The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee says Republican 2nd District Congressman George Holding "sold you out" in an ad attacking the three-term incumbent for telling voters years ago that he wouldn't take special interest money and then accepting it.
The ad has run more than 500 times so far on network television in the Raleigh area at a cost of about about $340,000, according to data from Kantar Media. It started running Sept. 29.
Other WRAL Top Stories
The ad: It starts with a video clip from 2012 showing first-time candidate Holding telling people that, "I'm not going to take any money from special-interest PACs, because I think that is one of the most corrupting influences in Washington."
Stacks of hundred dollar bills fall in with a "whumpf," and the narrator says Holding broke his promise, taking $3 million from special-interest PACs.
"No wonder he voted with drug companies to jack up prescription drug costs," the narrator says. "And voted to let insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions."
"George Holding lied," the ad concludes. "And he sold you out."
Questions: Did Holding break a promise not to accept special-interest PAC money? Did he vote to increase prescription drug costs and let insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions?
The backup: The DCCC sent along a clip of Holding on the campaign trail:
"And that's one of the reasons why I got into this campaign," Holding says. "I said I'm not going to take any money from special-interest PACs, because I think that is one of the most corrupting influences in Washington. And good conservatives have gone to Washington and changed on us. And the reason they get to change, and the reason they get to stay up there after they change is because they take money from PACs who don't really care where they stand on conservative issues, and they have the money for re-election.
The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign giving at opensecrets.org, does indeed say that Holding has accepted more than $3 million from business PACs in his career.
The group puts giving from PACs associated with the pharmaceutical and health care products industries at more than $234,000 and from insurance PACs at about $386,000.
The votes: Holding, like other Republicans in the House, voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obamacare." A key element in Obamacare is a requirement that insurance companies provide affordable plans to people with pre-existing health conditions.
While Republicans in Congress have said they support this element of the ACA, it's unclear how it could survive without other elements of the ACA also in place, and a number of the repeal votes came without any replacement details.
As for drug prices, that goes back to the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare that requires senior citizens to cover certain prescription costs. Obamacare is phasing out the hole.
The pushback: The Holding campaign acknowledges that he failed his pledge not to accept special-interest money. It's a matter of idealism checked by political reality, spokesman Charles Hellwig said.
"That didn't work out the way he wanted," the campaign said in an email. "For example, TV ads (on WRAL) cost money. And in Raleigh, they cost a lot of money."
The campaign takes issue with the ad's language on drug costs and pre-existing conditions.
"Saying because you oppose Obamacare, you support raising drug prices, is pure politics," the campaign said.
On pre-existing conditions, Republicans have repeatedly said that whatever they replace Obamacare with would continue to require affordable coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Holding's campaign said one of the bills cited in the DCCC commercial specifically said insurers had to cover existing conditions.
From the experts: How Republicans would protect the pre-existing conditions rule without preserving elements of the ACA that help pay for it has never been clear, and health policy experts we spoke to agreed: Repealing the ACA would be bad news for people with pre-existing conditions.
But would it "jack up prescription drug costs?" That doesn't necessarily follow, according to Paul Ginsburg, director of public policy for the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at the University of Southern California.
Ginsburg, who has testified before Congress and written extensively on health policy, said GOP repeal efforts didn't apply to Medicare, and they might eventually have lowered drug costs if the repeals had actually gone through. That's nothing to brag about, Ginsburg said.
"You would probably have less ability to buy drugs by patients (without the ACA)," he said. "That probably would eventually cause drug prices to be lower because nobody could afford to buy them."
But it's too much to say that a vote to repeal was a vote to increase drug costs, Ginsburg said.
"There are lots of other things to criticize for someone who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but prescription drug prices is not one of them," he said.
The verdict: Holding said he wouldn't take special interest money, then he did, and that's the thrust of the ad.
He voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and we think it's fair game for the DCCC to equate that with letting insurance companies "discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions."
But because of the prescription drug language, we give this ad a yellow light. One you're probably comfortable blowing through, though, even with a cop nearby.
You can read more about our scoring system, but the long and short of it is that the ad "contains a minor but significant factual error or is lacking important context."
Of course, the ad also gets into intent, a hard thing to prove. Did Holding "lie" when he said he wouldn't take special interest money, or was he naive? Can you draw a line between the campaign donations he took and his health care votes?
Holding himself said special-interest money changes politicians, but we leave that for voters to decide.