U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: “IL-10: Brad Schneider”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticizes U.S. House candidate Brad Schneider (D-IL) for supporting “government-mandated health care” and accuses him of wanting “to hit our small businesses with higher taxes.” However, the Chamber relies on the false argument that ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would have a significant impact on small businesses, when in fact it would reduce the deficit without harming the economy. The Chamber’s broader argument that taxes and regulations are holding back the economy is misleading, as the real key to job creation is increasing consumer demand.

Read more after the jump.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “CA-10: Jose Hernandez”

The Chamber of Commerce spent $100 million in insurance company funds trying to defeat the Affordable Care Act in 2009-10, and their 2012 ads indicate they’re not over that loss yet. An ad attacking former astronaut Jose Hernandez, candidate for California’s 10th Congressional District this year, relies on trite misinformation about the law. Beyond misrepresenting the Medicare and tax provisions of the ACA, the Chamber also ignores a crucial reality: Hernandez’s opponent, Rep. Jeff Denham, voted for the same Medicare savings for which they attack Hernandez.

Read more after the jump.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “IL-13: David Gill”

The U.S Chamber of Commerce attacks David Gill over taxes and health care, using graphics and audio to suggest that the Illinois congressional candidate’s positions would cause the American economy to flat-line. But they repeat the distortion that the Affordable Care Act cuts Medicare, and mischievously cite their own, ill-conceived study as proof that ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will kill job growth. And leaving aside the fact that the Chamber-commissioned study fail to analyze actual Democratic proposals, the failure of those tax cuts is plain to see in economic data on the past decade.

Read more after the jump.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “CA-24 Lois Capps”

An ad from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce features a business owner suggesting that she is unable to hire more people because of uncertainty associated with federal policies, even though ample evidence suggests that consumer demand has the greatest impact on business hiring. The ad then attacks Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) for voting for a cap-and-trade bill that would boost the economy at minimal cost to consumers, the Wall Street Reform bill, which seeks to prevent another financial collapse, the Affordable Care Act, which doesn’t “cut” Medicare benefits, as the ad suggests, but rather finds savings by reducing future Medicare spending.

Read more after the jump.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “CA-9: Jerry McNerney”

An ad from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce features a business owner suggesting that she is unable to hire more people because of uncertainty associated with federal policies, even though ample evidence suggests that consumer demand has the greatest impact on business hiring. The ad then attacks Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA) for voting for a cap-and-trade bill that would boost the economy at minimal cost to consumers, and the Affordable Care Act, which doesn’t “cut” Medicare benefits, as the ad suggests, but rather finds savings by reducing future Medicare spending.

Read more after the jump.

Crossroads GPS: “Focus”

An ad from Crossroads GPS hits New York congressional contender Julian Schreibman over his stated support for the Affordable Care Act, leveling falsehoods about the law’s effect on Medicare spending, seniors’ care, taxes, costs, and insurance coverage. In reality, the law reduces future Medicare spending without cutting seniors’ current benefits, it helps control rising costs, and it’s expected to expand insurance coverage – all without taking health care decisions away from individuals or raising taxes on most Americans. What’s more, Schreibman’s opponent, Rep. Chris Gibson (R), voted to keep the $716 billion in savings GPS attacks Schreibman over.

Read more after the jump.

The Week In Conservative Attack Ads

After last week’s wave of House ads, conservative outside groups focused most of their attention on the Senate this week. Of the 14 ads we fact-checked, eight of them targeted Senate hopefuls (five from Karl Rove’s Crossroads groups and three from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), compared to only two hitting House candidates (both from the Congressional Leadership Fund). We also answered presidential ads from Restore Our Future, Americans for Job Security, and American Future Fund. Finally, Americans for Prosperity joined the conservative campaign to oust three Florida Supreme Court justices.

Read more after the jump.

Crossroads GPS: “Stamp”

An ad from Crossroads GPS complains that Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is a “rubber stamp” for spending, citing the Wall Street bailout, the Recovery Act, and the Affordable Care Act. The ad doesn’t acknowledge, however that the bipartisan bank bailout and the stimulus both rescued the economy from an even more severe downturn, while the Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit.

Read more after the jump.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “Failed To Protect Medicare”

The Chamber of Commerce’s attack on Bill Nelson’s Affordable Care Act vote holds up better in the vacuum the ad presents than it does in the real world. In reality, the law doesn’t cut Medicare benefits and extends the life of the program by eight years. Also in reality, Nelson is running against a congressman who not only voted for the same Medicare savings, but supported the Republican Study Committee’s “Paul Ryan budget on steroids.”

Read more after the jump.

Americans for Prosperity: “You Be The Judge – Healthcare Freedom Amendment”

An ad from Americans for Prosperity blames the Florida Supreme Court for ‘denying’ Floridians the opportunity to vote against the Affordable Care Act, which AFP falsely claims will “cost trillions” and allow bureaucrats to cut Medicare. But the ad, which follows in the wake of the GOP’s decision to try to remove three Florida Supreme Court justices, omits the fact that the case before the court dealt with an attempt to place misleading, partisan language describing the health care law on the state’s 2010 ballot.

Read more after the jump.