Cortez Masto fought for Nevada seniors as Attorney General, authoring legislation to crack down on private guardian abuse and creating a special unit to protect seniors from exploitation
Joe Heck supports privatizing Social Security, has called it a “pyramid scheme” that “isn’t working,” and wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program
For Immediate
September 21, 2016
Las Vegas, NV – The billionaire Koch brothers’ backing Congressman Joe Heck continued their campaign of spreading debunked lies about former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. Despite attempts from the Koch Brothers’ to distract from Joe Heck’s agenda that would hurt Nevada seniors, Cortez Masto’s record of fighting for seniors is clear: as Attorney General, Cortez Masto wrote legislation that became law to crack down on the abuse of seniors by private guardians and created the Senior Protection Unit to increase protections for seniors against exploitation and scams.
“The Koch brothers’ continue spending millions to buy this election for Joe Heck by spreading debunked lies about Cortez Masto,” said Sarah Zukowski, Catherine Cortez Masto for Senate spokesperson. “The difference between Joe Heck and Cortez Masto could not be clearer when it comes to seniors: Joe Heck’s agenda would hurt Nevada seniors by privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher program, while Cortez Masto fought to protect seniors from abuse and scams as Attorney General and is committed to preserving the programs seniors depend on during retirement. The billionaire Koch’s know that Congressman Heck will be their puppet in the Senate and continue his record in Washington of voting for their agenda, even when it hurts Nevada seniors and families.”
See the facts on the ad below.
“IGNORED” – AD PUSHBACK 9/21/16
CLAIM
RESPONSE
VOICEOVER: Your mother, your father, the elderly are easy targets for exploitation.
TEXT: “Elderly Victims Are Frequent Targets”
“Elderly Are Often Targeted,” The Carter Center, 1/8/07
THE TRUTH: CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO TOOK ACTION TO CRACK DOWN ON PRIVATE GUARDIAN ABUSE BY DRAFTING BILL TO PROTECT SENIORS
Las Vegas Sun Editorial: Nevada Had No Regulations On Guardians And No Watchdog On Guardians. According to a Las Vegas Sun editorial, “But some guardians are themselves the con men, stealing from the very clients they were hired to protect. Cases come to light all the time — and are presumed to be just the tip of the iceberg. The reason: Many states, including Nevada, have no regulations governing guardians’ behavior, much less watchdogs to be on the lookout for abuse and financial high jinks.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 3/15/15]
Las Vegas Sun Editorial: Catherine Cortez Masto Drafted A Bill To Require Guardians Were Licensed And To Ensure There Was “No Swindling Going On.” According to a Las Vegas Sun editorial, “A draft bill to address the issue, prepared with the support of former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto; attorney Barbara Buckley, former speaker of the Nevada Assembly and executive director of the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada; and seniors advocate Sally Ramm of the state Aging and Disability Services Division, is poised to make an appearance in the Legislature this week. The would-be sponsor is Assemblyman Michael Sprinkle, D-Sparks. The bill would require guardians to be licensed and wards’ assets audited to make sure there’s no swindling going on.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 3/15/15]
THE TRUTH: CORTEZ MASTO’S BILL TO CRACK DOWN ON PRIVATE GUARDIAN ABUSE WAS HANDED OFF TO STATE LEGISLATORS AFTER SHE LEFT OFFICE, AND WAS PASSED DURING THE 2015 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Las Vegas Sun Editorial: Cortez Masto Handed The Drafted Bill Off To Michael Sprinkle When She Left Office To Get Passed In The 2015 Legislature. According to a Las Vegas Sun editorial, “A draft bill to address the issue, prepared with the support of former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto; attorney Barbara Buckley, former speaker of the Nevada Assembly and executive director of the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada; and seniors advocate Sally Ramm of the state Aging and Disability Services Division, is poised to make an appearance in the Legislature this week. The would-be sponsor is Assemblyman Michael Sprinkle, D-Sparks. The bill would require guardians to be licensed and wards’ assets audited to make sure there’s no swindling going on.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 3/15/15]
AB 325 Was Passed Unanimously By The Senate, But Only 30-12 In The Assembly With All Opposition From Republican Lawmakers. [LCB, Assembly Floor Vote, 4/21/15; Senate Floor Vote, 5/22/15]
AB 325 Instituted The Licensing Of Professional Guardians And Made It Illegal For Someone To Act As A Guardian If They Were Not Licensed. According to the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, AB 325, “Existing law provides for the court appointment of a private professional guardian to act as a fiduciary for a person or estate, but does not require the private professional guardian to be licensed. (NRS 159.0595) This bill requires the licensing of certain persons engaging in the business of a private professional guardian and authorizes the Commissioner of Financial Institutions to adopt regulations relating to the licensing of those persons. Sections 15-17 of this bill make it unlawful for a person to act as a private professional guardian without being licensed. ” [AB 325, LCB Digest as enrolled, 6/8/15]
AB 325 Prohibited Professional Guardians From Using Their Fiduciary Relationship With The Ward For Personal Gain And Prohibited A Guardian From Incurring Debts On Behalf Of The Ward. According to the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, AB 325, “Sec. 36. 1. The fiduciary relationship which exists between a private professional guardian and the ward of the private professional guardian may not be used for the private gain of the guardian other than the remuneration for fees and expenses. A private professional guardian may not incur any obligation on behalf of the guardianship that conflicts with the discharge of the duties of the private professional guardian.” [AB 325, LCB Digest as enrolled, 6/8/15]
AB 325 Prohibited Guardians From Engaging In Business Action With The Ward. According to the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, AB 325, “Sec. 36. 2. Unless prior approval is obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction, a private professional guardian shall not: (a) Have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, in any business transaction or activity with the guardianship. (b) Acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to the ward. © Be knowingly designated as a beneficiary on any life insurance policy, pension or benefit plan of the ward unless such designation was validly made by the ward before the adjudication of the person’s incapacity. (d) Directly or indirectly purchase, rent, lease or sell any property or services from or to any business entity in which the private professional guardian, or the spouse or relative of the guardian, is an officer, partner, director, shareholder or proprietor or in which such a person has any financial interest.” [AB 325, LCB Digest as enrolled, 6/8/15]
AB 325 Voided Any Actions By Guardians That Were In Violation Of Law And Subjected The Guardian To Personal Liability For Violations Of The Law. According to the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, AB 325, “Sec. 36. 3. Any action taken by a private professional guardian which is prohibited by this section may be voided during the term of the guardianship or by the personal representative of the ward’s estate. The private professional guardian is subject to removal and to imposition of personal liability through a proceeding for discharge, in addition to any other remedies otherwise available.” [AB 325, LCB Digest as enrolled, 6/8/15]
AB 325 Subjected Guardians To Audits And Created Administrative And Criminal Penalties For Violations Of The Law By Guardians. According to the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, AB 325, “Sections 37-41 of this bill establish requirements for accounting, reporting and auditing of a private professional guardian company and authorize the Commissioner or a designee to inspect certain records of a private professional guardian company. Sections 42-46 of this bill establish procedures for the Commissioner to take administrative action against licensees. Sections 47 and 48 of this bill establish procedures for handling a complaint against a private professional guardian company. Sections 49 and 50 of this bill provide administrative and criminal penalties for violating certain provisions of this bill.” [AB 325, LCB Digest as enrolled, 6/8/15]
AB 325 Removed The Prohibition Of Appointing Non-Nevada Residents And Allowed Adult Family Members Who Were Not Nevada Residents To Be Appointed As Guardians. According to the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, AB 325, “Sections 50.2 and 52.7 of this bill revise the circumstances under which a court is authorized to appoint a nonresident as a guardian for an adult ward. Section 52.5 eliminates existing limitations on the authority of a court to appoint a nonresident as a guardian for a minor ward. Section 50.2 also requires the court to give preference in appointing a guardian for an adult ward to the following persons in the following order, whether or not the person is a nonresident: (1) a nominated person, who is a person the adult ward specifically nominated or requested as a guardian in a will, trust or other written document executed by the adult ward while competent; or (2) a relative. If two or more nominated persons are qualified and suitable to be appointed as a guardian, section 50.2 authorizes the court to appoint two or more co-guardians or generally requires the court to give preference to the nominated person named in a will, trust or other written document that is part of the adult’s established estate plan, but there are certain exceptions for extraordinary circumstances.” [AB 325, LCB Digest as enrolled, 6/8/15]
VOICEOVER: As Attorney General, Catherine Cortez Masto ignored complaints about a guardianship program for seniors the Review Journal called ‘ripe for abuse.’
TEXT: Catherine Cortez Masto, A System Ripe For Abuse.
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/11/15
REALITY: KOCH BROTHERS USE TRAGIC STORY FOR POLITICAL GAIN – PURSUING GUTTER POLITICS TO SALVAGE CONGRESSMAN HECK’S CAREER
Koch Brothers Ad Cites Las Vegas Review-Journal Story That “Never Mentioned” Cortez Masto. In August 2016, Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Colton Lochhead tweeted: “Here’s my story about Olvera, which was heavily cited in the Masto attack ad. Note: I never mentioned the AG.” [Twitter, Colton Lochhead, 8/24/16]
AG’s Office Was Legally Prohibited From Giving Legal Advice Or Opinions To Private Citizens. “When Olvera’s daughter wrote a letter to then-Attorney General Cortez Masto for help with their guardianship issues, her office responded by saying it was prohibited from giving legal advice or opinions to private citizens.” [Las Vegas Sun, 8/24/16]
County Authorities Have Primary Jurisdiction For Criminals Violations, Not The AG’s Office. “The state attorney general’s office says it’s up to local authorities to investigate potential criminal aspects to the remodeling problems. […] But Moon added that local and county authorities have primary jurisdiction in the matter.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/10/07]
In Criminal Cases, A District Attorney May Request Assistance From The Attorney General With The Consent Of The Board Of County Commissioners. “In criminal cases, a district attorney may request assistance from the Attorney General with the consent of the board of county commissioners. The Attorney General also prosecutes or defends, in the Supreme Court, cases to which the State, a State officer, or a county is a party.” [Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Nevada’s Court System Policy And Program Report, April 2016]
REALITY: THE CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY PROSECUTED A GUARDIAN ABUSE CASE THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR AND AROUND THE SAME TIME AS OLVERA’S CASE
Clark County DA Prosecuted Private Guardian Patience Bristol For Embezzling Nearly $150,000 From Her Ward. “Bristol, a private professional guardian, is accused of embezzling nearly $150,000 in cash and pawning more than $47,000 worth of jewelry from four people – a 64-year-old woman and her 79-year-old husband, a 55-year-old man and a 50-year-old woman – whose fiscal affairs she was managing. The crimes are alleged to have taken place between Jan. 17 and July 16, according to the criminal complaint filed by the Clark County District Attorney’s Office.” [Las Vegas Sun, 10/8/13]
Las Vegas Sun: A Private Bank Investigator Notified The Clark County Public Guardian’s Office Of Possible Financial Abuse And CCPGO Submitted The Case To Las Vegas Metro Police For Criminal Investigation. “The Clark County Public Guardian’s Office, Pappa said, became involved in these cases when it received information about possible financial abuse from a U.S. Bank investigator. The bank had contacted the Public Guardian’s Office after first notifying a Family Court guardianship compliance officer, and the Public Guardian’s Office launched an investigation. The information later was submitted to Metro’s Organized Crime Bureau. Family Court subsequently removed Ms. Bristol as the private guardian over the three cases and appointed the Clark County Public Guardian as the temporary guardian, Pappa said.” [Las Vegas Sun, 10/8/13]
VOICEOVER: Seniors were exploited, robbed of their savings, prisoners in their own home.
TEXT: “Guardians May Protect Or Just Steal And Abuse”
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 4/11/15
REALITY: KOCH BROTHERS POLITICAL GROUP CONTINUES PATTERN OF FALSE ATTACKS AND OUTRIGHT LIES ABOUT CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
John L. Smith: Koch Brothers Ads Against Cortez Masto Are “Misleading.” “The Koch brothers are investing millions in Nevada to defeat Catherine Cortez Masto for U.S. Senate. John L. Smith says their ads linking her to Uber are misleading.” [Nevada Public Radio, 7/5/16]
Jon Ralston: Freedom Partners Uber Ad Is “Bullshit” – Uber Is Still Here. In June 2016, Jon Ralston tweeted: “@FreedomPartners digital ad on @CatherineForNV is brutal but BS: It says she ‘drove them out of town,’ but Uber is still here.’ [Twitter, Jon Ralston, 6/24/16]
Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius On Uber Ad: Cortez Masto Had The Gall To Actually Enforce The Law. In June 2016, Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius tweeted: “Shorter @FreedomPartners on @CatherineForNV: ‘As attorney general, she had the gall to actually enforce NV transpo laws as written!’” [Twitter, Steve Sebelius, 6/24/16]
Headline: PolitiFact: Freedom Partners Ad Attacking Cortez Masto On Uber “Mostly False.” [Politifact, 7/7/16]
Politifact Rated The Uber Attack Ad Mostly False – “Uber At The Very Least Bent The Rules, And It’s Clear That Cortez Masto Didn’t Have Some Sort Of Vendetta Against The Ride-Hailing Company.” “Freedom Partners got a couple of the details right in the amount of taxi industry donations and Cortez Masto’s aggressive legal actions against Uber. But there’s a convincing argument that Uber at the very least bent the rules, and it’s clear that Cortez Masto didn’t have some sort of individual vendetta against the ride-hailing company — her office was working with state regulators who specifically requested the attorney general take action. The ad also neglects to mention how Uber only temporarily left town. The ridesharing service is very much up and running through Nevada a year after its initial skirmish with the state. Because this ad takes things out of context, we rate it Mostly False.“ [Politifact, 7/7/16]
Heck Supporter And Former Nevada Transportation Authority Chairman Said It’s Possible Cortez Masto Could Have Ignored The Will Of The State, But It Would Have Been Highly Unusual, “I Couldn’t Foresee The AG Or Any AG Not Enforcing State Law.” “Former Nevada Transportation Authority chairman Andrew MacKay said the massive size of Uber’s workforce dwarfed the enforcement capabilities of state regulators, meaning the only real maneuver available was a court-ordered restraining order. MacKay, who disclosed that he’s supporting Republican Joe Heck in the state’s Senate race, detailed some of the issues with Uber in a three-page affidavit describing the more stringent requirements of Nevada’s cab companies. […] MacKay, chairman of the state’s ‘client’ in the case against Uber, said it’s theoretically possible that Cortez Masto could have ignored the will of the state and not filed suit, but it would have been highly unusual. ‘I couldn’t foresee the AG or any AG not enforcing state law,’ MacKay said.” [Politifact, 7/7/16]
Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius: Two Recent Ads From The Koch Brothers-Backed Freedom Partners Action Fund PAC Targeting Cortez Masto Arranged Perfectly True Facts To Lead To A False Conclusion. “Anybody who’s ever been to a courthouse knows its possible to arrange perfectly true facts to lead a jury to a false conclusion. It’s no different in the court of public opinion. Take two recent ads from the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action Fund PAC targeting Democratic former Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, who’s now running for Senate. The ads allege she hired a well-connected Washington, D.C., law firm to sue Bank of America during the foreclosure crisis. The firm earned millions in fees. Partners in the firm later gave Cortez Masto campaign contributions. Therefore, corruption!” [Las Vegas Review Journal, Column, 5/10/16]
Las Vegas Review Journal’s Steve Sebelius: “Sounds Much More Like Cortez Masto Doing Her Job Than Cozying Up To A Washington Special Interest For Personal Profit.” “So, while it’s true Cortez Masto recommended the hiring of a law firm that earned money representing the state and whose partners later contributed to her campaign, it’s also true the firm successfully forced one of the largest banks in the country to pay the state millions to compensate for alleged wrongdoing. That sounds much more like Cortez Masto doing her job than cozying up to a Washington special interest for personal profit. In fact, you’d have to very carefully arrange the facts to lead people to that conclusion. That’s why you always have to wait until you’ve heard the entire story, in court and out.” [Las Vegas Review Journal, Column, 5/10/16]
Washington Post Fact Check Gave NRSC Three Pinocchios For False Claims About Cortez Masto Support For Iran Deal. [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]
Washington Post Fact Check: NRSC “Exaggerated Charges” And Used “Misleading Language” To Frighten Voters Into Thinking Cortez Masto Made A Foreign Policy Blunder By Supporting Iran Deal. In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “This is an ad designed to frighten voters into thinking that Masto has made a tragic foreign-policy blunder that will lead to nuclear conflict. But the images would be justified only if the case were as compelling as the NRSC suggests. Instead, the organization has exaggerated the charges and used misleading language to make its case. With a few tweaks in the wording and less stark images, the NRSC could make a reasonable argument that supporting the nuclear deal is a mistake. But this effort is a miss.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]
Washington Post Fact Check: NRSC Ad “Incorrectly” Suggested Iran Deal Allows The Financing Of Terrorists. In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “Iran has billions of dollars in assets that are frozen in foreign banks around the globe, and this deal would unlock those funds. No one quite knows how much money is at stake, but estimates range from $29 billion to $150 billion, with $100 billion the figure most often used. The Treasury Department has estimated that once Iran fulfills other obligations, it would have about $56 billion left. That’s certainly ‘billions.’ But remember, this is already Iran’s money; it is not being ‘given’ any kind of signing bonus. […] The ad, however, incorrectly suggests that the agreement directly allows the financing of terrorists.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]
Washington Post Fact Check: NRSC Ad Used “Misleading Language” To Make It Appear That Arms Controls Were Being Weakened. In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “‘Arms controls’ refers to U.N. Security Council sanctions limiting nations from supplying Iran’s weapon programs. Iran had wanted the sanctions lifted immediately, but as a compromise the deal called for the embargo on ballistic missiles to be lifted after a maximum of eight years. Sanctions on conventional weapons would be lifted after five years. The time frame could be shortened if the International Atomic Energy Agency determines that Iran’s nuclear program was only for peaceful purposes. Here, again, the ad uses misleading language. This nuclear deal is an arms-control agreement, but ad makes it appears as if ‘arms controls’ are being weakened. Supplies for Iran’s ballistic missile program were under sanctions, but there were never agreed limits on the number of Iran’s ballistic missiles, as is typical in an arms-control agreement.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]
Washington Post Fact Check: Despite NRSC Ad Claims, All Of Iran’s Nuclear Sites Will Have Continuous Monitoring And IAEA Officials Insisted Verification Was “Not Compromised.” In September 2015, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, “Under the deal, all of Iran’s declared nuclear sites, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, will be under continuous monitoring by the IAEA. For 10 years, Iran will have limits on the uranium enrichment permitted at Natanz; the IAEA will be able to keep close tabs on the production. The deal also allows IAEA monitoring of Iran’s centrifuge production and storage facilities, the procurement chain, and the mining and milling of uranium — verification measures that many experts say exceed those under previous negotiated nuclear deals with other nations. So what is the ad talking about? It is referring to sites that have not been declared as nuclear, such as sensitive military locations. Under a side agreement between Iran and the IAEA, Iran will help collect samples at Parchin, which Tehran says is a conventional military facility, though the IAEA believes explosive triggers for nuclear weapons may have been tested there. The IAEA sought access to the site to determine whether there had been a military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program. News reports have given contradictory information on what took place during a September visit to Parchin by the IAEA. Officials have said that Iranian technicians played a role in obtaining the samples — possibly without IAEA officials present — but insisted that the verification process was not compromised. Still, officials have conceded that the arrangement was a departure from the way the IAEA normally conducts inspections. In any case, the ad again greatly simplifies a complex issue.” [Washington Post Fact Check, NRSC Ad “There’s No Going Back,” 10/6/15]
PolitiFact: NRSC Ad "Mostly False” Because Crime Statistics Were A Crude Way To Measure Safety And Nevada Had Several Quirks That Inflated Numbers. “Experts agree that crime statistics are a crude way to measure safety, and Nevada has several quirks that inflate the numbers. The ad claims that Cortez Masto ‘couldn’t keep us safe,’ but crime statistics have more to do with local law enforcement agencies than the state’s attorney general. The NRSC offers no proven link connecting her actions as attorney general to a swing in murder, robbery and rape. The statement contains an element of truth but leaves out important details. We rate the statement Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 8/10/16]
PolitiFact: No Proof That Cortez Masto Had Anything To Do With Decline Of Crime In First Term Or Subsequent Increase In Second. “That’s a serious charge, and there’s no concrete proof she had anything to do with the decline in crime in her first term or the subsequent increase in her second. Crime was at an historical low in 2011, and it’s hard to say why. The crime report itself cautions police agencies against drawing any conclusions about a specific department given the variety of factors that can affect crime trends. 'Because of other assigned duties, the peculiar cycle of crime and clearances, and different community factors that normally affect crime statistics, no conclusions regarding individual departments should be made without consulting directly with the agency being analyzed,’ the report states.” [PolitiFact, 8/10/16]
PolitiFact: No Proof That Cortez Masto Caused Nevada’s Ranking Third In Ten Most Dangerous States. “Similarly, there is some truth that Nevada took the third spot in a ranking of the 10 most dangerous states. Again, however, it’s not proven what Cortez Masto had to do with it, and the source is not as credible as the FBI. The NRSC cites a list published in January 2015 from 24/7 Wall Street, a website that covers financial news. The list indeed ranks Nevada third, but the data relies on both crime data and socioeconomic factors, such as the poverty rate and the percentage of adults with a high school diploma. No attorneys general, in Nevada or elsewhere, play much of a role in setting educational policy or promoting programs to get people out of poverty.” [Politifact, 8/10/16]
PolitiFact: NRSC Cherry-Picked Handful Of Crime Statistics To Portray Cortez Masto As Weak On Crime. “The NRSC ad says Nevada was ranked as the third most dangerous state by the time Cortez Masto left office, and that "murder went up 11 percent, robbery went up 28 percent, rape 51 percent” during her second term. The NRSC cherry-picks a handful of short-term crime statistics to portray Cortez Masto as weak on crime enforcement. But the argument is flawed.“ [PolitiFact, 8/10/16]
PolitiFact Nevada: NRSC Claim That Cortez Masto Took Pay Increases Is “A Highly Misleading Claim.” “The NRSC said Cortez Masto ‘was happy to line her own pockets with taxpayer dollars when state employees were slammed with frozen salaries,’ but this is a highly misleading claim. The state increased Cortez Masto’s salary during a time of pay freezes for Nevada’s state workers. She was unable to legally reject the pay increase, so she donated $38,000 back to the state during her last four years in office. We rate the claim Mostly False.” [PolitiFact Nevada, 2/3/16]
PolitiFact Nevada: It’s Clear That As Attorney General, Cortez Masto Didn’t “Pad Her Pockets” While State Workers Suffered – She Received Essentially The Same Salary During Her Eight Years In Office. “According to information collected from TransparentNevada.com and records request from the state Controller’s office, PolitiFact Nevada put together this spreadsheet of salaries, donations and what percentage of salary was donated back to the state. As shown, it’s clear that as Attorney General, Cortez Masto didn’t ‘pad her pockets’ while state workers suffered – rather, she received essentially the same salary (not counting benefits) during her eight years in office when donations are subtracted out.” [PolitiFact Nevada, 2/3/16]
VOICEOVER: Despite appeals from their families, Catherine Cortez Masto looked the other way.
TEXT: Cortez Masto Ignored Pleas For Help
FACT: SHAMEFUL AND DECEITFUL ADS FOR JOE HECK FALSELY ATTACK CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO’S CHARACTER
Washoe County Undersheriff Todd Vinger: Heck’s Attacks Against Cortez Masto Were “Egregious And Distasteful,” “Shameful And Beneath Anyone Who Wants To Represent Us.” “However, one recent attack by Joe Heck on his opponent Catherine Cortez Masto caught my attention because of how egregious and distasteful it is. In the race for Nevada’s Senate, we’ve seen a lot of contrast on the best path to move our country forward, but these kinds of personal and unfounded attacks are shameful and beneath anyone who wants to represent us in Washington.” [Reno Gazette Journal, Todd Vinger Op-Ed, 9/12/16]
Washoe County Undersheriff Todd Vinger: Heck’s Accusations Against Cortez Masto Were Debunked By Fact-Checkers But Heck “Continued To Drag Catherine’s Reputation Through The Mud.” “Last week, Joe Heck’s campaign released a website attacking Catherine Cortez Masto’s character and record as attorney general. He accuses Catherine of being corrupt, even using claims that already have been debunked by nonpartisan fact-checking organizations. Heck knows these accusations are untrue and yet he continues to drag Catherine’s reputation through the mud.” [Reno Gazette Journal, Todd Vinger Op-Ed, 9/12/16]
Sen. Bryan: Attacks Against Cortez Masto “Crossed A Line I Have Never Seen Crossed Before In All My Years In Public Service.” “Most people enter public service because they want to better our country, have a discussion with people with opposing views and make compromises that solve problems Americans are facing. Unfortunately, in our hotly contested Senate race this year, Congressman Joe Heck’s campaign released an outrageous website attacking Catherine Cortez Masto’s integrity. These attacks from the Heck campaign cross a line I have never seen crossed before in all my years in public service. These attacks go far beyond a debate over the issues or the candidates’ records.” [Las Vegas Sun, Bryan Op-Ed, 9/7/16]
Sen. Bryan: Heck Should Know Better Than To Throw Unfounded Personal Attacks. “Heck may not agree with Masto’s way of doing things, and that’s OK. We’re a diverse country with differing ideas, and our Founding Fathers built this country in a way that promotes debate between opposing sides. Heck has been to Washington. He knows what unfounded personal attacks do to our country’s civil discourse. This campaign should be a conversation about the issues.” [Las Vegas Sun, Bryan Op-Ed, 9/7/16]
Sen. Bryan: There Is “No Place” For Heck’s Personal Attacks In Election That Are Intended “To Deceive Voters.” “Masto presents her ideas for moving the country forward, and Heck should do the same. Highlighting concerns with your opponent’s ideas and voting record is fair game. Attacking your opponent’s personal character — and falsely, I might add — is what turns people away from politics. In a time when partisan dysfunction in Washington is at its worst, Masto is running on her record of working across party lines to get things done. Heck may disagree with how Masto wants to move our country forward — that’s why we have elections — but there is no place for personal attacks that are intended to deceive voters.” [Las Vegas Sun, Bryan Op-Ed, 9/7/16]
Las Vegas Sun Editorial: NRSC Was “Deceitful And Conniving” In Launching Ad. “Presumably, the National Republican Senatorial Committee knew this when it ordered the commercial. It knew it was trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. It knew it was being deceitful and conniving.” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 8/22/16]
Las Vegas Sun Editorial: NRSC Ad Was “Playing Voters For Suckers” And Lied About Cortez Masto’s Record. “This particular commercial might seem damning for the conclusions it tries to draw about the qualifications of Heck’s Democratic opponent, former Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. But it’s playing voters for suckers… PolitiFact took a look at this commercial and observed: 'The numbers are technically accurate, but the ad fails to prove what Cortez Masto had to do with them.’” [Las Vegas Sun Editorial, 8/22/16]
Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius: Heck Campaign Ads “Attempt To Go One Bridge Too Far, Levying A Charge Of Corruption Where It Does Not Fit.” In August 2016, Steve Sebelius wrote, “But these ads attempt to go one bridge too far, levying a charge of corruption where it does not fit (for example, almost all public officials attend official conventions put on by groups, ranging from governors to statewide officials to members of the Legislature and even local governments). It’s difficult to alleged that a single public official, whether an AG, a DA or even a sheriff, can singlehandedly be held responsible for an increase (or a decrease) in the crime rate, let alone that attending a seminar had such an impact.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Steve Sebelius Column, 8/26/16]
Steve Sebelius: Heck’s Campaign “Should Know There’s A Breaking Point At Which Stretching Those Facts Too Far Will Cause Them To Snap.” In August 2016, Steve Sebelius wrote, “Heck’s campaign is certainly entitled to comb over Cortez Masto’s record and identify things that undercut her campaign’s law-and-order message (in fact, that follows a popular political strategy to attack an opponent where she’s the strongest). But the campaign should know there’s a breaking point at which stretching those facts too far will cause them to snap. That’s worth remembering since it doesn’t appear the ‘corruption’ meme is going to go away anytime soon.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, Steve Sebelius Column, 8/26/16]
Jon Ralston: There’s “Never Been Any Evidence” Of Congressman Heck’s Attacks On Cortez Masto’s Character. RALSTON: “But I do think that the definition of her as being corrupt is, it is something she really needs to worry about, even though there’s never been any evidence that that’s true.” [Ed Morrissey Show, 8/26/16]
FACT: CORTEZ MASTO SERVED WITH CLASS AND UPMOST INTEGRITY ADVOCATING FOR ALL NEVADANS
Washoe County Undersheriff Todd Vinger: “I’ve Seen Firsthand How Catherine Approached Her Time As Attorney General With Integrity And Class.” “That’s why I find Joe Heck’s recent attacks so distasteful. I’ve seen firsthand how Catherine approached her time as attorney general with integrity and class. She’s been a champion for Nevada’s seniors, children, and our state’s most vulnerable. These attacks are not only disgusting, but have been shown to be untrue. These baseless personal attacks cross a line.” [Reno Gazette Journal, Todd Vinger Op-Ed, 9/12/16]
Washoe County Undersheriff Todd Vinger: “I Am A Lifelong Republican” But “I’m Supporting Catherine Cortez Masto For U.S. Senate Because I Want A Senator Who Will Work Across The Aisle” “But this November, I’m supporting Catherine Cortez Masto for U.S. Senate because I want a senator who will work across the aisle to find solutions for Nevadans. As attorney general, Catherine worked with Republicans and Democrats to pass over 40 bills that better protect Nevadans. Before taking on a problem, she met with law enforcement across our state, listened to us and used our input to craft laws that would best serve our state.” [Reno Gazette Journal, Todd Vinger Op-Ed, 9/12/16]
Sen. Bryan: Cortez Masto “A Personal Of Unquestionable Integrity” “Her record as our attorney general has earned her the support of law enforcement officials across the state who have worked with her and know she is a person of unquestionable integrity with an ability to get things done in a dysfunctional Washington. I’ve seen her in action. She brings Republicans and Democrats together, listens to all ideas and comes up with solutions that get real results.” [Las Vegas Sun, Bryan Op-Ed, 9/7/16]
Sen. Bryan: Cortez Masto Had A Record Of Solving Problems And Fighting For Nevada Families. “I’ve known Masto for years, and she has served Nevada with integrity and grace as a prosecutor and as our attorney general. She has a record of solving problems and fighting for Nevada families. As attorney general she passed more than 40 bills with Republican and Democratic support, demonstrating her commitment to working across party lines to get things done.” [Las Vegas Sun, Bryan Op-Ed, 9/7/16]
President Obama Praised Cortez Masto As A “Tireless Advocate” For Children, Women And Others – She Has A “Track Record Of Integrity.” “In a nearly 14-minute speech, Obama said Cortez Masto, a former Nevada attorney general, has shown leadership as a ‘tireless advocate’ for children, women and others, saying she has a ‘track record of integrity.’ Cortez Masto, 50, is backed by Reid and will likely face Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, 53, who has won thrice since 2010 in the 3rd Congressional District in southwestern Clark County. Heck, a physician and brigadier general in the Army Reserve, has announced he’s seeking the GOP nomination, and is by far the most prominent Republican candidate so far.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8/24/15]
Former Nevada Republican AG George Chanos: “Cortez Masto Is A Principled Public Servant, Who Has Always Attempted To Serve The People Of Nevada, To The Best Of Her Ability.” [Facebook, George Chanos, 8/29/16]
VOICEOVER: Catherine Cortez Masto let Nevada seniors down.
TEXT: Catherine Cortez Masto let Nevada Seniors Down
REALITY: CONGRESSMAN HECK PROPOSED PRIVATE SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNTS THAT WOULD PROVIDE BILLIONS IN FEES FOR WALL STREET, WHILE ACCEPTING OVER $500,000 FROM WALL STREET
Heck Proposed Allowing Workers To Invest Retirement Funds In Private Accounts, Instead Of Social Security. “The two candidates also got into an angry back-and-forth in discussing veterans benefits, Medicare and Social Security. Bilbray said Heck wants to privatize Social Security, and she said he’s done nothing to raise Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors won’t drop patients. Congress had boosted reimbursement rates, but on a year-to-year basis instead of a permanent fix. Heck, sounding exasperated, said he introduced the first bill to ‘repair Medicare’ and reintroduced it this year. He said it passed the House. As for Social Security, Heck said he has proposed allowing younger workers to invest retirement funds as they like, instead of with the government.” [Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/20/14]
Heck: “I Believe That Any Individual Should Have The Right To Voluntarily Take Their Portion Of Social Security Withholding And Invest It As They Deem Appropriate.” In May 2010 interview Joe Heck stated, “I believe that any individual should have the right to voluntarily take their portion of Social Security withholding and invest it as they deem appropriate. It is arrogant of government to think that they can invest someone’s money better than they can. Since this would be voluntary, any individual who would exercise this option must understand that they are assuming the risk associated with private investment. The employer contribution should continue to go to the Social Security program and the benefit upon retirement calculated based on those contributions.” [Nevada News and Views, 5/4/10]
Heck Advocated For Allowing Individuals To Invest In The Stock Market And The Government Would “Not Guarantee People’s Private Investments.” “Heck is not calling for mandatory private investment, nor does he want to dismantle public Social Security. Instead, he advocates allowing people to decide how they want to invest, be it in Social Security, the stock market or gold. ‘It’s not about making Social Security solvent,’ Heck said. ‘It’s about securing people’s retirement.’ Employers would continue to contribute to the existing Social Security system, and the government would not guarantee people’s private investments. A person who chose to diversify would not receive the same monthly payment as someone invested fully in the system.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/10/10]
Heck’s Social Security Privatization Plan Would Create A “Major Problem,” The Government Would Be Left With “Less Money To Pay Retirees’ Benefits.” “‘But Heck’s proposal would create a major problem. If people take money out of Social Security to invest it privately, the government will be left with even less money to pay retirees’ benefits.” [Las Vegas Sun, 9/10/10]
Washington Post: Under Social Security Privatization Plan, “Every Dollar Contributed To An Account Would Be Taken From The Guaranteed Social Security Benefit.” “What Bush did not detail is how contributions in the account would reduce workers’ monthly Social Security checks. Under the system, described by an administration official, every dollar contributed to an account would be taken from the guaranteed Social Security benefit, with interest.” [Washington Post, 2/3/05]
Privatizing Social Security Could Be A Windfall For Wall Street, Generating Billions In Fees. “President Bush’s plan to partly privatize Social Security could be a windfall for Wall Street, generating billions of dollars in management fees for brokerages and mutual fund companies.” [NBC News, 12/28/04]
Wall Street Firms Could Reap Billions In Management Fees If Social Security Taxes Were Funneled Into Private Accounts. “The nation’s brokerages and mutual fund companies could be big winners if the government were to allow Americans to funnel some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts each year. Firms such as Fidelity Investments, Vanguard Group, Merrill Lynch & Co. and Schwab collectively could reap billions of dollars in management fees and commissions over the long term.” [Los Angeles Times, 1/18/05]
Heck’s Campaigns Received $525,569 From The Securities & Investment Industry. [Open Secrets, Joe Heck Career Top Industries, Accessed 8/10/16]
REALITY: CONGRESSMAN HECK VOTED TO TURN MEDICARE INTO A VOUCHER PROGRAM THAT COULD COST SENIORS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR IN HIGHER
Headline: Los Angeles Times: “Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare Privatization Plan Increases Costs, Budget Office Says.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]
Heck Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget That Would Turn Medicare Into A Voucher Program. In April 2011, Heck voted for:” Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would allow $2.859 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2012, including up to $1.019 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending. It calls for $659 billion in security spending and $360 billion in non-security spending. It proposes converting the federal share of Medicaid to a block grant to states. It calls for converting Medicare for persons currently younger than 55 into a ‘premium support system’ through which the government would pay private insurance companies directly for each enrollee. It also proposes consolidating the current six tax brackets and cutting the corporate tax rate and the top individual tax rate to 25 percent. It assumes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2012 and projects that the budget deficit would be reduced to $391 billion by fiscal 2021.” The bill was adopted by a vote of 235-193. [CQ, 4/15/11; H Con Res 34, Vote 277, 4/15/11]
· AARP: Ryan Plan Private Vouchers Payments Could Rise Far Slower Than Health Care Costs Leaving Seniors To Pay $6,000 More In Out-Of-Pocket Costs. In May 2011, AARP press release on Ryan plan stated: “Under the plan, drawn up by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and adopted by the House in mid-April, future Medicare enrollees now younger than 55 would no longer receive guaranteed benefits. Instead, the government would provide a set amount of money to buy private insurance on their own. The plan contains few details of how private vouchers would work — except that the payments would be geared to the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index, which is rising far slower than health care costs. An analysis of the Ryan plan by the politically neutral Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030, typical 65-year-olds would pay 68 percent of the cost of their coverage out of pocket, compared with the 25 percent share they pay now. In dollar terms, the average 65-year-old’s costs would more than double from about $6,000 a year under current law to $12,500 by 2022, and would be higher for older people.” [AARP press release, 5/5/11]
· CBO Report: Ryan Plan’s Medicare Vouchers Could Not Keep Up Project Cost Of Medical Care Leaving Seniors To Pay The Difference Of More Than $6,000. “This voucher system — or ‘premium support,’ as Ryan calls it — would give the typical 65-year-old American $8,000 annually to buy a health plan, about the same amount of money that analysts expect the Medicare program would spend on that senior in 2022 under the current program. But the CBO report says the money won’t be enough. The cost to buy private insurance, plus the projected out-of-pocket spending that the 65-year-old would have to pay for medical care in 2022, would total about $20,510 per year, according to the CBO, which both Republicans and Democrats rely on to independently evaluate the effects of proposed legislation. That would leave the senior to pay the difference, an estimated $12,510. By comparison, if the current Medicare program is continued, the CBO estimated that it would cost about $14,770 to provide insurance to that same 65-year old in 2022, assuming Congress did not dramatically slash payments to doctors. That would leave the senior to pay just $6,150 out of pocket. ‘A typical beneficiary would spend more for healthcare,’ the CBO concluded about Ryan’s proposal.” [Los Angeles Times, 4/7/11]
· CBO Report: Ryan Plan Could Increase Medicare Beneficiaries Annual Out-Of-Pocket Costs By More Than $6,000. “In 2022, the first year the voucher would apply, CBO estimates that total health care expenditures for a typical 65-year-old would be almost 40 percent higher with private coverage under the Ryan plan than they would be with a continuation of traditional Medicare. (See graph.) CBO also finds that this beneficiary’s annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double — from $6,150 to $12,500. In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
VOICEOVER: Freedom Partners Action Fund is responsible for the content of this advertising.
TEXT: Freedom Partners Action Fund Paid For And Is Responsible For The Content Of This Advertising.
REALITY: KOCH BROTHERS ARE TRYING TO BUY ELECTION FOR HECK BECAUSE HE SUPPORTS THEIR AGENDA OF GIVING TAX BREAKS TO CORPORATIONS AND THE WEALTHY
New York Magazine: Congressman Heck Is “The Koch Brothers’ Candidate.” “Harry Reid would love to beat the Koch brothers’ candidate in the race for his own seat.” [New York Magazine, 8/30/16]
Koch-Funded Groups Have Spent $6 Million On Heck, Including Secret Money. “In total, Koch-funded groups have already spent about $6 million on the Nevada senate race — and counting. As a point of comparison, according to his quarterly filing containing data through June 30, 2016, Heck had raised less than $7.5 million and only spent about $2.6 million.” [Think Progress, 9/2/16]
Koch Network Launched Its First Political Ad Of 2016 In Support Of Heck Using Secret Money. “The Koch network is unleashing its first political ad of 2016, right in Senator Harry Reid’s backyard. As early as Wednesday, television viewers across Nevada will start to see an ad showing military veterans voicing their support for Representative Joe Heck, the Republican challenger for Mr. Reid’s seat when he retires at the end of his term. The ad is part of a $700,000 broadcast and digital buy from the Concerned Veterans for America, an organization dedicated to overhauling the Veterans Affairs Department from a conservative viewpoint and part of the vast political network affiliated with the conservative billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch.” [New York Times, 3/1/16]
Think Progress: Heck “Tracks Closely With The Koch Brothers’ Priorities.” “On other policy issues, Heck also tracks closely with the Koch brothers’ priorities. He strongly opposes the Affordable Care Act, floated raising the Social Security retirement age, supports “school choice,” and favors taking public land away from the federal government.” [Think Progress, 9/2/16]
2015: Heck Voted With Americans For Prosperity 88% Of The Time. According to the Americans for Prosperity website, Heck supported Americans for Prosperity’s positions 100 percent of the time during 2013. [Americans for Prosperity, Scorecard, Accessed 12/22/15]
Koch Group Backed Heck Because He Supported Policies That Would “Help Drive A Free And Open Society.” “Mark Holden, the chairman of Freedom Partners and general counsel to Koch Industries, said the Koch network was backing Mr. Heck because he supported policies that would ‘help drive a free and open society.’” [New York Times, 8/30/16]
Heck Believed Money Is Speech And Supported Allowing Corporate Money In Elections: “It’s Couched In The First Amendment, That People Should Have The Right To Speak Their Mind, Even If That Speaking Their Mind Is Through Their Purse.” HOST: “Can Congress do anything regarding the quote-unquote money laundering through the unions for contributions to the Democratic Party?” HECK: “As a person who received a large portion of that money directed towards him, I wish there was. But it goes both ways. The issue is if we attack the unions and say ‘look, you can’t use union money’ then they’ll say you can’t use corporate money. And then there’s also, it’s couched in the First Amendment, that people should have the right to speak their mind, even if that speaking their mind is through their purse.” [YouTube, Heck at Republican Women’s Club, Part II, 4/26/11]
Both Heck And Americans For Prosperity Supported Chairman Ryan’s FY 2012 Budget Resolution. [AFP Scorecard, Joe Heck, Accessed 9/9/16]
Heck Voted For FY 2012 House Republican Budget That Would Cut Taxes For The Rich. In April 2011, Heck voted for:” Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would allow $2.859 trillion in new budget authority for fiscal 2012, including up to $1.019 trillion in non-emergency discretionary spending. It calls for $659 billion in security spending and $360 billion in non-security spending. It proposes converting the federal share of Medicaid to a block grant to states. It calls for converting Medicare for persons currently younger than 55 into a ‘premium support system’ through which the government would pay private insurance companies directly for each enrollee. It also proposes consolidating the current six tax brackets and cutting the corporate tax rate and the top individual tax rate to 25 percent. It assumes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts beyond 2012 and projects that the budget deficit would be reduced to $391 billion by fiscal 2021.” The bill was adopted by a vote of 235-193. [CQ, 4/15/11; H Con Res 34, Vote 277, 4/15/11;]
CNN: “Millionaires Would Get A Sizable Tax Cut If Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal Were To Become Law.” “Millionaires would get a sizable tax cut if Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal were to become law. Those with incomes exceeding $1 million would enjoy an average tax cut of more than $200,000, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning group. And it could be even bigger if Congress doesn’t try to limit tax deductions, credits and preferences to offset the costs of the proposed tax cuts. Under the Ryan budget, released Tuesday, income would be taxed at only two rates, 10% and 25%. Currently, there are seven brackets ranging from 10% to 39.6%.” [CNN, 3/15/13]
###