Since then, Republicans have placed other misleading advertisements that attacked Democratic candidates Rafael Warnock and Jon Osoff. Below is a breakdown of two of these ads.
Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler worked together to describe Warnock, the senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, as “radical” and “dangerous.”
Fact first: All these Loeffler ads misled Warnock’s remarks. He advocates for the release of people sentenced especially for marijuana crimes, rather than full release of people sentenced for various crimes.
What he said is: “Cannabis is considered an illegal drug. This is a very ironic irony, and we feel that now in the United States, some people become billionaires because they sell the same things. These things make our children all Was locked up. All of America. Where is justice? Just legalizing marijuana is not enough. Someone must open the prison and let our children go.”
Loeffler is free to criticize Warnock for advocating the release of people imprisoned for marijuana crimes. But these advertisements give the impression that he is advocating amnesty for all prisoners. He is not.
“Pastor Warnock supports efforts to clear the records of those convicted of non-violent crimes not related to marijuana and works in the community to help clear records so that Georgians serving sentences can seek employment and housing opportunities without discrimination. “The campaign said in an email to CNN.
Osov and the Senate Committee
The ad uses a revised version of Ossoff to imply that he has a “China scandal”, claiming that the Democrats are “paid by the Chinese Communist government through a media company.”The advertisement continues to imply that the payment is suspicious, and explicitly asks: “Why China true Will it be paid to Osoff? ”
There is no evidence in the advertisement that the Chinese government paid Osov for malicious reasons. Ossoff’s campaign stated that his company received approximately $1,000 in royalties because Hong Kong media company PCCW (PCCW) announced two investigations into ISIS war crimes.
We cannot independently verify the explanation of the reason for the payment or the total amount of the Ossoff campaign, but neither Purdue campaign nor anyone else provided a reliable alternative explanation or alternative figures. The payment of documentary license fees from media companies in which the Chinese government is not majority-owned to media merchants is not high and is certainly not enough to prove that the advertisement portrays Osov as suspicious of China.
In addition, the Ossoff campaign also stated that it actually paid about $1,000 to Ossoff’s company, which was not paid by the Hong Kong company itself but by the third-party media production and distribution company Sky Vision. The author licensed the investigation to Hong Kong companies and other companies worldwide).
The campaign said that Osoff listed PCCW itself in the revised disclosure form because he wanted to be transparent about who was broadcasting the company’s work. The campaign said that transparency was also the reason he listed PCCW on the form, even if the payment was below the $5,000 threshold required for reporting.
