Summary
An ad released jointly by the McCain-Palin campaign and the RNC claims Obama "rewards his friends with your tax dollars" and calls his actions "unethical." Some of what the ad says is false or misleading. Here are the facts:

The ad claims that Obama supporter and Chicago real estate developer Allison Davis received $20 million in taxpayer money. That's false. Davis didn't get this money. Instead, the federal grant went to the Chicago Housing Authority, replacing money it had already put forward for a mixed-income housing project on which Davis was a developer. The grant didn't go to Davis, nor did it help him pocket any additional funds.


The ad says Obama gave Tony Rezko $14 million of taxpayer money. That's misleading. It's true the housing project Rezko was working on cost $14 million in taxpayer cash. Rezko and his partner netted $855,000 in fees.

Obama worked to get Kenny Smith a $100,000 grant to build a park, which Smith later failed to complete. Smith has since caught the attention of the state attorney general. But, according to reports, Obama isn't under investigation for helping Smith get the grant.
The RNC and McCain may consider Obama's actions to be "unethical"; that's a matter of opinion. But the fact is, as far as these three incidents are concerned, Obama has not been officially accused of any wrongdoing, and there's been no report that his actions are the subject of any official investigation.

Analysis
The joint ad from the McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee accuses Sen. Barack Obama of being "unethical," citing instances in which individuals connected to Obama received federal or state funds. Sen. John McCain's campaign and the RNC have spent $5.9 million so far airing the ad in 17 states, including Pennsylvania, where $1.2 million has been spent on the ad, and North Carolina, where it has aired a total of 1,629 times, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNS Media Intelligence. The ad started airing on Oct. 14.

RNC/McCain-Palin Ad: "Unethical"
Announcer: Obama rewards his friends with your tax dollars. Tony Rezko, fourteen million. Allison Davis, twenty million. Kenny Smith, one hundred thousand. That's unethical. Congressional liberals promise to raise your taxes to reward their friends with wasteful pork. Taxes for you. Pork for them. Who's gonna' stop 'em? Congressional liberals? Or him.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

$20 Million? Try Zero
The ad claims that real estate developer Allison Davis received $20 million of taxpayer money thanks to Obama. But that's false. Davis didn't get any of this money. The ad cites a story from The Washington Times, but the article says that "city housing authorities confirmed" that the "grant money won't go to Mr. Davis or his company."

According to documentation provided by the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), a letter was ghostwritten for Obama, Sen. **** Durbin (D-Ill.) and others by the CHA in support of a project called Stateway Gardens – an urban revitalization effort to transition crime-ridden high-rises into mixed-income housing. The letter was sent to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in an effort to acquire a fiscal year 2008 grant of $20 million to support the project, of which Davis, a supporter of Obama, was one of the developers.

We spoke with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) spokeswoman Donna White, who told us that the money was not awarded to Davis, but to the Chicago Housing Authority:
Donna White, spokeswoman for HUD: The Chicago Housing Authority competed for [the Hope VI] grant. The housing authority applies for the funding, they select a developer. ... It's common for congressional members to submit letters of support when they know that a housing authority in their jurisdiction is competing for a grant.

We also spoke with William Little, executive vice president of development for CHA, who reiterated that the HUD grant was not awarded to Davis, but to the CHA, and that the grant allowed the CHA to reallocate funds it had already directed to the Stateway project. Davis did not see a profit as a result of the HUD grant, according to Little, nor did the budget for the Stateway project increase. When we asked Little about the charge in the ad that Obama "reward[ed]" Davis with $20 million, he told us:

William Little, CHA: That's totally false. HUD awarded CHA $20 million in a Hope VI grant, which allows CHA to reallocate funds it had previously earmarked for that particular project to other projects. The overall budget for the project did not increase. Allison Davis gets none of it.

A portion of the Stateway development is devoted to market-priced housing, and Davis stood to profit from the sales of those homes. But he did not pocket any of the HUD grant, which went to construction of low-income units.

Tony Rezko (Again)
The ad also claims that Tony Rezko got "fourteen million," because of Obama. But he didn't.

A 2007 report from The Chicago Sun-Times is the source, but the article goes over territory we've addressed before: that Obama wrote letters to state officials supporting a low-income senior housing complex Rezko was trying to have built. Both men say Rezko did not solicit the letters. The Sun-Times quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton as saying Obama didn't write the letters as a favor but "in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project."

Regardless, the ad is wrong to imply Rezko pocketed millions. The project cost $14 million of taxpayer money. But, as we've reported, Rezko and his partner, who was Allison Davis, received $855,000 in fees. It's not peanuts, but it's not $14 million either.

Kenny Smith's $100,000 Garden
The ad then claims Kenny Smith received $100,000 in taxpayer money as a "reward" from Obama. This claim holds more water than the rest, but it's still a leaky vessel.

The ad cites a New York Post report that details how Obama, then a state senator in the midst of a race for a congressional seat, worked on Smith's behalf in 2000 in an effort to raise $1.1 million in state funding for the "Englewood Botanic Garden Project." Smith, head of the nonprofit Chicago Better Housing Association and a volunteer for Obama's congressional campaign, planned to rehabilitate a plot of land in a Chicago neighborhood. He was awarded a $100,000 state grant to do so, a far cry from the $1.1 million he had hoped to receive.

But Smith never built the park. And, according to a report from The Chicago Sun-Times, state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat who backs Obama, has started to look into whether or not taxpayer money was mishandled. While questions have been raised about how Smith spent the money, according to the Sun-Times, the paper notes that "neither Smith nor his wife are accused of any wrongdoing." The Post report cited by the ad said that "officials in Madigan's office said Obama's actions in giving out the member item aren't under investigation."

Democrats "Promise to Raise Your Taxes"
The ad swings away from the taxpayer hand-outs and claims: "Democrats promise to raise your taxes to reward their friends with wasteful pork." That linkage doesn't sound like a promise any sane politician would make.
The ad cites a Nov. 2007 article from The Washington Times, which chronicles a bill introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). The bill would have amended the tax code to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and limit deductions that could be claimed by taxpayers making more than $250,000 a year, among other measures. But Rangel's bill, introduced a year ago, never cleared the Ways and Means Committee.

As for the "wasteful pork" claim, the fact is that securing earmarks is a popular practice among both Democrats and Republicans. Two oft-cited earmark recipients are longtime Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Both were listed in Porkbusters.org's "Hall of Shame" in 2006 and have been singled out as "Porker of The Month" more than once over the last eight years by the organization Citizens Against Government Waste – proof that, promise or not, Democrats and Republicans send money home for projects whether taxes go up or down.

Republished with permission from factcheck.org.

Sources
Novak, Tim. "Obama's Letters for Rezko." 13 June 2007. The Chicago Sun-Times. 22 August 2008.

McElhatton, Jim. "Obama sought HUD grant for donor's project." 6 Oct. 2008. The Washington Times.

Miller, S.A. "Democrats' Plan Taxes All." 8 Nov. 2007. The Washington Times.


© 2008

hasn't he been doing this all a long. I think that those who are voting for him will love it. Hopefully the people who are still undecided will be sick to death of all the BS.

Do you really want to get into this...

I have the same stuff only it is about Obama adds...

1. There are far more of them that have been labeled either 'misleading' or in some cases called outright as lies.

2. The ones I have are labeled this way not just by a single source but by many (including in most cases LEFT LEANING organizations).

3. Both parties have these but one thing is for certin... Since Obama lied about accepting only Public funds for his campaign there are far more of these 'misleading' adds from his campaign (since he has an whole lot more money).

I really would rather not get into all this... both of these IDIOTS are doing their best to be the nasty politicians they are.

I could care less which one wins but I also think there has been enough bashing of one canditate by the overwhelming majority of follow the sheeper cliff jumpers to last me a lifetime.

And the really bad thing about the follow the other sheep bandwagon riders is that IF things start going bad for the Obama most of them will show their rat blood as they jump for the next popular wagon.

Which ads are Obama running and can you use factcheck.org on them?

Negative TV Ads. While Barack Obama tells the people of Indiana today that he detests negative ads, his campaign is spending more than any other presidential candidate in history to launch negative, false and misleading ads against John McCain. According to figures from Campaign Media Analysis Group, in the final stretch of this campaign -- from September 12 to October 18 -- Barack Obama ran 119,101 negative ads costing more than $65 million. For that time period, the Obama campaign spent nearly $30 million more than the McCain-Palin campaign on negative ads. That $30 million represents 38,000 negative ads. The breakdown is even more staggering in the period from October 12 to 18. In that seven-day period, Barack Obama spent over $22 million for more than 37,000 negative ads -- that’s more than twice the amount spent on positive ads and almost three times the amount that the McCain-Palin campaign spent on such ads.

You can get a complete list of all of Obamas negitave adds several places on line... I would suggesst going right to the GOP... I would expect them to have all of them listed as well as the organizations that have labled them 'misleading'.

that is where I got most of them... And factcheck.org is one of the organizations that have a lot of them listed as 'misleading' or even outright lies. (be adivised that factcheck.org has been linked to the democratic party's funding lines, along with several of the polling companies)

I went to the Obama web site to get a list similuar to the one you posted... I also got their numbers from their 'economic plan' and did some cruchin of my own... their conculusions are not supported even by their own numbers.

I am currently crunching McCains numbers in the same way.

I never believe anything a political party claims. They have all proven to be big liers when elections are on the line.

I will say it again. It's been on the new a lot. McCain has more negative ads then Obama.

I've heard Palin and McCain's rallies too. They do a lot of bashing Obama with negatives and false statements. I saw Obama speak. He didn't bash McCain.

Here are some Republicans that think McCain's going too far too:

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/176041

Only ONE news service has report that as a fact... CSNBC an extreamly left leaning news org.

The others reported as I posted above. Since the begining of the general election Obama has been at 86% or better negative adds vs 42% or less for McCain until the month of october... during october McCain negative adds (as a percentage of his total adds) has climed to higher levels. (and so have Obamas).

Part of the beast that is politics. I see two problems here. 1. the assumption that obama is any diferent. 2. the assumption that BECAUSE the corrupt news services (Journalism as a noble profession died shortly after watergate) says something it is true.

I check everything... from all sides... which is why I KNOW that neither of these men are any diferent.

both of them are politicians... both of them have an agenda... AND NEITHER OF THEM HAS A CLUE... this county needs:

1. an IMMEDIATE CHANGE TAX STRUCTURE (i.e. tax cuts at all levels)

2. an IMMEDIATE FREEZE IN ALL SPENDING (with no branch of the government being exempt).

3. an IMMEDIATE CUT OF ALL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE COMMON WELFARE. (i.e if the agency has nothing to do with helping citizens close it).

4. an IMMEDIATE AND CONTINOUS CONGRESSIONAL SESSION that will NOT END until the budget is shown to be capable of being BALANCED within the NEXT FOUR YEARS (no breaks for holidays or any other thing that does not pertain to the job they OWE the american people).

At the end of this congressional session ALL congresspersons and senators that have been in officelonger than 8 years SHOULD STEP DOWN AND NEVER RUN AGAIN.

and whoever is the next president should step up and make sure this all gets done (even in the face of lobbies, carrer politicians and any other distractions)

Adventure which of Obama's ads have been misleading?
Negative ads are nothing new but who's been telling lies about the other.

I will give you one... the one about the Social security being 'taxed' or some such nonsense.

It was described by the NYT as being misleading to the point of delibrately creating an atmosphere of fear in senior voters and it was targeted at ohio and flordia... look it up... factcheck.org also made a statement but I am busy doin other things and have moved past checking on the truth of adds to crunching numbers on the actual effectiveness of budgets...

there are a huge number of misleading adds from the obama campaign many more (to the tune of possibly 70% misleading) than McCains adds. (i.e. McCain has negative adds that have proven to be NOT MISLEADING but actual abrevated truths). But don't take my word for it... Check it out yourself... If you could find the Obama payed for factchecks I am sure you can find the McCain payed for factchecks.

"I will give you one... the one about the Social security being 'taxed' or some such nonsense."

Actually Obama say McCain would tax Medicare not Social Security but being "some such nonsense" for you to be sure can you post a link perferrable for fact check or NYT to discredit Obama's attack ad?

The funny thing is, is that if the stuff that Obama's ad have been saying are false, then why hasn't the Mc Cain camp disputed them?

I use to have a lot of respect for McCain.... I have lost all of it from just his negative adds & his campaign. He's far worst then George Bush...