’s true that Riley will appear on the ballot under both the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party — a minor political party that endorsed Riley and has expressed support for defunding the police. But Riley has said he doesn’t support defunding the police. 

In a radio interview on Oct. 7 with Ithaca’s Morning News, Riley said he supports law enforcement and has “never ever” suggested defunding police.

In the same interview, Riley said he worked on legislation that provided more funding and support for the police during his stint as general counsel to then-Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota when Franken was on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Riley also said in the radio interview that he comes from a law enforcement family and his mother was a probation officer for nearly two decades, adding, “I’m not going to defund my mom.”

On his website, Riley says he would support, “Justice Department programs that support law enforcement, including the Byrne JAG [Justice Assistance Grant] program and COPS [Community Oriented Policing Services] program; collective bargaining rights for law enforcement and first responders; proposals to end the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which reduce law enforcement’s retirement benefits; and amending Section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to ensure that law enforcement and first responders are eligible for the overtime pay they deserve.”

The post Super PAC Ads Distort New York Congressional Candidate’s ‘Help Not Handcuffs’ Quote appeared first on FactCheck.org.

In TV and social media ads, Club for Growth Action misleadingly edited remarks by independent Senate candidate Evan McMullin of Utah to make it appear he said that “the Republican base is racist.”

In fact, McMullin said “there is an element of the Republican base that is racist,” and that the party’s leaders won’t stand up to them for fear of losing votes. McMullin made his remarks on CNN the day after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. 

Club for Growth Action, a super PAC that says its goal is to “reclaim control of the U.S. House and Senate from the liberal Democrats,” is running the ad in the surprisingly close Senate race in Utah between McMullin, who is not affiliated with any party, and Republican Sen. Mike Lee. There is no Democratic candidate on the ballot.

The ad, titled “Charlatan,” includes a TV clip of McMullin seemingly saying “the Republican base is racist — these bigots” on CNN. The ad, which began running on TV and Facebook in late September, has received more than 11,000 views on Facebook and 16,000 on YouTube. 

The ad edited portions of McMullin’s comments during an Aug. 12, 2017, panel discussion on CNN about the Charlottesville rally and former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s message to white nationalists that there’s “no place for you in America.” One person was killed and dozens were injured when James Fields, a neo-Nazi sympathizer, drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters at the rally.  

In his full comments, McMullin — a former CIA agent who left the Republican Party and ran for president as an independent in 2016 — said this about Republicans and race: 

McMullin, Aug. 12, 2017: The reason why they don’t do that and I know because I’ve been a part of it, I’ve seen it myself, is that there’s a taboo within the Republican Party about attacking racism in America, and I know that that’s the case because when you do it as a conservative, you get attacked by elements within the party, and that’s where we are, and not all Republicans, of course, are racists. I was raised by Republicans who are not at all and who welcome Americans of all backgrounds and are not at all like this, but there is an element of the Republican base that is racist, and our leaders are afraid to stand up to them because, if they do so, they’ll be criticized, and they’ll potentially lose votes. And so they don’t do it, but that’s not public service. That’s self-service, and we need leaders especially on the Republican and conservative side these days who will serve the country and serving the country means standing up to these bigots.

McMullin filed a lawsuit on Oct. 4 against Club for Growth Action and three stations that aired the ad, seeking “damages for egregious, damaging dishonesty in the context of a political campaign.” 

The lawsuit said that out of the four stations mentioned in the suit — ABC 4, Fox 13, KUTV and KSL — only KSL has pulled the ad.

“Mr. McMullin never said this,” the lawsuit said. “On the contrary, his public work has been centered on earning the trust of Republicans and conservatives in this State and throughout the country. Mr. McMullin does not hold to the sentiment wrongfully put in his mouth by Defendants and did not ever express that view.”

We reached out to Club for Growth Action about the claims in the ad, but we didn’t hear back.

Club for Growth Action said in an Oct. 14 press release that McMullin is using the “judicial system to censor political speech.”  

In an earlier press release on Oct. 7, the super PAC expressed surprise at McMullin’s lawsuit, claiming the candidate “routinely relies upon brackets and ellipses to revise quotes when making his own political points.” The group claimed it used a “similar” technique when “cleaning up McMullin’s quote from ‘there is an element of the Republican base that is racist’ to ‘the Republican base is racist.’”

David McIntosh, the president of Club for Growth Action, said in the Oct. 7 press release, “McMullin’s complaint is a transparent attempt at censoring Club for Growth Action and television stations across Utah. We believe this is not a situation where any television station should interfere with the public debate that is healthy for our democracy, especially considering McMullin’s voluminous, incessant, and public criticisms of Republicans.”

McMullin, who trails Lee by only four points in a recent poll, has said he would not caucus with the Democrats or Republicans if he is elected.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.

The post Ad from Super PAC Misleadingly Edits Utah Candidate’s Comments About Republican Base appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Summary

It is our tradition on Election Day to set aside our fact-checking role and instead highlight funny, odd and entertaining ads from the campaign cycle. These are noteworthy for reasons other than making false or misleading claims (though some may do that, too).

This year’s honorees include an ad from a candidate who did a party switch and another from the campaign that came up with the nickname “Cocaine Mitch.”

Happy voting!

Analysis

The Jeb Bush Award for Low Energy
Winner: Don Blankenship, former U.S. Senate candidate for West Virginia

In a series of ads, former Republican Senate candidate Don Blankenship appears to be vying for the moniker “low energy,” a title Donald Trump had given to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during the 2016 campaign.

Perhaps the soft banjo music playing in the background was like a lullaby, because Blankenship, the former CEO of an energy company (ha ha), showed very little enthusiasm while filming this low-budget TV ad attacking Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, not West Virginia. (And he took the monotone approach in these two ads as well.)

“Swamp captain Mitch McConnell has created millions of jobs for China people,” Blankenship says with a straight face and without any inflection in his voice. “By doing so, Mitch has gotten rich. In fact, his China family has given him tens of millions of dollars.”

He goes on to say “the war to drain the swamp and create jobs for West Virginia people has begun,” and then he pledges to “beat Joe Manchin and ditch cocaine Mitch for the sake of the kids.”

In case you’re wondering, Blankenship didn’t apologize for saying “China people,” or for making those misleading claims about McConnell and his in-laws. (McConnell is married to Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan.)

In the end, McConnell had a laugh. After Blankenship lost the GOP primary to his actual opponent, Patrick Morrisey, McConnell’s Senate campaign tweeted an edited image of the majority leader in a cloud of cocaine and dressed as a character from a Netflix series about drug cartels. “Thanks for playing, Don,” the graphic reads.

Biggest Dumpster Fire
Winner: Richard Painter, former U.S. Senate candidate in Minnesota

“There is an inferno raging in Washington” and in whatever fake alley this bizarre ad was filmed. Here, a very intense Richard Painter likens the government, mostly the Trump administration, to a literal dumpster fire that must be extinguished.

“Some people see a dumpster fire and do nothing but watch the spectacle,” says Painter, the former chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush. “Some are too scared to face the danger, or they think it will benefit them if they just let it keep on burning. Others shrug and say, ‘Oh, all this talk about dumpster fires is just fake news.’”

The ad closes with the prominent Trump critic declaring that “here in the Land of 10,000 Lakes … we know how to put out a fire.” That’s as water from (presumably) one of those lakes falls from above into the flaming garbage bin behind him.

Painter’s plan to save D.C. involved switching parties to compete in the Democratic primary against Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith. It didn’t work out. Painter’s Senate hopes were doused in August when Smith won the nomination with more than 76 percent of the vote.

The Ted Talk Award
Winner: FTC PAC

Sen. Ted Cruz is hardly tough, according to this ad in which a man seated in a diner advises the Texas Republican on how he should have responded when Trump, during the 2016 campaign, re-tweeted a meme of Cruz’s wife and suggested Cruz’s father assisted in murdering a president.

“Somebody left something on my door the other day, it said, ‘Ted Cruz, tough as Texas,’” says the man while having a good laugh. “If somebody called my wife a dog, and said my daddy was in on the Kennedy assassination, I wouldn’t be kissing their ass,” he says about Cruz, who has been on good terms with the president since the last election.

“You stick a finger in their chest and you give ‘em a few choice words,” he demonstrates. “Or you drag their ass out by the woodshed and kick their ass, Ted. Come on!”

The ad was sponsored by FTC PAC, short for Fire Ted Cruz, and it was directed by Texas’ own Richard Linklater. The star is Sonny Carl Davis, an actor who also calls the state home, and who played a similar town gossip in one of Linklater’s feature films.

Some of his other quality advice for Cruz? Be more likeable, don’t try to be funny, spend more time in Texas, and never choose White Castle over Whataburger.

The Don’t Try This at Home Award
Winner: Levi Tillemann, former candidate for U.S. House in Colorado

Levi Tillemann, who ran in the Democratic primary for Colorado’s 6th Congressional District, proposed that “non-lethal self-defense tools,” like pepper spray — as opposed to guns — be given to teachers to help stop school shootings. It’s cheap, he says, “won’t accidentally kill a kid” and is powerful —  you can trust Tillemann on that.

In a graphic illustration of his point, Tillemann takes a shot of pepper spray in his eyes on camera. It may be the only campaign video this season that came with the disclaimer: “This is dangerous – do not attempt.”

It’s also painful to watch. For nearly 50 seconds of the video, Tillemann alternates between dunking his head in a bucket of cleansing agent and washing out his eyes with a garden hose.

“Wow, that’s intense,” he says, comparing the feeling to “lava in your eyes.”

We’ll take his word for it.

Unfortunately for Tillemann, he suffered both the “unbearable” pain of pepper spray and a loss in the Democratic primary.

The Thinking Outside the (Shoe) Box Award
Winner: Elizabeth Heng, candidate for U.S. House in California

It’s too easy (and boring) to use Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s picture in TV ads tying Democratic candidates to the House minority leader. So, at least California 16th Congressional District candidate Elizabeth Heng dared to be different this election cycle.

In this attack ad, Heng, a Republican, makes the case that Democratic Rep. Jim Costa is not only following in Pelosi’s footsteps, he’s walking, though not well, in her shoes.

The ad starts with a “Saturday Night Fever”-style close-up of a pair of red high heels worn by someone who hasn’t figured out how they work. A male narrator says: “Votes against the farm bill, but supports sanctuary cities. Higher taxes, more spending, gun control and a money wasting bullet train. Allowed San Francisco environmentalists to deny us our water.”

“Nancy Pelosi?” the narrator asks. “Yep. But also, surprisingly, Jim Costa.”

The camera pans up to show that the awkward strut belongs to a Costa look-alike carrying a briefcase and decked out in a dress shirt and denim shorts.

Why is he wearing that? And where is he going? We’re not sure.

We do know Pelosi is fond of heels; she once filibustered a GOP spending bill for eight hours on the House floor standing in a pair. But that outfit? We can’t imagine she’d ever wear that ensemble to work even on the most casual of Fridays.

Best Use of a Campaign Slogan
Winner: Yatish Joshi, former candidate for U.S. House in Indiana

If it did nothing else, this TV ad/music video helped Indiana voters learn how to pronounce Yatish Joshi’s name — even if they weren’t always certain which one he was.

To be clear, Joshi is the Indian American businessman who ran for the Democratic nomination in Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District. He’s on screen early in the ad (at 0:04 and 0:07) and again at the very end (in shades) to give his approval.

The young man rapping is Blu Casey, a local rapper and activist from South Bend.

The lyrics in the main verse go like this: “You wanna be a man, gotta make a name/Say you wanna win, gotta play the game. If you wanna race, you gotta make a lane/Wanna make a difference, gotta make a change.”

But the most memorable line from the song is probably “Together, America works. Haaan!” The working together part was the campaign’s slogan, which can be seen on the signs and T-shirts being held up by people of different ages and races.

And as catchy as the song was, Joshi ended up losing the nomination after receiving about 22 percent of the vote.

The Black Sheep Award
Winner: Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona

We know a half dozen people who don’t think Paul Gosar should continue to represent Arizona’s 4th Congressional District, and they are all related to him. The Republican congressman has nine younger siblings, and six of them appeared in a series of damning ads to declare their support for his Democratic opponent, David Brill.

In the one above, Grace, a rural physician, says, “Paul Gosar the congressman isn’t doing anything to help rural America.” David, a lawyer, adds, “Paul’s absolutely not doing anything for his district.” Then, Jennifer, a medical interpreter, says: “If he actually cared about people in rural Arizona, I’d bet he’d be fighting for Social Security, for better access to health care. I bet he would be researching what is the most insightful water policy to help the environment of Arizona sustain itself and be successful.”

That’s before they, and three other Gosar siblings, reveal that Paul is their brother and they all endorse Brill, whose campaign sponsored all of the ads.

Unlike us, the congressman wasn’t really surprised. In a statement to CNN, he said, “Those of my siblings who chose to film ads against me are all liberal Democrats who hate President Trump.” However, he did express disappointment that Brill “chose to use family political differences to launch attacks” on him. The 85-year-old matriarch of the Gosar family also reportedly wasn’t happy that some of her children were in the ads.

The Mark Roberts Award for the Happiest Streaker
Winner: Amy McGrath, candidate for U.S. House in Kentucky

Amy McGrath, a retired lieutenant colonel, says that raising three young kids sometimes seems harder than being in the military, especially since one of them may have a knack for streaking.

“I flew 89 combat missions as a U.S. marine and my 90th mission is running for Congress to take on politicians who put party over country,” says McGrath, a Democrat, who’s challenging Republican Rep. Andy Barr in Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District. “But some days, this is my toughest mission,” she confesses, as the ad cuts to three young children in the back seat of her SUV.

The ad is about health care, which McGrath says she thinks is “a fundamental right that should be guaranteed.” But the main focus is on the kids, one of whom stood out at the doctor’s office.

About to receive a shot of some kind, George, her middle child, gleefully drops his pants and is later seen running through the halls with the pixels blurring his bare parts barely able to keep up.

“I approve this message,” McGrath says, “because I’d like to see the other guy running deal with this.”

— by D’Angelo Gore and the FactCheck.org Awards Committee

The post The 2018 FactCheck Awards appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Donald Trump falsely claims that while he has had “55,000 negative ads” run against him, John Kasich has “never had one negative ad against him.”

While it’s true that Trump has had far more negative ads run against him in the presidential campaign, it’s simply not true that Ohio Gov. Kasich hasn’t had any. There have been 92 TV ads that ran about 57,000 times against Trump and 18 ads that ran about 9,400 times against Kasich, according to Kantar Media, which tracks political advertising.

In fact, Trump himself ran an ad in Ohio attacking Kasich. It ran 755 times.

Trump, the front-runner for the Republican nomination, has criticized Kasich, who trails in third place, for staying in the race. Kasich, meanwhile, has pointed out that he, not Trump, beats Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton in polls on a hypothetical general election matchup. According to a Real Clear Politics average of polls from March 24 to April 14, Clinton leads Trump nationally by 9.3 percentage points, while Kasich leads Clinton by an average of 7.8 percentage points. (The other Republican presidential candidate, Ted Cruz, trails Clinton by an average of 2.3 percentage points.)

Trump says that’s only because Kasich hasn’t been tested yet with negative ads, a point he made during a rally in Ocean City, Maryland, on April 20 (at the 37:38 mark).

“As far as Kasich is concerned, he will get slaughtered by Hillary,” Trump said. “He’s never had one negative ad against him. I’ve had 55,000 negative ads. Kasich hasn’t had one negative ad. As soon as he has the first 10 ads against him, he will drop like a rock, believe me.”

Trump repeated the claim in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show the following day (at the 40-second mark).

“I’ve been hit by 55,000 ads,” Trump said. “I saw it on your show, 55,000 negative ads, and nobody else has. You know, you look at a guy like Kasich. He’s never been hit by an ad because nobody cares, frankly. No, it’s true. It’s so true.”

Let’s start with the ad the Trump campaign itself ran against Kasich in Ohio in March.

The ad said Kasich “helped Wall Street predator Lehman Brothers destroy the world economy,” a claim that earned a dubious four Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker, who described the claim as “preposterous.” The Post noted that Kasich, who worked at Lehman Brothers, was “one managing director out of 700, in a firm of 25,000.”

The ad included another misleading attack, that Kasich “increased [Ohio’s] budget more than any other governor in the U.S.” It’s a claim that is based on skewed data, as we wrote when a similar charge was made in an ad by a pro-Jeb Bush super PAC.

According to Andrew Fitzgerald, Kantar Media’s senior political and environmental media analyst, that Trump campaign ad against Kasich ran 755 times in Ohio.

But it wasn’t the first time Kasich has been targeted by ads in the presidential campaign. In fact, we have written about several ads attacking Kasich.

There was the ad we mentioned from the pro-Jeb Bush Right to Rise super PAC that relied on skewed data to falsely label Kasich as having the “worst rating on spending of any governor in the country, Republican or Democrat.” A similar claim was raised in several ads attacking Kasich.

Another ad from Right to Rise — which targeted Kasich in four different ads — attacked Kasich for voting to “cut troop levels and military funding,” which is true, but fails to mention that those votes in the early to mid-1990s came at a time in U.S. history — post Cold War — when the debate on Capitol Hill was not whether to reduce troops or cut defense spending, but by how many and how much. That ad, and others, have also noted Kasich’s support for a Medicaid expansion made possible by the Affordable Care Act. Kasich has said he opposes the Affordable Care Act, but he supports the Medicaid expansion, which took effect Jan. 1, 2014.

Another attack ad came from a pro-Ted Cruz group that falsely claimed that Democratic donor George Soros gave “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Kasich. (The ad was later revised, but still relied on guilt by association to make its point.) An ad from the conservative American Future Fund claimed Kasich “raised taxes by billions” in Ohio, ignoring that Kasich’s overall plan resulted in a net tax cut.

All told, there have been 18 ads run against Kasich (though some attack multiple candidates), according to Kantar Media data. Those ads have aired just under 9,400 times, Fitzgerald told us. While only one came directly from the Trump campaign, ads attacking Kasich have been lobbed from groups supporting Cruz, Bush, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio.

Trump certainly has a point that he has been the biggest target of attack ads. According to Fitzgerald, Trump actually undershot slightly when he said there have been 55,000 negative ads run against him. According to Kantar data, as of April 21, there have been 92 separate ads targeting Trump — 11 from the Clinton campaign — and those ads have aired just under 57,000 times.

So using Trump’s measure —  the number of times negative or comparison ads have aired — the score is 57,000 against Trump and 9,400 against Kasich. That’s a big disparity, but it’s not 55,000 to zero.

The post Trump Wrong About Ads Attacking Kasich appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The opinion in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission throws out a 63-year-old law that attempted to restrain the influence of business and labor in elections and overturns two of the Court’s own decisions. Corporations will now be able to spend freely from their treasuries to buy ads and otherwise try to influence voters, though they still can’t give directly to candidates. The earlier restrictions violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the Court said in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, rejecting the notion that corporate speech could be treated differently from individual speech:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. … All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech. The First Amendment protects the resulting speech, even if it was enabled by economic transactions with persons or entities who disagree with the speaker’s ideas.

The Court also struck down the portion of the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that barred corporate- or union-financed issue ads in the last 60 days before an election. So one consequence of the landscape-shifting decision could be a dramatic increase in the number of ads running right up until Election Day.

The decision also threatens similar corporate and union spending limits now imposed by 24 states. Justice John Paul Stevens, whose dissent was joined by the three other justices on the more liberal side of the spectrum, predicted that the decision "unleashes the floodgates" for corporate money in gubernatorial elections, in state legislative races and even in elections for state supreme court justices.

Stevens dissent, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: At a time when concerns about the conduct of judicial elections have reached a fever pitch, … the Court today unleashes the floodgates of corporate and union general treasury spending in these races. …[A]fter today, [States] may no longer have the ability to place modest limits on corporate electioneering even if they believe such limits to be critical to maintaining the integrity of their judicial systems.

The post Court’s Decision: Keep FactCheck Busy appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Less than a week after former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie won the right to challenge Democratic New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine as the Republican nominee in the fall gubernatorial contest, the Corzine campaign released two ads with the goal of reminding voters just how Republican Christie is.

A number of the ads’ claims are reasonably on target. Christie is anti-abortion, for instance, and opposes new gun control laws. He doesn’t have much to say about global warming, either. But one of the claims is outright misleading and others could use context:

• One ad makes it appear that a newspaper called Christie’s proposed corporate tax cuts "fiscally irresponsible." But the newspaper said nothing of the kind; it simply reported on Christie’s proposal. It’s the Corzine camp’s opinion that the cuts would be irresponsible. 

• The ad also claims Christie would "cut health care coverage, including mammograms." Christie didn’t propose cutting health care or mammograms directly, though. He said he would allow insurance companies to offer "mandate free" policies with "limited benefits" that he says "may be more attractive to young, single people." But some experts say allowing "mandate free" policies would have the same practical effect as repealing the state’s coverage mandates.

Analysis

Sources 

Halbfinger, David M. "In Bid for Re-Election, New Jersey’s Governor Plays to Party Faithful." New York Times, 8 June 2009.

Pizzaro, Max. "Murphy endorses Christie for governor." PolitickerNJ.com, 14 May 2009.

Segall, Eli. "NJ GOP candidate vows spending cuts, targets DEP." Associated Press, 28 April 2009.

Associated Press. "Corzine, Labor Secretary to tour green jobs program at training academy in Paramus," 29 April 2009.

Office of the Governor of New Jersey. "Governor Corzine Introduces New Energy Master Plan," 22 Oct. 2008.

Symons, Michael. "Christie unveils business, taxes platform." Asbury Park Press "Capitol Quickies" Blog, 27 Feb. 2009.

Symons, Michael. "GOP hopefuls participate in second debate." Home News Tribune, 17 May 2009.

Symons, Micahel. "Corzine’s first ads." Asbury Park Press "Capitol Quickies" Blog, 9 June 2009.

Mulshine, Paul. "Steve Lonegan winning ideological debate in N.J.’s Republican race." The Star-Ledger (Newark, N.J.), 14 May 2009.

Mulshine, Paul. "The plot thickens …." NJ Voices Blog, 6 June 2009.

The post Corzine’s Misleading Calls on Christie appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Analysis

Sources

Bauman, Valerie. “AIG bonuses creep into NY Congressional race.” Associated Press, 17 March 2009.

Cermak, Marv. “Memories of ‘nice guy’ president.” Albany Times-Union, 3 Jan. 2007.

New York State Board of Elections. Contributions and Expenditures Database.

Associated Press. “James M. Catterson, 77, L.I. Prosecutor, Dies.” The New York Times, 20 Oct. 2007.

New York Life Insurance. New York Life Announces Executive Promotions, 23 Oct. 2008.

Lynn, Frank. "G.O.P. Minority Elevates 4." The New York Times, 6 Feb. 1983.

Bliven, Gus. "Lauder May Run For New York City Mayor." The Post-Standard, 4 Jan. 1989.

Odato, James M. "Kimberly Galvin 37, Saratoga Springs." Albany Times-Union, 9 June 2003.

The post More Upstate Insults appeared first on FactCheck.org.

New York Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco, a Republican, and businessman Scott Murphy, a Democrat, are battling to fill a House seat in New York’s 20th congressional district that was vacated when its occupant was appointed to the Senate. The special election is scheduled for March 31. Recent ads have included some false and misleading claims: 

• Murphy and the DCCC claim that Tedisco won’t say whether he supports capping salaries for executives of companies receiving federal bailout money. That’s false. Tedisco has said that he supports the idea.

• On the other side, Tedisco and the NRCC claim Murphy gave incentives to executives of a company that was posting financial losses. There’s more to it than that. While Murphy served on the board of directors of Synacor Inc., four top executives did receive bonuses. But although the company posted an overall net loss, net sales also increased substantially, which was a condition for the executives to receive the incentives.

• The NRCC also claims Murphy failed to pay outstanding business taxes. That’s misleading. Tax warrants were issued to a company formerly owned by Murphy, but the warrants for more than $21,000 worth of taxes were issued after Murphy sold his company. And state statute actually says that the surviving company is responsible for all liabilities. Nearly all of the money has been paid by the company that acquired Murphy’s.

Analysis

We said on the FactCheck Wire back in February that we would keep an eye on the upcoming special elections. The first of those is March 31; it’s a race to fill the  House seat vacated by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat after Clinton became secretary of state.

Democrat and businessman Scott Murphy and Republican State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco have been hitting the airwaves, along with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee. Each side is trying to portray the other as a bad choice in tough economic times. But both are stretching the facts and digging deep — very deep — to come up with negative charges about the other guy.

Mum on Stimulus and Salary Caps?

Both Murphy and the DCCC have hit Tedisco in ads for not taking a stand on the recently signed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. And a radio ad by the DCCC, launched on Feb. 28, also says Tedisco "refuses to say" whether he supports caps on compensation for executives.

DCCC Radio Ad:
"Just Won’t Do"

[TET ]

Announcer: It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression … even more jobs lost upstate. But Jim Tedisco refuses to say whether he supports President Obama’s economic policies … Jim Tedisco even refuses to say whether he supports the stimulus.

Instead, Jim Tedisco attacked his opponent, and The Times-Union said Jim Tedisco’s attack on Scott Murphy, quote, "misrepresents the facts." Scott Murphy has paid all his taxes.

His company in Glens Falls helps upstate businesses grow and create jobs. But he places caps on executive pay. Scott Murphy supports caps on executive compensation for companies receiving federal bailout money, too. Jim Tedisco? Again, he refuses to say. That’s an Albany politician for you. Scott Murphy for Congress. A businessman who knows how to create jobs in upstate New York.

Murphy: I’m Scott Murphy, running for Congress, and I approved this message." Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and authorized by Scott Murphy for Congress. [/TET]

It does remain unclear if Tedisco would have voted yes or no on the stimulus package that President Obama signed into law in February. Five days after the ad began running, the New York Daily News quoted Tedisco campaign spokesman Adam Kramer as saying: "Jim [Tedisco] has been clear on this all along. He would support a stimulus that had his amendments to cut the pork and waste and where the money would go in a straight line to help the middle class." But without such amendments? Tedisco hasn’t said.

As for capping salaries of executives as part of federal bailout plans, Tedisco has said he supports the move, contrary to the radio ad’s claim.

The DCCC’s own sourcing for the ad lists a post by Maury Thompson on the Glens Falls PostStar.com blog "All Politics Is Local." Thompson posted a portion of a telephone interview with Tedisco. In answer to Thompson’s first question on the subject of capping salaries, Tedisco equivocated: "I think that’s something that we’ve really got to seriously look at." However, when the reporter asked Tedisco a follow-up question on the subject, he said: "Well I haven’t seen the legislation," but added, "I think we have to cap it. I’m not sure where at right now." During the interview, Tedisco continued: "And also — yeah — at some point they have to be capped for these CEOs, especially at a time when we’re trying to get money to middle class people who are suffering the effects probably the most and didn’t give out these risky loans."

Two days after the DCCC ad started airing, Thompson posted part of another interview in which Tedisco was more emphatic: "I think the president has it right. I think a half-a-million dollars is realistic — because when they say, ‘Well you’re not going to get the best and the brightest and the most intelligent’ — look — for a half-a-million dollars I think you’re getting some of the best and the brightest and the hardest working."

Tedisco’s campaign has called for the Murphy campaign and for stations to stop running the radio ad. But the Murphy campaign told us that it’s still on the air.

Speaking of Executive Compensation …

A TV ad from Tedisco’s campaign counters that Murphy "gave huge incentives to corporate executives who were losing millions." The NRCC echoes that in a radio ad that says: "Murphy approved huge bonuses for a handful of top executives, while his company recorded massive losses." 

Tedisco for Congress Ad:
"The Real Scott Murphy"

[TET ]

Announcer: Here’s what Scott Murphy never wanted us to know. He brags about bankrolling jobs in India, then changes his resume to hide it.

And Murphy gave huge incentives to corporate executives who were losing millions. Murphy’s just another Wall Street millionaire hiding a past that’s threatening our future.

Tedisco: I’m Jim Tedisco and I approved this message because i’m fighting for jobs, lower taxes and you. [/TET]

There’s more to the story than that. According to reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2008, while Murphy served as a member of the board of directors for Synacor Inc., the company recorded a net loss of nearly $1.6 million in 2007. That same year, four top company executives received compensation totaling about $1.2 million. Of that amount, $439,101 was for "non-equity incentive plan compensation" or "option awards." Whether those bonuses would be considered "huge," or the losses considered "massive," is open to interpretation. In its filing, Synacor referred to the losses as "significant," but noted that net losses that year had actually decreased from the 2006 amount of $2.3 million. Also, Synacor explained that "annual cash incentives for the executive officers and other key employees were designed to reward short-term performance that contributes to meeting key corporate goals." Those goals included "growth in net sales." And Synacor reported $39 million in net sales in 2007, nearly more than the total net sales for 2005 and 2006 combined.

Unpaid Taxes?

The NRCC ad also says, "Millionaire Scott Murphy was caught not paying taxes on his own business" and "said it wasn’t his responsibility, but state records proved that it was." But Murphy’s company paid all the taxes that came due before it was sold in 1998. It’s also clear that any lingering liabilities are the responsibility of the company that bought Murphy’s.

NRCC Radio Ad

[TET ]

Announcer: Scared? You’re not alone. It feels like your job is hanging by a thread. Your retirement is bleeding out. The world is upside down. So what are the politicians doing? You wouldn’t believe it. To replace Kirsten Gillibrand in Congress, they have chosen the poster boy for everything that’s wrong with Wall Street, Scott Murphy.

Scott Murphy approved huge bonuses for a handful of top executives, while his company recorded massive losses. Millionaire Scott Murphy was caught not paying taxes on his own business, said it wasn’t his responsibility, but state records proved that it was. Scott Murphy hasn’t been honest with his taxes, but wants to go to Washington and vote on yours, right.

Does upstate New York really need a Wall Street insider wheeler-dealer representing us in Congress? What do you think?

Female Announcer: Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee. Not authorized by any candidate or any candidate’s committee. The National Republican Congressional Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement. www.nrcc.org [/TET]

At issue are three tax warrants sent from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in 1999 to Small World Software Inc., an online consulting company cofounded by Murphy in 1994. Small World was purchased by iXL-New York Inc. on Jan. 26, 1998. Taking them in turn:

One warrant for $20,805.25 was for sales taxes, plus penalties and interest, owed for a three-month period ending in February 1998 that overlapped both ownerships. The taxes weren’t due until March 1998, two months after iXL purchased Small World. The warrant was later satisfied in December 1999 by iXL.

Another was issued because Small World paid a withholding tax 13 days late for the period ending Dec. 31, 1997. The payment for the withholding tax was due Jan. 6, 1998, and was paid by Small World on Jan. 20, according to the Murphy campaign. The bill for the late penalty and interest, totaling $446.85, almost certainly wouldn’t have been received by the company until after it had been sold at the end of January.

A third warrant was issued to Small World for $298.50 in penalty and interest charges relating to a corporation tax payment that the campaign says was due in September 1998, nearly eight months after ownership changed hands. (Normally this bill would be due in the spring, but an extension may have been granted.) The tax itself was paid in December of that year, again according to the Murphy campaign, by iXL. It stands to reason that iXL would also be responsible for the penalty and interest.

So, three warrants were at issue. One was for a penalty and interest on a tax bill paid 13 days late by Small World before the merger. Another was for penalties and interest on a bill that was paid late by iXL and didn’t come due until after the merger. And a third, by far the largest, was for sales tax, plus penalties and interest, that wasn’t due until after the merger; that warrant was paid by iXL. And even though some of the tax bills covered periods before iXL took over Small World, here’s the key controlling fact: iXL-New York is incorporated, like many companies, in Delaware. State law in Delaware says that when one company buys another, it assumes the debts and obligations of the acquired company:

Delaware General Corporation Law, sec. 259(a): [A]ll debts, liabilities and duties of the respective constituent corporations shall thenceforth attach to said surviving or resulting corporation, and may be enforced against it to the same extent as if said debts, liabilities and duties had been incurred or contracted by it.

The NRCC points out that Murphy remained on staff with the surviving company as the chief operating officer until 2000. But it was no longer "his own business," as the ad asserts. The Glens Falls Post-Star reported: "Murphy said [that] while he did work for the company that bought Small World Software, he did not have ‘responsibility for things like taxes and filing various forms with the government.’ "

"Scott Murphy paid all his taxes,” Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for Murphy, told The Hill. “This bill arrived after Scott was no longer in charge of the company. Scott doesn’t know why the corporation that purchased his company did not pay it."

iXL subsequently merged with another company. The warrants for $298.50 and $446.85 had yet to be paid as of the end of January 2009, according to state tax records.

Not Proud of Jobs in India?

Tedisco’s television ad also claims that Murphy "brags about bankrolling jobs in India" and then "changes his resume to hide it." But that’s a different story than the one Murphy has told.

The Tedisco campaign and the NRCC point to two articles to back up the assertion. In a July 2004 piece in New York’s India Abroad about the acquisition by eBay.com of Baazee.com, an Internet auction site based in India, Murphy is mentioned as one of Baazee.com’s initial investors. According to India Abroad: “Investors in Baazee.com include Australian media baron Rupert Murdoch’s Star television network, the investment arm of India’s largest private banking company ICICI Bank, the private American equity group NewBridge Partners, and angel investor Scott Murphy.” And an April 2006 article in the Long Island Business News reported: "Prior to joining Advantage [Capital Partners] in 2001, Murphy founded Internet-related businesses Small World Sports and Baazee.com, an online auction company that was sold to eBay."

Whether those mentions qualify as "bragging" is open to debate. The other claim, that Murphy tried to hide his involvement, rests on two different versions (one current and the other cached) of Murphy’s biography on the Web site of Advantage Capital Partners. Captured images of the Web page show that the current version of the biography says that Murphy created "two different Internet-related businesses," while an older version of the bio says that Murphy created "three Internet-related businesses," including Baazee.com.

Murphy told the Albany Times-Union that his involvement wasn’t as a creator of the auction site now known as eBay.in. According to a Feb. 3 article in the newspaper, Murphy says he "merely advised" two graduate students who went on to create the India-based site. Murphy added that the site’s buyers and sellers were all from India, and he implies there was no deliberate attempt to hide anything about his involvement with it:

Times-Union, Feb. 3: "It’s not something I’m ashamed of, and I’m happy to explain it to anyone," Murphy said, adding if it has been left out of any information about him, it is an oversight and the consequence of his campaign’s fast start.

We asked for clarification on whether Murphy was an "investor" in the company. The Murphy campaign told us he provided some initial capital and advice to the two students who started the company, and stressed that the company didn’t compete with the U.S. for jobs. We can’t say what the intent was behind the change in Murphy’s bio, and the Tedisco campaign hasn’t proven that Murphy wanted to "hide" his association with the company.

— by D’Angelo Gore

Update, March 12: After we published this article, we discovered two other misleading ads targeting Murphy. These come from a third-party group, Our Country Deserves Better PAC. See our post on these spots on the FactCheck Wire.

Sources

Hornbeck, Leigh. "Newcomer says job creation is strength." Albany Times-Union, 3 Feb. 2009.

Thompson, Maury. "Q&A with James Tedisco: Part 4." Glen Falls Post-Star Blog "All Politics is Local", 2 March 2009.

Halbfinger, David M. "Stimulus Is Early Focus in New York House Race." New York Times, 23 Feb. 2009

Editorial. "Take a stand, Mr. Tedisco." Albany Times-Union, 19 Feb. 2009.

Kraushaar, Josh. "Murphy is GOP’s next tax target." Politico.com, 5 Feb. 2009.

India Abroad (New York). "eBay buys Baazee.com for $50 million," 2 July 2004.

Powderlly II, Henry E. "On the Move." Long Island Business News, 21 April 2006.

Synacor, Inc. Amendment No. 8 to Form S-1, as Filed with The Securities and Exchange Commission, 11 April 2008.

Lieu, Irene Jay. "War of words paints mixed picture." Albany Times-Union, 15 Feb. 2009.

Hornbeck, Leigh. "Ad watch: 20th Congressional District." Albany Times-Union, 3 March 2009.

Thompson, Maury. "Murphy answers tax issue." Glens Falls PostStar.com, 4 Feb. 2009.
Jacobs, Jermey P. "GOP aims to retake ex-Gillibrand seat." TheHill.com, 9 Feb. 2009.

Thompson, Maury. "GOP takes aim at Murphy." Glens Falls Post-Star, 3 Feb. 2009

The post Upstate Insults appeared first on FactCheck.org.

More Social Security Bunk
October 30, 2008

Our second article examines four Spanish-language ads from the presidential campaigns, the National Rifle Association and a new group calling itself Latinos 4 Reform. They’re all misleading, and they mainly repeat claims we’ve heard over and over — and over — again in English:

Same Old Claims in Another Language
October 30, 2008 

The post Social Security and Spanish Ads appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Now that same claim from the McCain-Palin camp is being recycled into fundraising letters. Here’s the passage from an e-mail from McCain-Palin Victory 2008, a joint project of the Republican National Committee and the Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri Republican parties:

Even before our national convention, the Obama campaign dispatched what The Wall Street Journal called a “mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers” to Alaska to dig up dirt for their personal attacks on Governor Palin and her family. FactCheck.org has called the attacks on Governor Palin, “completely false” and “misleading.” However, the Obama Democrats continue to launch these attacks, hoping you’ll never find out the truth.

This is slightly better, but still misleading. We’ve certainly called some attacks on Gov. Palin “completely false” and “misleading,” but those attacks aren’t coming from the Obama-Biden campaign, nor have we attributed them to any sort of nebulous “Obama Democrats.”

The fact is, we have no idea whether the people propagating Palin rumors are Obama Democrats, Barr Libertarians or just plain ol’ anti-Palin Republicans. These things are on the Internet, people. For all we can tell, this could be the work of those dastardly Canadians. What we do know is that we’d very much appreciate not having our findings taken out of context.

On a side note, however, we’re very pleased that McCain now is aware of our Web site.

The post Distorting Our Findings, Part II appeared first on FactCheck.org.