The 60 Plus Association made another major ad buy in southern Arizona today, spending $130,000 to produce and run an ad urging a no vote on Democratic incumbent Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) and Raul Grijalva (CD7).
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Showing posts with label 60-plus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 60-plus. Show all posts
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
FOLLOWING MONEY IN ARIZONA'S POLITICS: NRA Takes Aim, Dentists Go For Gold, 60 Plus Drops 40 In The Mail, and Dem Group Sends $80K Harry's Way
Our previous reports on Independent Expenditures in Arizona's Congressional campaigns were posted on October 12, October 7, October 4, September 30, and September 28.
Today is not even over at the FEC's (Federal Election Commission) filing site for independent expenditures, but it has already been full of fireworks for Arizona campaigns. Four good-sized media buys (including mailers as "media") - let's break them down in order, from large to (relatively) small.
1) "America's Families First Action Fund" bought $80,000.00 of advertising time in the Phoenix market to oppose Republican David Schweikert in his campaign against incumbent Harry Mitchell in CD5. Here's a bit more about this group, which indicates that it spent $60,000+ on this race previously.
2) The American Dental Association continues to spend heavily on behalf of its member, Paul Gosar DDS. Republican Gosar is running in CD1 to defeat incumbent Ann Kirkpatrick. Today, the ADA spent $39,133.00 on a mail piece, and $37,975.90 on a radio ad.
3) The "National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund" drew a bead on the CD5 and CD8 races, spending $48,545.00 ($1000 for production) to air a radio ad in the Phoenix market in favor of Schweikert and $12,747.50 ($1000 for production) for radio time in Tucson supporting challenger Jesse Kelly against incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.
4) The "60 Plus Association" is putting separate mailers out opposing the three Democratic incumbents in CD's 1, 5, and 8. Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Giffords were the same targets in the 60 Plus TV ads that were the subject of an earlier Arizona Politics' Fact Check. The amounts being spent are $13,456.53, $12,261.38 and $15,271.81, respectively. (total: $40,989.72)
PLEASE!!! If you come across any of these advertisements/mailers/etc., please send a copy/link/whatever to Arizona's Politics. If you think any claims need to be Fact Checked, call our attention to them. E-mail address is info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Today is not even over at the FEC's (Federal Election Commission) filing site for independent expenditures, but it has already been full of fireworks for Arizona campaigns. Four good-sized media buys (including mailers as "media") - let's break them down in order, from large to (relatively) small.
1) "America's Families First Action Fund" bought $80,000.00 of advertising time in the Phoenix market to oppose Republican David Schweikert in his campaign against incumbent Harry Mitchell in CD5. Here's a bit more about this group, which indicates that it spent $60,000+ on this race previously.
2) The American Dental Association continues to spend heavily on behalf of its member, Paul Gosar DDS. Republican Gosar is running in CD1 to defeat incumbent Ann Kirkpatrick. Today, the ADA spent $39,133.00 on a mail piece, and $37,975.90 on a radio ad.
3) The "National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund" drew a bead on the CD5 and CD8 races, spending $48,545.00 ($1000 for production) to air a radio ad in the Phoenix market in favor of Schweikert and $12,747.50 ($1000 for production) for radio time in Tucson supporting challenger Jesse Kelly against incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.
4) The "60 Plus Association" is putting separate mailers out opposing the three Democratic incumbents in CD's 1, 5, and 8. Kirkpatrick, Mitchell, and Giffords were the same targets in the 60 Plus TV ads that were the subject of an earlier Arizona Politics' Fact Check. The amounts being spent are $13,456.53, $12,261.38 and $15,271.81, respectively. (total: $40,989.72)
PLEASE!!! If you come across any of these advertisements/mailers/etc., please send a copy/link/whatever to Arizona's Politics. If you think any claims need to be Fact Checked, call our attention to them. E-mail address is info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Friday, September 17, 2010
FACT CHECK UPDATE: FactCheck.org Also Slams 60-Plus Association Ads
Earlier this week, we fact-checked the 60Plus.org ads running against Democratic Representatives Harry Mitchell, Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords. We gave them a "C-"/misleading.
Today, one of the big kahunas in fact checking, FactCheck.org, evaluated these ads, too. Their conclusion? Well, the headline says it all: "Misleading Onslaught by 60 Plus". They did a very good job dissecting the two claims that our article glossed over as "scare tactics": losing your doctors and hurting the quality of care.
I highly recommend reading their article and supporting the non-profit organization that has led the way in fact checking.
We welcome your comments about this post. If you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Today, one of the big kahunas in fact checking, FactCheck.org, evaluated these ads, too. Their conclusion? Well, the headline says it all: "Misleading Onslaught by 60 Plus". They did a very good job dissecting the two claims that our article glossed over as "scare tactics": losing your doctors and hurting the quality of care.
I highly recommend reading their article and supporting the non-profit organization that has led the way in fact checking.
We welcome your comments about this post. If you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.
Monday, September 13, 2010
FACT CHECK: 60Plus Association's Ads Attacking Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell
The national organization that bills itself as the "conservative alternative to the liberal AARP" is spending more than $4 million in ads attacking several Democratic Congresspeople - including three in Arizona. Ads "firing" Gabrielle Giffords, Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell are up and running (frequently) in Phoenix and Tucson (and presumably Flagstaff).
The ads attack the Democrats for voting for the "Obama Pelosi health care disaster" which "will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare, threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care." They accuse the Representatives of pretending to be independent, but voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "when we needed (them) to stand up for us."
"Gabrielle Gifford," concludes one ad, "you're fired." The anti-Mitchell and anti-Kirkpatrick ads end similarly.
These ads do not provide any supporting documentation for their four distinct claims about the health care reform package that was signed into law in March 2010; therefore, this article cannot fully address the claims. A verbal request for the documentation is outstanding. Let's look at the claims one-by-one:
1) The law will raise taxes: Yes, the healthcare reform package does raise taxes. Also of relevance, however, is that the Congressional Budget Office/Joint Committee on Taxation - widely considered as objective and authoritative - have concluded that the laws will also reduce spending by the federal government in many areas, and will result in a total estimated $152 billion reduction of the federal government's budget deficits between 2010 and 2020. Acknowledging that many Republicans and Democrats are concerned about budget deficits at the federal level, that is an important bottom line. Also significant is that the CBO's analysis finds that the effect on the overall American economy is to reduce the overall spending increases on health care. Conclusion: Accurate by omission; ergo, misleading.
2) The law will cut $500 billion from Medicare: It is unclear where this figure came from, but it appears to be from an old version of healthcare reform. The CBO has concluded that the "net reduction in Medicare spending" will actually only be $117 billion through 2019! Just as important is WHY there will be a reduction. The new laws will reduce the amounts paid by Medicare to private corporations that are administering Medicare Advantage plans; they will be restricted on how they could utilize "rebates" from Medicare and would have to charge enrollees if they overbid the formula for costs in their area. Thus, the CBO estimates that the enrollment in the Medicare Advantage problems will be 4.8 million less than if the law had not been passed. (Those 4.8 million people could receive similar coverages elsewhere.)
The second part of this claim is the inference that Medicare benefits to seniors - including the ones speaking in the ads - are going to be cut. However, that is not the case, and in fact, Medicare will actually cover annual check-ups and increase reimbursements to primary care physicians.
Conclusion: False and misleading.
3) The law will threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors: This is apparently based on the assumption that some physicians will not accept Medicare patients. Although this is always a possibility, there is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: Scare tactic.
4) The law will hurt the quality of our care: There is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: See #3.
OVERALL: This campaign is designed to capitalize on discontent about the health care reform package that was signed into law earlier this year. While - to its credit - it does not invoke the "death panels" mantra, it does promote other misleading claims and throws in some inaccurate numbers.
FINAL GRADES: With an "A" being completely true and accurate, and an "F" being completely false and misleading, this grades out at a "C-". If the advertiser supplies us with sources to support their claims, we will check 'em out and amend as necessary. (Unfortunately, there is certainly a tendency to grade political attack ads on a curve, in order to avoid giving out all "F"'s; we try to avoid that trap.)
TRANSPARENCY GRADE: The "60 Plus Association" also receives a grade of "F" for its lack of transparency on the source of funds for this campaign. The Association's entire annual budget in 2007 and 2008 was approximately $1.8 million; there is no disclosure as to where this sudden expenditure of more than $4 million is coming from.
********
TEXT OF ANTI-GIFFORDS AD:
--Washington liberals like Gabrielle Giffords are not listening to Arizona seniors.
--The Obama Pelosi health care disaster will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare,
--Threaten seniors' ability to keep you own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care.
--Giffords pretends she's independent, but when we needed her to stand up for us,
--Giffords voted with Pelosi - just like all the other liberals.
--Arizona seniors have had enough.
--Gabrielle Giffords, you're fired!
The ads attack the Democrats for voting for the "Obama Pelosi health care disaster" which "will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare, threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care." They accuse the Representatives of pretending to be independent, but voting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "when we needed (them) to stand up for us."
"Gabrielle Gifford," concludes one ad, "you're fired." The anti-Mitchell and anti-Kirkpatrick ads end similarly.
These ads do not provide any supporting documentation for their four distinct claims about the health care reform package that was signed into law in March 2010; therefore, this article cannot fully address the claims. A verbal request for the documentation is outstanding. Let's look at the claims one-by-one:
1) The law will raise taxes: Yes, the healthcare reform package does raise taxes. Also of relevance, however, is that the Congressional Budget Office/Joint Committee on Taxation - widely considered as objective and authoritative - have concluded that the laws will also reduce spending by the federal government in many areas, and will result in a total estimated $152 billion reduction of the federal government's budget deficits between 2010 and 2020. Acknowledging that many Republicans and Democrats are concerned about budget deficits at the federal level, that is an important bottom line. Also significant is that the CBO's analysis finds that the effect on the overall American economy is to reduce the overall spending increases on health care. Conclusion: Accurate by omission; ergo, misleading.
2) The law will cut $500 billion from Medicare: It is unclear where this figure came from, but it appears to be from an old version of healthcare reform. The CBO has concluded that the "net reduction in Medicare spending" will actually only be $117 billion through 2019! Just as important is WHY there will be a reduction. The new laws will reduce the amounts paid by Medicare to private corporations that are administering Medicare Advantage plans; they will be restricted on how they could utilize "rebates" from Medicare and would have to charge enrollees if they overbid the formula for costs in their area. Thus, the CBO estimates that the enrollment in the Medicare Advantage problems will be 4.8 million less than if the law had not been passed. (Those 4.8 million people could receive similar coverages elsewhere.)
The second part of this claim is the inference that Medicare benefits to seniors - including the ones speaking in the ads - are going to be cut. However, that is not the case, and in fact, Medicare will actually cover annual check-ups and increase reimbursements to primary care physicians.
Conclusion: False and misleading.
3) The law will threaten seniors' ability to keep your own doctors: This is apparently based on the assumption that some physicians will not accept Medicare patients. Although this is always a possibility, there is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: Scare tactic.
4) The law will hurt the quality of our care: There is nothing concrete to back this up. Conclusion: See #3.
OVERALL: This campaign is designed to capitalize on discontent about the health care reform package that was signed into law earlier this year. While - to its credit - it does not invoke the "death panels" mantra, it does promote other misleading claims and throws in some inaccurate numbers.
FINAL GRADES: With an "A" being completely true and accurate, and an "F" being completely false and misleading, this grades out at a "C-". If the advertiser supplies us with sources to support their claims, we will check 'em out and amend as necessary. (Unfortunately, there is certainly a tendency to grade political attack ads on a curve, in order to avoid giving out all "F"'s; we try to avoid that trap.)
TRANSPARENCY GRADE: The "60 Plus Association" also receives a grade of "F" for its lack of transparency on the source of funds for this campaign. The Association's entire annual budget in 2007 and 2008 was approximately $1.8 million; there is no disclosure as to where this sudden expenditure of more than $4 million is coming from.
********
TEXT OF ANTI-GIFFORDS AD:
--Washington liberals like Gabrielle Giffords are not listening to Arizona seniors.
--The Obama Pelosi health care disaster will raise taxes, cut $500 billion from Medicare,
--Threaten seniors' ability to keep you own doctors, and will hurt the quality of our care.
--Giffords pretends she's independent, but when we needed her to stand up for us,
--Giffords voted with Pelosi - just like all the other liberals.
--Arizona seniors have had enough.
--Gabrielle Giffords, you're fired!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)