U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: “Martin Heinrich Has Gone Washington”

A U.S. Chamber of Commerce ad attacks Senate candidate Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) over his votes against the Regulatory Accountability Act, against the Keystone Pipeline, for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, for Wall Street reform, and for the health care law. The Chamber implies that Heinrich’s votes killed jobs, created red tape, or harmed Medicare, misleading voters about the bills.

Read more after the jump.

Center for Individual Freedom: “Busy”

The Center for Individual Freedom attacks Kentucky Rep. Ben Chandler (D) for supporting the Recovery Act, bailouts, cap-and-trade, and “keeping the death tax.” The ad wrongly demonizes legislation that helped strengthen the economy (or, in the case of cap-and-trade, could have if it had passed). However, the ad’s most egregious distortion is that it ignores that Chandler recently voted with House Republicans to keep the estate tax limited.

Read more after the jump.

Center for Individual Freedom: “Burden”

An ad from the Center for Individual Freedom asks, “Don’t Nevadans already pay enough in taxes?” It then blasts State Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, who is now running for a seat in the U.S. House, for supporting several tax increases. The truth is, however, that Nevada’s tax structure is deeply reliant on revenue from gaming and sales, which plummeted during the recession. In an effort to close budget gaps, avoid devastating cuts to education and services, and address longer-term structural problems with Nevada’s tax code, Horsford has backed several revenue increases, each time has coupling them with spending cuts.

Read more after the jump.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “Voted To Cut Medicare”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which receives significant funding from health insurers, attacks Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) for voting to “cut” Medicare and for supporting the public insurance option. But the Affordable Care Act reduces future Medicare spending without cutting seniors’ benefits, and Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget actually preserved the law’s savings. Moreover, the Chamber’s description of the public option as “wildly unpopular” is absurd: Although it was dropped from the final legislation, 2009 polls consistently showed that a clear majority of Americans favored having the choice of a public plan.

Read more after the jump.

Center for Individual Freedom: “Three of Kind”

The Center for Individual Freedom mischaracterizes the effects of the Affordable Care Act to claim that Rep. Leonard Boswell’s (D-IA) voting record is bad for Iowa’s seniors. For example, the ad implies that savings included in the ACA, indeed over $700 billion, will reduce Medicare benefits. The truth, however, is that the ACA reduces future Medicare spending without cutting benefits and that seniors—in Iowa and across the country—will benefit from expanded care and reduced gaps in coverage, all without the imagined interference from government bureaucrats.

Read more after the jump.

Center For Individual Freedom: “Shelf Life”

The Center for Individual Freedom suggests that Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) broke a campaign promise by supporting the Affordable Care Act, which the group criticizes for “slashing Medicare spending by over $700 billion.” But while the health care law reduces the growth of Medicare spending, it does not cut seniors’ benefits – and it was “benefit cuts,” not overall spending, that Owens pledged to oppose. In addition, same savings were included the Republican budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The ad also falsely calls the ACA a “government takeover” and misleads about the power of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose members must be confirmed by the Senate and are prohibited from cutting benefits or “rationing” care.

Read more after the jump.

National Federation of Independent Business: “Commitment”

The National Federation of Independent Business calls Iowa congressional candidate Christie Vilsack a “tax hiker,” citing her support for the Affordable Care Act. But the health care law doesn’t raise taxes on most Americans, and Vilsack has specified that she supports keeping the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning under $1 million.

Read more after the jump.

National Federation Of Independent Business: “One Clear Answer”

The National Federation of Independent Business urges New York residents to vote against Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) because of her support for clean energy legislation and health care reform. However, the group misleadingly characterizes both policies as major middle-class tax increases. The ad also criticizes the Affordable Care Act for reducing the growth of Medicare spending, failing to acknowledge that the law’s “cuts” do not impact seniors’ benefits and were also included in Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget.

Read more after the jump.

Center For Individual Freedom: “Same”

The Center for Individual Freedom attempts to link Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) to President Obama, citing their positions on the “failed stimulus,” increased oil drilling, and the repeal of health care reform. But the Recovery Act actually created jobs and cut taxes for millions of working Americans, while domestic energy production has increased under the Obama administration. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act reduces future Medicare spending without cutting seniors’ current benefits – and Matheson opposed the bill when it passed in 2010.

Read more after the jump.

California Future Fund for Free Markets: “Telephoto”

California Future Fund for Free Markets is breaking the irony barrier with an ad supporting Proposition 32, which purports to ban special interest money from state politics. The ad criticizes “deals cut in the shadows,” but CFFFM is funded entirely by a single $4 million donation from a similarly shadowy Iowa group that does not disclose donors but has ties to the Koch brothers. This hypocrisy has substantive implications as well: Prop 32 claims to end special interest spending in California politics, but leaves gaping loopholes for the billionaires who are funding the effort while cracking down much more tightly on union political spending.

Read more after the jump.