Since then, Republicans have posted some additional misleading ads attacking Democratic candidates, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff alike. Here’s an overview of two of these ads.
Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler has made a concerted effort to portray Warnock, the senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, as “radical” and “dangerous.”
Facts first: All these Loeffler advertisements misleadingly take Warnock’s comment out of context. He advocated the release of people convicted of marijuana offenses in particular, not the general release of people convicted of all kinds of crimes.
This is what he said: “Marijuana is seen as an illegal substance. It is a terrible irony, and we think it is that there are some people in America right now who are becoming billionaires because they sell the same stuff that keeps our children all locked up. “All over America. Where’s the justice? It’s not enough to decriminalize marijuana. Someone has to open the prisons and let our children go.”
Loeffler is free to criticize Warnock for calling for the release of those detained for marijuana offenses. But the ads give the impression that he was calling for some sort of massive amnesty for all detained criminals. He was not.
“Pastor Warnock supports efforts to delete the files of those convicted of non-violent cannabis-related crimes and has worked in the community to help remove files so that Georgians who have served their sentences can seek employment and housing without discrimination” campaign said in an email to CNN.
Ossoff and a Senate Committee
The ad uses Ossoff’s review to suggest that he has a “China scandal” in which he claims the Democrat was “paid by the communist Chinese government through a media company.” The ad further insinuates that the payment was suspicious and asked emphatically, “Why did China really Pay Ossoff? ”
There is no evidence to support the ad’s suggestion that the Chinese government paid Ossoff for outrageous reasons. According to Ossoff’s campaign, his company received about $ 1,000 in royalties because Hong Kong media company PCCW broadcast two of its investigations into ISIS war crimes.
We cannot independently confirm the Ossoff Campaign’s explanation of the reason for the payment and the total amount, but neither the Purdue Campaign nor anyone else has provided a credible alternate explanation or alternate figure. And a modest fee for licensing documentaries – to a media businessman, from a media company not largely owned by the government of China – would certainly not be enough to make Ossoff’s portrayal in the ad a suspected front man for China. justify.
Furthermore, the Ossoff campaign says that the payment of about $ 1,000 was actually made to Ossoff’s company, not by the Hong Kong company itself, but by a third party media production and distribution company, Sky Vision, who licensed the studies to the Hong Kong company (as well as to other companies around the world).
The campaign says Ossoff mentioned PCCW himself on his modified disclosure forms because he wanted to be transparent about who was broadcasting his company’s productions. The campaign says transparency is also why it listed PCCW on the forms, even though the payment was below the $ 5,000 threshold that requires reporting.