As fact-checkers, we watch a lot of ads in the lead-up to elections, and we only write about a fraction of them. Some of them are downright bizarre. As we first started doing 20 years ago — just for fun — on Election Day, we’re giving out pretend awards to some of the notable ads we came across this campaign cycle.

Our primary focus is national politics, but a number of this year’s winners are from the state and local level. You may notice that one winner has something in common with director Martin Scorsese, and another honoree is featured holding something just as furry. There’s also an award recognizing the contributions of AI because we want to get on its good side.

Read our awards story and go to the polls and vote. The order in which you do them is less important.

Toughest on China Winner: Sen. Marsha Blackburn, candidate for Tennessee governor

This ad shows Blackburn, a Republican, has a strategy for cracking down on China that other politicians probably have not considered. It involves going to a Chinese restaurant and smashing all of its fortune cookies. (In 2024, she broke a lot of china, as in plates.)

“Here in Tennessee, we’re going to stop communist China and protect Tennessee land,” she says, appearing satisfied with her display of destruction. If only negotiating with Chinese President Xi Jinping were that simple. 

It was considerate of Blackburn not to harm the restaurant’s maneki-neko figurine in the making of the ad. That must be because of its Japanese origin.

Cutest Pasta Winner: Wisconsin state Rep. Steve Doyle

Doyle’s recipe for an effective ad was a dash of humor and a sprinkle of manipulation. The Democratic assemblyman running for reelection in Wisconsin did the same kind of emotional appeal that he warned voters about in the ad.

“Have you noticed how politicians prey on emotions to influence voters?” he asks, adding that they’ll use “pictures of babies” or “scare tactics” just to get votes. Don’t fall for it, he says, all while holding a baby of his own – an adorable alpaca named Pasta. 

Because of that distraction, we’d understand if viewers missed everything Doyle later said about wanting to lower taxes, make healthcare affordable and reign in big tech.

And get this: Pasta has an alpaca sister named Noodle. Put those two in an ad together and Doyle really won’t be fighting fair.

The John Stockton Award for Assists Winner: AI

Ever had a guest who just won’t leave? Yeah…Ohio knows the feeling. 🎂 https://t.co/bWbnwQX7Hr

— Ohio Flyer PAC (@OhioFlyerPAC) April 20, 2026

A number of analysts have dubbed the 2026 midterms the first “AI election.” That’s because so many ads this cycle have been made with the help of artificial intelligence.

The Wesleyan Media Project said $137 million was spent on 220 ads featuring AI-generated or enhanced content through Oct. 11. That’s up from virtually nothing in 2024, and still likely an “undercount,” it has said. Republicans, more so than Democrats, have used the technology when producing ads, the project’s analysis has found.

In the Republican ad above, an AI version of Democrat Sherrod Brown overstays his welcome at a birthday party. Other notable AI-assisted ads showed Democrat James Talarico writing his own version of the Bible (we fact-checked it), and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie in a “throuple” with Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. And some AI ads have prompted cease-and-desist letters from the targeted candidates, such as one in North Carolina that put Jessica Bichler, a state Senate candidate, in crazy yoga positions.

Wesleyan said most of the ads don’t even mention being made with AI, leaving viewers to figure it out. We’re sure that’s because AI is a great teammate and didn’t want credit.

The Best Worst Facial Hair Winner: Charly Ray, candidate for state Senate in Wisconsin

Typically, at least some political candidates sport unusual beards or mustaches. But this year — at least in Wisconsin — it’s all about the eyebrows.

Democrat Charly Ray, who’s running for state Senate, put out an ad embracing voter reaction to his large, unruly brows, while taking the opportunity to use them as policy metaphors and to gently rib another politician in the state.

“Like data centers, they’ve had very little oversight,” Ray says of his brows in an impressive deadpan. “Like our schools, maintenance has been underfunded.”

He boasts that his eyebrows are “all-natural,” unlike those of “some politicians,” as the ad flashes a photo of Republican U.S. House candidate Michael Alfonso, who is the son-in-law of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. Alfonso’s well-coiffed brows have drawn comparisons to Bert the Muppet, so he’s received some teasing as well.

Ray, who says there will be no trimming on his part, is not the only politician to capitalize on their brows this year. In the Canadian city of Burlington, Ontario, a female mayoral candidate voluntarily drew on a unibrow (as well as a mustache) à la sign graffiti to cheekily poke fun at herself in an ad to get out the vote. (Alas, she lost her race.)

Worst Romance Plotline Winner: Steve Hilton, candidate for California governor

Steve Hilton, the Republican running for governor in California, caused a stir with this ad. It shows two young women sitting on a bed in a darkened room, music playing, a large Pride flag on the wall behind them. 

“I can’t believe I’m doing this,” one says.

“Don’t be nervous,” the other says, stroking her hair. “It’s not that bad.”

“I’ve just never done anything like this before. Like what if my dad finds out?” 

Eventually, the camera pans down and we see what they’re talking about: filling out a ballot for a Republican, namely Hilton.

“I think I like it?” the first woman says, giggling.  

“Now lick it,” the other says — and holds out an envelope for a mail-in ballot. 

The ad’s final frame tells voters: “Just try it! Steve Hilton for Governor.” 

The suggestive ad prompted pushback from many in Hilton’s own party, including a state superintendent candidate who called it “Weird, creepy, disturbing garbage.” Hilton defended the ad but asked “for some grace,” saying the thought that he had upset anyone saddened him.

Barn Dancing with the Stars Winner: Jamie Ager, candidate for U.S. House in North Carolina

Campaign ads often show candidates pledging to bring change to Washington. Jamie Ager’s prescription for change in this ad is a bit different.

“Do you know what we need more of in Washington, D.C.?” Ager, a Democrat running for Congress in western North Carolina, tells a crowd as music starts up. “Barn Dances!”

The next shots show people young and old dancing to a live band, in an airy barn with lights strung from the rafters. Ager is seen mixing it up with the other dancers.

“Amy and I host these every month,” Ager continues. “Politicians just dance with the lobbyists. But I’ll take a good mountain hoedown any day.” 

Then he dances around to his talking points: investing in western North Carolina, taking on corporate greed and securing funds for the ongoing recovery from 2024’s Hurricane Helene.

Worst Sense of Direction Winner: Defending Main Street PAC

This super PAC ad is pretty straightforward yet still went in the completely wrong direction. It attacks Democrat Troy Jackson, who would represent Portland and other parts of Maine if he defeats Republican Sen. Susan Collins. But the ad ended up briefly airing in Portland, Oregon, which is on the other side of the country.

The geographic mix-up actually wasn’t Defending Main Street PAC’s fault. It blamed the error on its advertising vendor, Cross Screen Media, which took responsibility.

“During a recent independent expenditure, our media vendor mistakenly placed approximately $25,000 in digital advertising in the Portland, Oregon media market instead of Portland, Maine,” a representative for the super PAC said in a statement emailed to us. Nevermind that they ignored our questions about the misleading claims in the ad, as we wrote.

The super PAC ultimately got a refund, but this could have been an even costlier mistake. There are multiple Portlands in the U.S., including in Texas, Connecticut and Tennessee.

The Eye Spy Award Winner: BJ Wyrick, candidate for mayor of Little Rock, Arkansas

What the Flock? This ad from the mayoral race in Arkansas wasn’t on our radar until we went searching for award-worthy ads we may have missed. Maybe we shouldn’t have.

As far as we know, the ad was only posted to Facebook. It warns Little Rock residents – in a Rockwell-inspired song – that the city is “watching you” and “everything you do” with thousands of cameras. After a controversy involving local police officers, Wyrick, the nonpartisan vice mayor who wants the city’s head job, spoke out against law enforcement using Flock camera systems, which capture vehicle activity and can be helpful in police investigations. We assume that’s the point of the ad’s lyrics, but it isn’t exactly clear.

What’s really creepy is the illustration for the ad, which features a lot of glossy eyeballs of different sizes. Who wouldn’t fear being watched after seeing something like that?

The True Blood Award for Glamouring Winner: President Donald Trump

The U.S. Government is up on TV with this spot —

It aired nationally on FOX yesterday during Illinois at #7 Ohio State and also during Fox News Sunday this morning https://t.co/8PP9FPzUZk

— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) September 27, 2026

The vampires on the TV series “True Blood” used direct eye contact, or glamouring, to hypnotize people and influence their thoughts. Here, Trump appeared to try the same technique.

In the video, which is in black and white for maximum effect, Trump does a model walk down a hallway while staring intensely into the camera for nearly 30 seconds. As he does that, a voiceover plays with Trump saying “we will demolish the deep state,” “expel the warmongers from our government,” “drive out the globalists,” and “cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists.” We’ll have to wait to see if Trump’s method worked.

The White House experimented with some mental tricks, too, when it tried to convince critics of the taxpayer-funded message that it’s a public service announcement rather than a campaign ad. That was tough to do since Trump kept telling voters to pretend he is on the ballot, and released an almost identical ad during his 2024 run for president.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post The 2026 FactCheck Awards appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Over the course of this election, we’ve monitored key toss-up congressional races, fact-checking false claims and distortions of the facts on a host of topics. But some issues have loomed larger than others.

Before the Election Day polls open, here’s a look at the major midterm themes we’ve written about and how both parties have twisted the facts in trying to garner voters’ support.

Inflation and Gas Prices

When inflation and gasoline prices spiked in the summer of 2022, the midterm election airwaves were filled with Republican campaign ads attacking Democrats on those points, as we wrote for our “major themes” story then. With annualized inflation at 3.7% and gasoline prices at $4.27 per gallon the week of Oct. 26 — higher than the metrics when President Donald Trump’s second term began — inflation and gasoline prices are again a centerpiece of the midterm elections, with the party roles reversed.

Most of the Democratic ads blame the war in Iran and Republicans’ support for it, which is a matter for political debate, and not something for fact-checkers.

But the attacks haven’t always been on the mark, as was the case in a North Carolina ad in which Democratic Senate candidate Roy Cooper used an out-of-date quote from his Republican opponent, Michael Whatley, to portray him as out of touch on affordability issues. The economic picture was much different in July 2025 — when Whatley commented on grocery prices, gasoline prices and inflation — than they are today.

And while he isn’t on the ballot (technically), Trump has repeatedly twisted the facts on inflation and gasoline prices while stumping for Republican candidates in the run-up to the midterm elections.

Transgender Issues

In races across the country, Republicans have distorted the facts in claiming that their Democratic opponents support “sex changes” for children or taxpayer funding of such surgeries. Since Labor Day, $162 million has been spent on more than 260 ads containing the words “sex change,” according to our search of AdImpact’s ad-tracking database, with $91.5 million spent in federal Senate races alone. (A few of those ads are Democrats defending themselves from such attacks.)

In fact-checking ads making these claims in three toss-up Senate races, we found several ads that cited politicians’ votes against measures that went beyond prohibiting surgeries. 

For instance, ads in Texas cited Democrat James Talarico’s 2023 vote against state legislation that broadly prohibited gender-affirming care for kids — both medications, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, and surgeries. The bill stipulated that doctors could lose their medical licenses for violating the measure. Talarico, a state representative, voted against the bill, and has said it was “overly broad.” He voted for an amendment that would have restricted the bill to banning surgeries.

It’s worth noting that gender-affirming surgeries typically take place after age 18, according to experts and studies on the prevalence of gender-affirming care.

A 2025 report by the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute estimated that more than 2.8 million people in the U.S. age 13 and older identify as transgender — meaning they identify with a gender that doesn’t match the sex they were assigned at birth.

Epstein

More than 350 different TV ads that mention Jeffrey Epstein have been aired since Labor Day, and they came from both sides of the political aisle, according to AdImpact. Numerous ads from Democratic-aligned groups claimed Republican candidates voted against releasing the Epstein files, while candidates from both parties accused each other of taking donations from the late convicted sex offender.

Ads in Alaska, Kansas and Maine, for example, misleadingly claimed Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan, Roger Marshall and Susan Collins voted to cover up the Epstein files. They — and nearly all Republican senators — voted in September 2025 to table a Democratic amendment to the annual defense budget bill. The amendment called for the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. But as we noted in stories about those ads, the Senate in November 2025 passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by unanimous consent, meaning, of course, that Sullivan, Marshall and Collins supported it.

The bill required the DOJ to release all files related to its investigation of Epstein.

Meanwhile, in races around the country, ads from both sides attempted to link opponents to Epstein through political donations made by alleged Epstein associates — people who were either listed in Epstein’s contact list or are referenced in Epstein emails that have been publicly released. But as we pointed out in several stories, the associates were not charged with crimes, and most had tangential associations to Epstein.

Tax Cuts on Tips, Overtime and Seniors

In hundreds of ads around the country, Republican candidates and the PACs supporting them touted tax cuts for tips, overtime and older Americans that were part of Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Many other ads attacked Democrats who voted against or opposed the OBBBA, claiming they were against those popular tax cuts.

It’s true that not a single Democrat in either the House or Senate voted in favor of the OBBBA, which was signed into law by Trump on July 4, 2025. And the law did cut — though didn’t completely eliminate — taxes on tips, overtime pay and Social Security through 2028.

But many of the candidates facing these attacks say they voted against the OBBBA for other reasons — chiefly that overall tax cuts were skewed to the wealthy, and that the legislation cut funding to Medicaid and reduced spending on federal food benefits. Many Democrats say they aren’t opposed to the bill’s tax cuts for tips, overtime and older Americans. Some have even said they would work to make them permanent.

Data Centers

A rare area of bipartisan agreement among voters is opposition to data centers. But data centers don’t necessarily lead to higher electricity prices, as many ads say and many voters may think.

Signage directs people outside an early voting polling place in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Oct. 28. Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images.

We explored the issue in-depth, with experts telling us there were multiple factors determining whether a data center would raise local electric bills.

“Data centers can put either upward or downward pressure on electricity prices,” Jacquelyn Pless, an energy economist at the University of Toronto, told us. “It depends on how much it costs to serve the new demand, whether utilities can use existing infrastructure more efficiently, and who ultimately pays for any required investments.”

We found that tens of millions of dollars have been spent on midterm ads addressing data centers and electricity prices, with significant spending in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Michigan, according to AdImpact. In general, experts told us that data centers have contributed to higher prices in Ohio and other Midwestern states, though the facilities aren’t the only reason for more expensive electricity. In Texas, the issue is less clear. Price increases have been modest in the state, which has implemented low-cost wind and solar power that can stave off a large price hike.

Medicare and Social Security

It’s basically guaranteed in federal elections: There will be claims that politicians want to cut, endanger or take away Medicare and Social Security. The 2026 election cycle was no exception.

We saw Democratic ads in Wisconsin, Ohio and New York races for the U.S. House that accused Republican candidates of “gutting Medicare,” voting for “huge cuts to Medicare” and “cheering on Trump’s attack on Medicare” — exaggerated and misleading claims related to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Republican domestic policy law made some changes to Medicare, but they are narrow and affect relatively few beneficiaries.

Some ads also could have been referring to automatic cuts a 2010 law could have triggered indirectly under pay-as-you-go rules. But as Congress has regularly done, it subsequently waived those cuts. A conservative ad attacking Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas in the New Hampshire Senate race used the PAYGO issue to make a convoluted and misleading claim about Pappas voting to “cut Medicare” by hundreds of billions of dollars.  

On Social Security, we fact-checked ads from both parties that misrepresented what candidates had said or proposed regarding retirement benefits.

Rural Healthcare

The fate of rural hospitals featured in ads from both sides of the aisle this year. Most of them centered on Trump’s signature domestic policy law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 

Ads from Republican outside groups touted the law’s $50 billion rural healthcare fund and heaped praise on GOP senators and representatives who voted for it, saying they “secured millions for our rural hospitals” or passed “the biggest investment ever in rural healthcare.” Other ads attacked Democrats for opposing the bill, claiming they “voted to gut rural hospitals” or opposed “vital funding” for them. 

What those ads left out: The law’s cuts to Medicaid are expected to result in rural areas getting much less healthcare funding overall. The nonpartisan health policy research organization KFF estimates the law will reduce federal Medicaid funding for rural areas by $137 billion over 10 years. The cuts to Medicaid, and the potential impact on the healthcare system, were a major reason Democrats opposed the law.

Groups backing Democrats, meanwhile, ran ads in several key races citing specific numbers of rural hospitals that could close due to the law’s cuts. But experts told us that while the law is likely to impact many hospitals’ finances, it’s impossible to predict how many might close as a result. 

Communism

In a speech at the first Republican midterm convention, held in September, Trump repeatedly invoked a fear of “communism” as a reason not to elect Democrats. The president said that if Democrats control Congress, it would be run by “crazed” democratic socialists, who he said are really “communists.” Trump has repeatedly referred to “Democrat communists” in midterm rallies since then.

But democratic socialists — who make up a small minority of congressional candidates — are not the same as communists.

Matthew McManus, an assistant professor of political science at Spelman College, told us that it was a “very long-standing trope” for conservatives to refer to democratic socialists as communists. “Conservative discourse intentionally, in many cases, obscures the distinctions between liberals, social democrats, democratic socialists, communists, by trying to conflate them all together and suggest that they’re all part and parcel of the same thing,” he said.

There are few democratic socialists already in Congress — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan are two well-known Democratic Socialists of America members. The DSA has endorsed only seven congressional candidates, all for the House.

As for communists, a co-chair of the Communist Party USA told PolitiFact this summer that there are no communists in Congress and that he knows of none running for the House or Senate.

Immigration and Crime

In several key races, Republican-backed ads accused Democratic candidates of supporting soft border policies that led to an increase in crime.

In Ohio, a Republican ad blamed former Sen. Sherrod Brown for a deadly crash in April on an Ohio interstate in which an immigrant was charged with vehicular homicide. But there’s no evidence of any tie between Brown’s votes on immigration, as the ad suggests, and the suspect in this incident.

And in Alaska, an ad from Sullivan featured a mother whose 22-year-old son died from fentanyl and who claimed Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola took contributions from “liberals [who] opened our borders to the drug cartels” and then “voted with them against securing our border.” But Peltola was among a handful of Democrats who joined Republicans in support of an unsuccessful bill that sought a return to many of the hardline border policies enacted by Trump during his first term. And Peltola often bucked her party when voting on immigration bills.

Also, while these claims concern crime but not immigration, Cooper in North Carolina faced false and misleading attacks related to a COVID-19 pandemic early-release program to reduce the prison population.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Common Themes in the 2026 Midterms appeared first on FactCheck.org.

In Kansas’ tight Senate race, ads from Democratic and Republican outside groups are accusing the other party’s candidate of having protected pedophiles. In both cases, the attacks are misleading or unsupported by the evidence.

Ads from Democratic groups misleadingly claim Sen. Roger Marshall, the Republican incumbent, helped cover up Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes by voting to keep the Epstein files under wraps while taking money from the convicted sex offender’s “associates.” 

Marshall supported the November 2025 law that required the Justice Department to publicly release the files. He previously voted against a Democratic amendment calling for the files’ release, saying he opposed attaching it to an unrelated defense bill. As for the purported Epstein “associates,” they’re people whose names appear incidentally in the files but had no documented contact with Epstein, or whose interactions with him were limited. None has been accused of wrongdoing.

An ad from a Republican group, meanwhile, claims Democratic candidate Adam Hamilton, a pastor, “protected a pedophile” accused of molesting teenage boys two decades ago at a camp his church ran.

According to court records reviewed by local news outlets, the boys reported the abuse but couldn’t identify the culprit, and the church didn’t notify police. It’s unclear what role Hamilton played in that decision. The next year, a camp volunteer was caught and reported to police. Hamilton has acknowledged that the church could have handled the situation better, but there’s no evidence he knowingly protected a predator.

The Cook Political Report rates the Kansas race as one of several toss-ups that could determine control of the Senate on Nov. 3. President Donald Trump campaigned for Marshall in Kansas on Nov. 1, the president’s second rally in the state in two weeks.

Votes on the Epstein Files

Multiple Democratic-aligned groups have run ads accusing Marshall of voting to cover up the Epstein files.

“It was one of the worst child abuse scandals in history,” states an ad from WinSenate, a super PAC working to elect Democrats. “Dozens of young girls sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. Drugged, molested, and raped. And Roger Marshall helped cover it up. Marshall voted to keep the Epstein files sealed, ignoring pleas from victims and saying releasing the information was, quote, ‘not of much interest to me.’ Roger Marshall used his office to protect pedophiles.”

Another WinSenate ad makes a similar claim, interspersing images of Marshall with what appears to be a photo of an Epstein victim with her face redacted. 

“She was a 14-year-old girl,” the ad’s narrator says. “He was a 65-year-old senator. She was drugged, molested, and raped. And he helped cover it up. Roger Marshall took nearly $40,000 from Jeffrey Epstein’s associates. Then voted to keep the Epstein files sealed, protecting pedophiles.”

WinSenate had spent more than $6 million on the two ads combined as of the afternoon of Nov. 2, according to the ad-tracking service AdImpact. At least two other groups backing Democrats have also aired ads attacking Marshall over the Epstein files.

These ads don’t give a full account of Marshall’s votes on this issue.

In September 2025, Senate Democrats proposed an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have directed the Department of Justice to make the Epstein files publicly available. The amendment was killed in a mostly party-line vote, with all but two Republicans opposed to the amendment. Marshall was among those voting against it.

According to local NBC affiliate KSNT, Marshall said at the time that he supported releasing the files but opposed tying it to an unrelated defense bill, which he called a “political stunt.” 

Two months later, Marshall supported a standalone bill compelling release of the Epstein files. The bill cleared the Senate with unanimous consent, which means the bill was not opposed by Marshall or any other senator. 

That vote came after Trump threw his support behind the bill, after resisting calls to disclose the files for months. 

Marshall’s statement that releasing the files was “not of much interest to me” came in July 2025. Asked about the issue by reporters, he responded that there were bigger priorities in his view. Here’s the full quotation:

“It’s just not my focus,” Marshall said. “I mean, I want justice to be served, but we need to be focused right now on telling Americans about this reconciliation bill that we did. It’s going to be the largest tax cut in American history, the largest decrease in spending, we’re going to secure the border, a whole lot of other things. So it’s just not of much interest to me right now.”

Lauren French, a spokesperson for WinSenate, said in an emailed statement that Marshall’s initial vote against releasing the files “was a decision to keep evidence about the sexual abuse of children locked away for months longer, while the powerful people named in it kept their secrets.”

“When survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse pleaded with Roger Marshall for justice and transparency, he turned his back on them,” she said. “Marshall voted to kill an effort to force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, blaming technicalities and saying, ‘it’s just not of much interest to me.’ ” 

We reached out to Marshall’s campaign and haven’t heard back.

Claims About ‘Epstein’s Associates’

One of the WinSenate ads also claims that Marshall “took nearly $40,000 from Jeffrey Epstein’s associates.” The claim doesn’t hold up.

The ad cites an article on a partisan website called American Journal News, which is published by Democratic operative David Brock’s True Blue Media and partly funded by a Democratic-aligned group he co-founded, American Bridge 21st Century. (He stepped away from American Bridge in 2022.)

The article cites four people whose names appear in the Epstein files and who also gave to one of Marshall’s campaigns. As we’ve written before, the mere fact that someone is mentioned in the files does not indicate that the person is implicated in wrongdoing, or even had a direct relationship with the disgraced financier. 

One of the people mentioned in the article is Stephen Schwarzman, chairman and CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone. We previously wrote about a separate WinSenate ad in Maine that referred to Schwarzman as Epstein’s “business partner,” based on the fact that both men were among the initial investors in an exclusive New York City club. 

As we noted at the time, they were among about 150 founding members paying $100,000 each. Aside from paying money to join the same club, it’s not clear the two men ever did business together or had a close working relationship. 

The Epstein files include emails from a publicist inviting Epstein to two events Schwarzman was involved in: a 2015 event celebrating the movie “The Imitation Game” co-hosted by Schwarzman and his wife (along with former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others) at the Schwarzman’s New York home; and a 2013 anniversary celebration for the New York Observer, which lists Schwarzman as one of more than two dozen co-hosts. Epstein was out of town for the 2015 event, and it’s unclear if he attended the other. None of the emails shows Schwarzman and Epstein corresponding directly.

A spokesperson for Schwarzman previously told us the two men had no relationship. 

“It would be categorically false and reckless to claim or imply that Steve had any relationship with this despicable individual,” the spokesperson said in an email.

The article also mentions Joseph Baratta, an executive at Blackstone, who donated $6,000 to Marshall’s campaign in 2025. There’s no evidence he was an “associate” of Epstein. 

We could find only one mention of Baratta in the files: a 2011 email exchange between Baratta and Peter Mandelson, the British politician who later lost his post as ambassador to the U.S. over his relationship with Epstein. Mandelson was in private practice as a lobbyist at the time, and the exchange seems to involve him advising Baratta on a Blackstone public relations matter. Mandelson forwarded the exchange to Epstein with the note “fyi He’s nice, bright guy.” 

Nothing in the emails indicates Baratta and Epstein communicated directly.

“Joe never met, spoke with, or interacted with him in any way – period,” a spokesperson for Baratta told us. “Joe had absolutely no relationship with him, and it would be outrageous and patently false to suggest otherwise.”

A third supposed Epstein “associate” mentioned in the article is Joel Magerman, head of the investment bank Bryant Park Capital, who gave $11,400 to Marshall’s campaign in 2019. Again, we could find no evidence that Magerman and Epstein were associated. Magerman’s only mentions in the Epstein files are two emails that a broker named Barry Zelin sent to multiple recipients, including Magerman and Epstein. There’s no record in the files of Magerman responding, and nothing to indicate he interacted with Epstein directly.

We reached out to Magerman through his company and haven’t heard back.

The fourth person cited in the article is a Paul, Weiss lawyer named Greg Ezring who gave $500 to Marshall’s 2020 campaign. Emails indicate that in 2014, Ezring was working on a donor-advised fund that Epstein was trying to stand up with the Gates Foundation, a deal that ultimately fell through.

Ezring was also copied on a 2013 email, which was forwarded to Epstein, about a matter involving private equity firm Apollo Global Management. The co-founder of Apollo, Leon Black, stepped down from the company in 2021 amid scrutiny for his ties to Epstein.

Nothing in the emails suggests wrongdoing or indicates that Ezring and Epstein had a relationship beyond those matters. Ezring did not respond to an email requesting comment.

And again, none of the four has been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein.

French, the WinSenate spokesperson, did not answer a question about the ad’s characterization of these individuals as Epstein “associates.”

Church Camp Allegations

The Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, has spent more than $1.6 million on an ad alleging Hamilton covered up for a man who was accused of sexually abusing teens at a church camp two decades ago. 

The accusation was first made last spring by one of Hamilton’s primary opponents. After reviewing the relevant court records, the Kansas City Star wrote that they did “not back up the core of [the opponent’s] claims.”

The Senate Leadership Fund ad opens on two boys in a darkened room with bunkbeds.

“They say there’s a special place in hell for pedophiles. But what about the enablers?” the narrator says, as an image of Hamilton appears. “What about pastor Adam Hamilton? Boys molested at Hamilton’s church camp. Victims reported the predator. Hamilton’s church swept it under the rug, then welcomed the pervert back to do it again. God will judge Adam Hamilton’s heart. You can judge his leadership. Adam Hamilton protected a pedophile. He’s unfit for U.S. Senate.”

Here’s a quick synopsis of what happened, according to the Star’s reporting. (We were unable to view the records ourselves because they were not available online.)

In 2005, teenage boys at a youth camp run by Church of the Resurrection, the church Hamilton co-founded, reported that a man had entered their rooms at night and molested them. 

Camp leaders were initially “dismissive of their claims” but did an internal investigation, according to a court decision quoted by the Star. That investigation was “unable to conclusively identify the perpetrator,” according to the document, though there were rumors it was a camp volunteer named Scott Preston Moore, according to records cited by another local news outlet, the Kansas Reflector.

“Neither boy was able to make out the facial features of the suspect or positively identify the defendant due to the darkness of the room and the blinding light that had been shined directly at their faces,” according to another court filing quoted by the Star. 

The church did not report the incidents to police. Hamilton’s name does not appear in documents related to the handling of the incident, the Star reported.

The following year, Moore was accused of sneaking into boys’ rooms at night, and this time identified as the culprit. Church leaders reported it to law enforcement and barred Moore from working with children or youth. Local prosecutors ultimately declined to file charges, according to the Star.

In 2010, the Star reported, a man living out of state told Hamilton that Moore had abused him decades earlier, when Moore was his babysitter. According to the Star, the man decided to report the abuse to law enforcement after speaking with Hamilton. 

Shortly thereafter, police investigated a report that Moore had inappropriately touched a 16-year-old during a sleepover, according to the Star. Moore was convicted of that charge in 2013 and sentenced to a year in jail.

The Reflector reported that the incidents from 2005 and 2006 were considerations in the case that led to his conviction. 

Hamilton has acknowledged the church could have handled the situation better, but has called the allegations that he protected or covered up for a predator false. 

“First of all, others investigated. I was actually preaching that weekend at Church of the Resurrection,” he said in an October debate. “And I did not sign off on him going back. I should have checked to make sure that he wasn’t going back. That was a mistake on my part. But I will tell you, when he was investigated the next year, we forbade him from working with youth or children any more. He left our church angry and upset. And again, we played a critical role several years later in getting him arrested and convicted.”

Asked by CNN last month whether he would have done anything differently now, Hamilton responded, “Absolutely. We should have called the police immediately. But that was not our policies 21 years ago.” 

Asked for evidence to support the ad’s claims, a Senate Leadership Fund spokesperson pointed us to a Senate Leadership Fund press release highlighting the CNN quote.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post In Kansas, Both Sides Twist the Facts in Accusations of Protecting Pedophiles appeared first on FactCheck.org.