Many Chamber ads attacking House Dems contain debunked falsehoods, distortions

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Greg Sargent, The Plumline

Last week I noted that the ads that have been bankrolled by Karl Rove's groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce against Senate Dem candidates across the country have been widely debunked by independent fact-checkers for their multiple falsehoods and distortions.

Turns out the same is true of the Chamber's ads against House Democrats. These Chamber ads, which are running or have run in multiple districts across the country, contain many claims that are demonstrable distortions or have been repeatedly debunked as false by independent fact-checkers.

This is the side of this story that continues to unfold under the media radar. Much of the media focus has been on the high-profile Beltway spat between these groups and the White House and Dems over their undisclosed donors. But the ads themselves are not receiving anywhere near the high-profile media scrutiny that Dem claims about the Chamber have -- even though they constitute a massive national campaign flooding airwaves in multiple races that could tip the balance of power in Congress.

Here's a rundown of the Chamber ads attacking House Dems that contain the debunked claims:

(1) The Chamber is running or has run a cookie-cutter ad attacking Dems in many districts that contain core claims that have been cleanly debunked. There are versions of this ad targeting Dem Reps.

of Virginia,

of Ohio,

of North Dakota, and

of Ohio, as well as candidate

of Kansas.

All these ads claim that the Democrat in question supported to "gut Medicare by $500 billion," a reference to their support for health reform. But Politifact found that in reality, "the law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget." FactCheck.org thoroughly debunked this claim, too.

(2) All of the above ads hammer the Dem by claiming that seniors in their states face "reduced benefits," thanks to the Dem in question, another reference to health reform. Each ad gives a different number of "reduced benefits," based on which state they're in, and each ad sources the Kaiser Family Foundation for the claim.

But Tricia Neuman, a vice president with Kaiser, flatly denies that her group found what these ads claim it did. The claim is based on this Kaiser chart that only details cuts to Medicare advantage under health reform -- and does not predict any reduced benefits. "That statement does not come directly from anything we've written," Neuman tells me. "It may mislead seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans into thinking their benefits will be cut -- which, at this point, is not clear." Indeed, Neuman notes, some benefits could go up.

(3) A Chamber

of Illinois claims she supported "government run health care." While this claim is not information-based, and hence is difficult to challenge directly, Politifact pronounced the assertion that health reform represents government run health care as "false," concluding that it "leaves in place the private health care system."

What's more, all of the cookie-cutter Chamber ads referenced above contain a version of that same claim.

(4) A Chamber

claims that Critz "declined to take a position on the healthcare overhaul." This is partly true, in the sense that Critz didn't vote on the health bill. But Critz did come out out against the health reform bill in a statement, making the Chamber's claim misleading.

The ad also claims that Nancy Pelosi is "counting" on Critz. While this is also an information-free claim, the fact is that Critz voted against Wall Street reform and against the DISCLOSE Act, which, ironically enough, is enabling the right's massive non-disclosure ad campaign.

Again: An important part of this story, one that is going undercovered and passing entirely under the radar, is that all this undisclosed money is bankrolling an ad campaign that is flooding airwaves across the country with many distortions and flatly debunked claims. And this misinformation campaign could help decide who controls Congress next year.

link

[Heracles 417]

Again: An important part of this story, one that is going undercovered and passing entirely under the radar, is that all this undisclosed money is bankrolling an ad campaign that is flooding airwaves across the country with many distortions and flatly debunked claims. And this misinformation campaign could help decide who controls Congress next year.

That's the biggest joke of them all. How is that even legal in this country?

Oh wait greed, corruption, person with the deepest pockets gets the last word = 2010 America.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That's the biggest joke of them all. How is that even legal in this country?

Oh wait greed, corruption, person with the deepest pockets gets the last word = 2010 America.

It shouldn't be. Unfortunately, we have Supreme Court that recently ruled that money is equivalent to free speech, opening the flood gates of corporate interests to heavily influence elections.

[Heracles 417]

It shouldn't be. Unfortunately, we have Supreme Court that recently ruled that money is equivalent to free speech, opening the flood gates of corporate interests to heavily influence elections.

Perhaps you guys will finally start to realize the problem with running a country based on judicial rulings alone; which itself is based on a 230+ year old document and ultimately the justice's personal view [opinion, bias and ideological stance] on the topic. Let's not kid ourselves about this either, it's also why the people actually elected into congress have more of a say than the judiciaries in most other first world countries.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Heracles

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Perhaps you guys will finally start to realize the problem with running a country based on judicial rulings alone; which itself is based on a 230+ year old document and ultimately the justice's personal view [opinion, bias and ideological stance] on the topic. Let's not kid ourselves about this either, it's also why the people actually elected into congress have more of a say than the judiciaries in most other first world countries.

That would be treason, if you were a citizen. I don't suppose you will ever swear allegiance to the US of A, will you?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Perhaps you guys will finally start to realize the problem with running a country based on judicial rulings alone; which itself is based on a 230+ year old document and ultimately the justice's personal view [opinion, bias and ideological stance] on the topic. Let's not kid ourselves about this either, it's also why the people actually elected into congress have more of a say than the judiciaries in most other first world countries.

Interpretation of any legal document is inevitable, so the issue isn't unique to just the U.S. Constitution for one. Second, most of the time, the Supreme Court gets it right and sometimes it doesn't. There is a glimmer of hope from that recent ruling on campaign contributions is that the court also stated that full disclosure is necessary in conjunction with campaign contributions. However, that's not happening and it will take a legal challenge to address it.

[Heracles 417]

Interpretation of any legal document is inevitable, so the issue isn't unique to just the U.S. Constitution for one. Second, most of the time, the Supreme Court gets it right and sometimes it doesn't. There is a glimmer of hope from that recent ruling on campaign contributions is that the court also stated that full disclosure is necessary in conjunction with campaign contributions. However, that's not happening and it will take a legal challenge to address it.

That's not the point though, excluding the US, seldom does any other first world country rely so heavily on their judicial system. After all, why even have a government, when clearly for the United States, the judiciary is the real commander and chief.

To the contrary, regardless of what the High Court rules in AUS or the UK and I am assuming Canada, the parliament can hold a session overnight and enact legislation to override this ruling. That my friend, is a system of government by the people and for the people.

That would be treason, if you were a citizen. I don't suppose you will ever swear allegiance to the US of A, will you?

Yes, extremely unlikely.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I had to stop reading after #1, because this article is full of #######.....

What the "law does" and what those Democrats "supported" are two very different things......

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

That would be treason, if you were a citizen. I don't suppose you will ever swear allegiance to the US of A, will you?

Not treason -- cf 18 USC Ch 115 § 2381. What BY advocates is not treason under that definition.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not treason -- cf 18 USC Ch 115 § 2381. What BY advocates is not treason under that definition.

Okay, not § 2381. Treason but § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Okay, not § 2381. Treason but § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

There's a difference between advocating an overthrow and free speech in the form of criticism of the government and its form. Coincidentally, I was perusing this topic this past weekend, specifically the Smith Act (1940). Have a look at Yates v United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). Under Yates, there needs to be active work to overthrow the government to constitute a violation of the Smith Act (which itself, in part, dealt with advocacy to overthrown the government); merely stating a desire to change the government or a belief that another system would be preferable is not advocacy to action. Interesting stuff! But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince even a lower court that § 2385 had been violated by speech here. If BY were fomenting unrest, raising money, creating an organisation devoted to changing the form of government and actually seeing through various threats to change the system, maybe. Here it's just free speech, like it or no, and covered very easily by the protections offered by the First Amendment.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There's a difference between advocating an overthrow and free speech in the form of criticism of the government and its form. Coincidentally, I was perusing this topic this past weekend, specifically the Smith Act (1940). Have a look at Yates v United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). Under Yates, there needs to be active work to overthrow the government to constitute a violation of the Smith Act (which itself, in part, dealt with advocacy to overthrown the government); merely stating a desire to change the government or a belief that another system would be preferable is not advocacy to action. Interesting stuff! But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince even a lower court that § 2385 had been violated by speech here. If BY were fomenting unrest, raising money, creating an organisation devoted to changing the form of government and actually seeing through various threats to change the system, maybe. Here it's just free speech, like it or no, and covered very easily by the protections offered by the First Amendment.

If you are going to get serious, then yep. You be right, having the JD after your name and all.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

There's a difference between advocating an overthrow and free speech in the form of criticism of the government and its form. Coincidentally, I was perusing this topic this past weekend, specifically the Smith Act (1940). Have a look at Yates v United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957). Under Yates, there needs to be active work to overthrow the government to constitute a violation of the Smith Act (which itself, in part, dealt with advocacy to overthrown the government); merely stating a desire to change the government or a belief that another system would be preferable is not advocacy to action. Interesting stuff! But I think you'd be hard pressed to convince even a lower court that § 2385 had been violated by speech here. If BY were fomenting unrest, raising money, creating an organisation devoted to changing the form of government and actually seeing through various threats to change the system, maybe. Here it's just free speech, like it or no, and covered very easily by the protections offered by the First Amendment.

maybe he's just colluding with intent to conspire.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

maybe he's just colluding with intent to conspire.

Colluding with whom?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Colluding with whom?

No colluding or you'll get a spanking. :devil: :devil: