Within the Virginia’s governor’s race, four-Pinocchio strike ads on both sides

In the Virginia’s governor’s race, four-Pinocchio attack ads on both sides

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, left, and GOP gubernatorial candidate Ed Gillespie. (AP)

“MS-13’s motto is kill, rape, control. The gang has been tied to brutal murders across Virginia. Ralph Northam’s policy? Northam cast the deciding vote in favor of sanctuary cities that let illegal immigrants who commit crimes back on the street. Increasing the threat of MS-13, Ralph Northam weak on MS-13 in putting Virginia families at risk.”
â€? Voiceover of tv ad sponsored by Virginia gubernatorial candidate Male impotence Gillespie (R), Sept. 28, 2017

“Ralph Northam, who is running for Governor of Virginia, is fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities.  Vote Ed Gillespie!”
� President Trump, in a tweet, Oct. 5

“Lobbyist Ed Gillespie didn’t care about college students when he lobbied to keep their student loan rates high. Ed sold them out. He didn’t care about our workers when he lobbied for companies sending jobs overseas or when he fought to give billions to Wall Street banks. Ed sold them out. Ed Gillespie made millions selling out to the highest bidder. He’ll sell you out too.”
â€? Voiceover of television ad sponsored simply by by Virginia Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam (D), Oct. 9 

Virginia is just 1 of 2 states and the only swing suggest that hosts a gubernatorial election the entire year after a presidential campaign.  President Trump has weighed in. High-profile surrogates such as Vice President Pence, previous vice president Joe Biden plus former president Barack Obama take the campaign trail. And the advertisement war is on.

As the election nears, both Conservative Ed Gillespie and Democrat Rob Northam have escalated their strike ads. Late in September, Gillespie debuted an ad titled “Safer Communities” that stopped short of suggesting their opponent was personally helping the road gang MS-13 to grow. Northam offers, perhaps unsurprisingly, knocked Gillespie to get his past as a Washington, M. C., lobbyist in an ad entitled “Sold” that details how Gillespie “sold out” various constituencies.

We often warn readers to be cautious about attack ads. So , we dug in. Did Northam cast the deciding vote supporting a haven city policy that benefits MS-13? And did Gillespie make large numbers by selling out the same people that would become his constituents?

The Facts

The Gillespie Ad

The campaign to get Republican Virginia gubernatorial candidate Male impotence Gillespie released an ad assaulting Democratic opponent Lt. Gov. Rob Northam on immigration. (Ed Gillespie for Virginia Governor 2017)

Let’s start with Gillespie’s statements about Northam’s policy on haven cities and MS-13.

The vote in question was on HB 2000, which aimed to stop any kind of Virginia locality from adopting any kind of “ordinance, procedure, or policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Essentially, it would prevent any type of “sanctuary” status in the state. Conservatives were in favor of the measure. Democrats said it wasn’t necessary.

It is true that Northam, in the capacity as lieutenant governor associated with Virginia, in February did throw a vote against the bill following the State Senate split 20 in order to 20. However , the story doesn’t begin or end there.

Majority Chief Thomas Norment (R) initially entered party lines and voted using the Democrats who opposed the costs, leading to the 20-20 split. This particular forced Northam to cast the tie-breaking vote. The bill had been then returned to the State United states senate and that same day, it was delivered to another vote. The second time close to Norment switched his vote from the “nay” to a “yea.” The House followed the bill and moved the particular legislation to the governor’s office. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) then polled the bill, effectively casting the particular “deciding vote.” The Virginia House do try to override McAuliffe’s veto, however the effort failed.

After Gillespie’s team almost immediately sent out the statement critiquing Northam for the vote, Northam’s team accused Republicans of deliberately creating a scenario that would force this particular vote, all the while knowing that would later on be irrelevant. For his component, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, “Norment declined to comment, and later grinned as a reporter tried to coax out information on whether the Senate majority leader was colluding with the Gillespie campaign to set up the lieutenant governor.”

Beyond the vote itself, Gillespie’s advertisement goes on to allege that Northam is at favor of “sanctuary cities that let illegal immigrants who commit crimes back on the street.” In his twitter update, President Trump claimed Northam had been “fighting for the violent MS-13 killer gangs & sanctuary cities.”

As we’ve previously layed out,  there is no official definition of “sanctuary,” but it generally refers to rules limiting state and local governments through alerting federal authorities about people that may be in the country illegally. (For more info, readers should consult our explainer and check out this graphic. )

Immigration and Customs Enforcement can problem an “immigration detainer,” or a request to become notified when a noncitizen convicted of the crime is being released at condition or local levels. ICE may then take custody of the offenders plus figure out if they should be deported.

Since cities and countries have zero obligation to ICE and are not really violating any laws by rejecting detainer requests, they accept a few requests and reject others, usually based on circumstances � an unlawful immigrant with multiple assault fees and someone with an unpaid boosting ticket are very different cases.

Virginia currently does not have any localities that will call themselves “sanctuaries,” a fact that will Gillespie agreed with when inquired during a gubernatorial debate in Come july 1st.

According to 2016 information from the Immigrant Legal Resource Middle, Virginia counties range from offering a few limited assistance to ICE to investing significant local resources on migration enforcement under formal agreements. In spite of pressure from the immigrant community, within April, Fairfax County, Virginia’s biggest jurisdiction, signaled it was “a welcoming and accepting place” for migrants but steered clear of the term “sanctuary.”

MS-13 has developed an increased presence within Virginia, but as we’ve earlier reported, there is limited research in the link between overall crime prices and sanctuary cities, much less the hyperlink to a specific gang. In the research that do exist, there has been either simply no statistically significant change or a decrease in crime rates due to immigrant pleasant policies. Moreover, many sanctuary towns do cooperate with ICE when they believe the inmate is a community safety threat.

To include insult to injury, as Believe Progress first reported, and the Wa Post later confirmed, that pictures in the ad were from a jail in El Salvador and of the rival gang, Barrio 18, not really MS-13. While the use of imagery through different locations might not always be problematic, this ad refers to a very particular group in a very specific place.

Gillespie’s camp stood by the ad. Abbi Sigler, a spokeswoman for the campaign said: “Ralph Northam cast a tie-breaking vote against legislation to provide that no locality shall adopt any ordinance, procedure, or policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.” The girl added: “Ralph Northam made sanctuary cities an issue when he voted against banning them and bragged about that vote in his primary.”

Northam did discuss his tie-breaking vote, but the advertisement refers to Northam’s vote as “deciding” not “tie-breaking,” which is a key distinction. Beyond that the campaign, stressed the particular growth of MS-13 in Va and the threat the gang postures to Virginia communities.

The Northam Ad

Northam’s ad takes aim in Gillespie’s past as a high-powered Wa, D. C., lobbyist and insider. Citing examples from across Gillespie’s career, backed up with citations in order to news reports, the ad purports to lay out how Gillespie “sold out” various constituencies.

The advertisement begins with portraits of sympathetic-looking college-aged students. The voiceover statements that Gillespie lobbied to keep “student loan rates high,” citing a recent article in The Wa Post. Gillespie’s firm did reception on behalf of several lenders between 2005 and 2007. The article explains that will at the time private lenders financed student education loans, but the government supported these financial loans by guaranteeing the debt and paying out part of the interest behind the scenes, in an effort to get them to more affordable. The private lenders served as middlemen. Gillespie’s firm symbolized several of them including Nelnet, which in 2006, was found to be overcharging the federal government.

But the ad shows that Gillespie directly pushed to keep education loan rates high, which is misleading. Their firm was lobbying to have the program remain as it was, instead of shifting to a system where the federal government straight finances student loans. (The shift ultimately was accomplished through passage from the Affordable Care Act in 2010, with no Republican support. ) Could might well have influenced loan prices eventually, the firm’s efforts are not focused on interest rates â€? it was on the client’s interests. This is a fine yet important distinction that the ad glosses over.

When the Wa Post originally asked about Gillespie’s lobbying efforts, his campaign said that Gillespie, personally, had no involvement, even though his name is listed on the federal disclosure forms.

“QGA, the firm Ed left more than a decade ago, had a practice of registering Ed for a majority of its clients because lobbying without registering is an offense, but registering without lobbying is not,” his marketing campaign spokesman, David Abrams, said within an email.

Northam’s camp directed to articles that outline the particular David and Goliath battle that will took place over this issue and to the truth that Gillespie has made lowering the cost of university a campaign priority. The content do not confirm a personal effort in order to “keeping student loan rates high.”

The ad goes on to declare Gillespie “lobbied for companies sending jobs overseas.” When we asked the particular Northam campaign about this claim, this pointed us toward two illustrations: Microsoft and Hewlett Packard. Strangely, the images in the ad aren’t tech workers but factory employees with protective glasses.

Gillespie’s company did do business with Microsoft plus HP and both companies had been hiring for jobs overseas during the time that he worked with them, but that will isn’t the same as lobbying for those people policies.

In an article reported by the Northam campaign, Microsoft’s chief professional Steve Ballmer was quoted since saying an effort to hire in Indian “would not reduce job opportunities at its operations in the United States.” Indeed, Microsoft in 2001 had a total of 48, 000 employees. It now has 125, 000 employees —Â? *************************************************************************************************), 000 in the United States. So clearly the company offers greatly expanded in the United States while also hiring overseas, undercutting the ad’s declare that U. S. workers were damaged.

The ad then statements that Gillespie hurt workers simply by fighting to give “billions to Wall Street banks,” citing the 2009 Politico article about the save of the financial industry during the Excellent Recession.  This is a particularly tortured claim because Gillespie at the time had been employed at the White House, since counselor to then-President George Watts. Bush, and he was not a lobbyist.

The funds Gillespie had been “giving” away were part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) made in 2008 by the Bush management in consultation with both the Obama and McCain campaigns. According to the Politico article the ad references, Treasury officials were “convinced that the fate of the American financial system” was at risk. Consequently, the White House produced a coordinated effort across the politics and ideological spectrum to ensure a gathering of chief executives from all the main banks went smoothly. Gillespie worth one mention in the article: a message recounting how he convinced the particular conservative Heritage Foundation to not attack the particular TARP program.

TARP seemed to be used by the Obama and Rose bush administrations to rescue the car and insurance industries. The money continues to be paid back, with interest � using the bank loans yielding taxpayers a $25 billion profit, according to the Treasury Division. So whatever money supposedly was handed away has been returned.

The ad concludes saying, “Ed Gillespie made millions selling out to the highest bidder,” citing a 2007 Washingtonian Magazine write-up. But that article is a listing of the 50 most important lobbyists as of summer 2007. Gillespie is listed as #8 great then-partner, Democratic strategist Jack Quinn, is listed as #4. Checklist details how the pair sold the particular ownership of their company to a bigger firm, London-based WPP, and believed that they each received millions in the deal. It also mentioned a blue-chip customer list that included AT& Big t, Sony and drug companies.

The ad creates the impression that the mere sale of the company or maybe the act of running that corporation was something much more sinister. It’s reasonable to expect that, like any for-profit company, Quinn & Gillespie would certainly aim to turn a profit.

David Turner, a spokesman for the Northam marketing campaign said in an email: “Ed Gillespie’s job, as a business, was to forgo whatever principles he may have (for example, he has talked about reducing the cost of college) to lobby for principles not congruent with what he says he stands for (i.e. Nelnet).”

The Pinocchio Test

Both camp’s advertisements exaggerate and manipulate the truth within deeply misleading ways.

The link Gillespie and the president generate between Northam’s vote, sanctuary towns and increases in crime is really a scare tactic and frankly, concern mongering. Northam’s vote wasn’t important. Even if it had been, it would have been unimportant. Virginia doesn’t currently have any haven cities, and no Virginia cities appear to be moving immediately in that direction. And also if there were some sanctuary localities, there’s currently no evidence that will sanctuary policies are in anyway linked to increases in crime, much less an increase in MS-13 specifically. Using symbolism from outside the U. S. within an ad about American crime provides inauthenticity to the inaccuracy of this advertisement.

Northam is right that Gillespie was a lobbyist, and that he didn’t always lobby in the public curiosity. But that wasn’t his work. The ad cherry picks information from Gillespie’s past without including context. By citing articles, Northam’s ad creates an illusion associated with truth, but ultimately skews that which was written. The notion that Gillespie “didn’t care” about workers erases the fact that TARP was used to rescue the Oughout. S. economy â€? and that United states taxpayers earned a profit on that will rescue. TARP even saved the particular auto industry, which certainly uses many American workers. This advertisement leaves out key facts and information in order to create a negative impression associated with Gillespie’s work as both a lobbyist and a government official.

Both campaigns receive Four Pinocchios. Our own advice to readers remains: Any time a campaign ad appears on television, it’s best to ignore it.

Four Pinocchios


(About our rating scale)


Send us facts to check by completing this form

Keep tabs on Trump’s promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker every week newsletter



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here