Documented errors & misleading claims in Republican advertising show why political loyalty should never replace verification. Yet, do Democratic advertisings fare any better?
By Benjamin Groff II GroffMedia© | benandsteve.com | ©2026
October 14, 2026
An ominous voice. An unflattering photograph. A frightening accusation. Thirty seconds later, the commercial ends—and the impression remains.
But what happens when the photograph shows the wrong person? When an accusation leaves out the timeline? When the study cited in small print does not examine the policy the candidate actually supports?
Those questions deserve attention before the next campaign commercial tells us what to believe.

Folks, when we care more about who wins the argument than whether the accusation is true, we’re the ones being fooled.
Recent reporting by KJZZ and FactCheck.org documents factual errors and misleading presentations in Republican and Republican-aligned advertising across several states. Some involve outright inaccuracies. Others take genuine statements or events and leave out facts necessary to understand them.
These examples do not establish what candidates privately expected voters to believe or whether they anticipated voters checking their claims. My interpretation is that this kind of advertising gains an advantage when viewers accept its message without examining the evidence.
That is a temptation we should recognize in ourselves. When an accusation fits what we already believe about the other party, it can feel convincing before we have checked a single fact.
In Arizona, an attack ad supporting Republican Rep. Eli Crane targeted Democratic challenger Jonathan Nez. Yet the No Going Back PAC commercial twice displayed photographs of Myron Lizer, Nez’s former vice president—not Nez himself. Lizer is a Republican and Trump supporter.
KJZZ reported the error on October 10 and noted that the images were corrected. That correction matters. So does the fact that an advertisement seeking to discredit a candidate initially failed to identify him correctly. This reporting establishes the photograph error; it does not independently resolve the ad’s underlying spending allegation.
In North Carolina, No Going Back PAC accused Democratic Senate candidate Roy Cooper of allowing approximately 16,000 rape kits to remain untested.
The backlog was real. The presentation of responsibility was misleading.
FactCheck.org reported that the kits were held by hundreds of local law enforcement agencies and had not been submitted to the state laboratory Cooper oversaw as attorney general. A later statewide inventory established the extent of the problem. That leaves room to question whether officials at multiple levels should have done more. It does not justify presenting the evidence as though Cooper personally controlled thousands of kits awaiting testing.
The same advertisement connected Cooper’s pandemic prison settlement to a convicted sex offender who later committed murder. But Jimmie Speight Jr. had completed his prison term before the settlement. His subsequent reinstatement to post-release supervision counted under the agreement, explaining his appearance on its list.
That distinction changes the story. An advertisement about public safety owes voters an accurate timeline, especially when it uses a horrifying crime to assign political blame.
In Pennsylvania and Texas, hospital-closure warnings provided another example.
Congressional Leadership Fund attacked Democrat Janelle Stelson in Pennsylvania’s 10th District with a claim involving up to 25 rural hospital closures. MAGA Inc. attacked Texas Senate candidate James Talarico with a warning involving 30 hospitals.
Both relied on a study assuming a public insurance option would reimburse hospitals at existing Medicare rates. FactCheck.org found that neither candidate had proposed that specific design; Talarico expressly supported higher reimbursement rates.
A study can be real while its use in an advertisement is misleading. Citing research does not establish that its assumptions match the candidate’s proposal.
In Michigan, an NRSC advertisement alleged that Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed had advocated abolishing prisons. FactCheck.org found that he had not.
Other attacks drew on genuine earlier statements about shifting police resources and reviewing prison sentences. Those positions are legitimate subjects for scrutiny. But voters also deserve their context and an accurate account of his current platform, which includes investment in law enforcement recruitment, retention and retirement.
These are specific failures by identifiable advertisers. Several ads came from outside political groups, so responsibility should be assigned to the sponsors rather than automatically to the candidates who benefited.
The criticism is straightforward: get the person right, preserve the timeline, represent the proposal accurately, and let the evidence support the accusation.
A party label cannot do that work.
Folks, the commercial that deserves our closest attention may be the one we find easiest to believe. Before repeating it, ask who paid for it, whether the original source says what the advertiser claims, and what information disappeared between the source and the screen.
We do not have to abandon our political convictions to demand honest advertising. We have to insist that those convictions survive contact with the facts.
The Fact Check Cannot Stop at Democratic Party
Democratic campaign advertising deserves the same scrutiny as Republican advertising—and recent examples show why.
It is easy to spot a questionable campaign commercial when it attacks someone we support. The harder test comes when it attacks someone we oppose.

That is when a frightening accusation can feel like confirmation. We recognize the party label, agree with the message, and move on without checking what was left out.
But an advertisement does not become accurate because it comes from our preferred side.
Recent investigations by FactCheck.org and PolitiFact identify false or misleading claims in advertisements from Democratic candidates and Democratic-aligned organizations in Maine, Iowa, Georgia, Texas and Ohio. The problems vary: an accusation contradicted by the record, a quotation stripped of context, a procedural vote presented without a later substantive vote, or a projection delivered without its qualifications.
These examples do not tell us what candidates privately expected voters to believe. My interpretation is that such advertising benefits when viewers accept a message that fits their political loyalties without examining its evidence.
In Maine, WinSenate, a super PAC supporting Democratic Senate candidates, accused Republican Sen. Susan Collins of helping conceal the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Collins did oppose an amendment attached to a defense bill. That is a real vote and a legitimate subject for criticism. But she subsequently supported the standalone disclosure legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent in November 2025.
FactCheck.org found that the advertisements misleadingly presented her record by leaving out that later support.
One ad also characterized a major donor to a pro-Collins super PAC as Epstein’s business partner. Its basis was that Stephen Schwarzman and Epstein were among the founding members of the same private club. That does not, by itself, establish the close business relationship the description suggests.
An advertiser owes voters more than an alarming name and an insinuation.
A separate Maine advertisement from Majority Forward claimed Collins did not believe insider trading should be illegal.
FactCheck.org found that claim false. Collins helped write and pass the 2012 STOCK Act, which affirmed that members of Congress are subject to insider-trading prohibitions.
She opposed a complete congressional stock-trading ban. Critics can challenge that position and the adequacy of existing enforcement. But opposing a blanket trading ban is different from supporting illegal insider trading.
The advertisement blurred that distinction to turn a policy disagreement into a more damaging accusation.
In Iowa, WinSenate attacked Republican Senate candidate Ashley Hinson over the Epstein files.
Hinson had opposed procedural efforts related to disclosure. Yet she voted for the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, when it passed the House 427–1.
PolitiFact rated the claim that she voted against releasing the files Mostly False because the advertisement omitted her later vote for release.
The advertising also emphasized donors whose names appeared in the files. A name appearing in those records does not, on its own, demonstrate wrongdoing or a close relationship with Epstein.
Voters deserve the complete voting record and evidence proportionate to the accusation.
In Georgia, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff’s television ads used a shortened recording of Republican challenger Mike Collins discussing Social Security and returning to the workforce.
The advertisements framed his remarks as a threat to retirees. But PolitiFact found that the full interview concerned making work more financially advantageous through lower taxes. Collins had not instructed retirees to surrender their benefits and get jobs.
There are substantive reasons to examine his policies: he supported measures that experts warned could threaten future benefits. Those concerns deserve accurate discussion.
They do not justify editing a quotation into a message its speaker did not deliver. PolitiFact rated the advertisement’s combined claim Mostly False.
In Texas, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico’s campaign said Republican Ken Paxton voted to protect puppy abusers.
The underlying vote concerned a 2011 bill increasing the bond required when someone appealed a civil court’s finding of animal cruelty. The measure did not increase penalties for animal abuse itself.
Paxton did not explain his opposition. Other opponents raised concerns about procedural fairness and the cost of appeals.
PolitiFact rated Talarico’s claim Mostly False. A vote about appeal requirements can be criticized on its merits. It does not establish that the lawmaker intended to protect animal abusers.
Ohio supplies a more qualified example.
Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown’s advertisement said Republican Sen. Jon Husted voted to remove 490,000 Ohioans from their healthcare coverage.
PolitiFact found the number broadly consistent with credible estimates of losses from Medicaid changes and the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. But it was a projection over ten years, subject to implementation and other uncertainties—not a completed count of people already losing insurance.
Husted’s record also included a later proposal to extend the subsidies.
The claim received a Half True rating. It should not be lumped together with an invented accusation. The criticism here concerns missing qualifications and the presentation of uncertainty.
These findings establish specific advertising failures. They do not measure which party misleads more often, and they do not make every claim equally wrong.
Responsibility also matters. Ads purchased by WinSenate or Majority Forward should be attributed to those organizations rather than automatically to the Democratic candidates who might benefit.
The standard should remain consistent: preserve the context, explain the vote, distinguish estimates from established results, and support accusations with evidence.
Folks, our own side should not receive a discount on truth.
Before sharing the commercial that confirms everything we already believe, we should check the original statement, the complete record and the sponsor’s supporting evidence.
Our political convictions may guide our vote. They should never decide which facts we are willing to see.

Sources
PolitiFact, October 9, 2026
Sources
FactCheck.org, October 1, 2026
FactCheck.org, July 7, 2026
PolitiFact, October 2, 2026
PolitiFact, September 15, 2026
PolitiFact, October 12, 2026
- KJZZ, October 10, 2026
- FactCheck.org, September 25, 2026
- FactCheck.org, September 23, 2026
- FactCheck.org, October 8, 2026
























































