Ad calling Florida’s Ashley Moody the ‘deciding vote’ on Epstein files misses context, later support
A political advertisement targeting Florida Senator Ashley Moody claims she cast the 'deciding vote' to block the release of Jeffrey Epstein files, citing her September 2025 vote to table a Democratic amendment. The ad, produced by the New Deal for All PAC, highlights this specific instance while omitting broader context regarding party discipline and subsequent legislative actions. PolitiFact notes that while Moody did vote to table the amendment alongside most of her Republican colleagues, the claim of her being the sole decider is misleading because any single Republican vote could have been viewed similarly. Furthermore, the ad ignores that Vice President JD Vance held the constitutional power to break a potential 50-50 tie, meaning the outcome would likely have remained unchanged even if Moody had voted differently. The fact-check also points out that the Senate later passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act via unanimous consent, a development the advertisement fails to acknowledge.
Florida Republican Senator Ashley Moody faces a new attack advertisement accusing her of casting the decisive vote to keep Jeffrey Epstein’s government files secret. The spot, which aired during World Series games on October 23, claims Moody protected the deceased sex offender by blocking the release of investigative records. However, the advertisement omits crucial context regarding subsequent legislative actions and ignores Moody’s participation in a later unanimous consent agreement that facilitated the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The commercial features an Epstein survivor identified as Marina, who stated she was thirteen years old and vulnerable when she met Epstein. The woman claimed the predator used her in every possible way. Text on the screen asserted that Moody cast the deciding vote to block the file release. The ad specifically references a vote taken on September 10, 2025, where Moody supported a motion to table a Democratic amendment attached to an annual defense authorization bill. That amendment had directed the attorney general to make the Epstein files publicly available. New Deal for All, a political action committee founded by Steve Pajcic, a Florida lawyer and former Democratic state legislator, paid for the advertisement. The group cited news reports describing the September vote as a narrow Republican victory that thwarted Democratic efforts to force disclosure. A statement from the PAC argued that if Moody had voted against tabling the amendment, it would not have achieved the necessary majority to pass. While the PAC correctly noted that flipping Moody’s vote would have resulted in a fifty-fifty tie, failing to kill the motion, the ad overlooks constitutional procedures. Under the United States Constitution, Vice President JD Vance serves as president of the Senate and holds the power to break deadlocks. Vance was prepared to cast the tie-breaking vote to maintain the block on the amendment, meaning any single Republican senator could technically be viewed as having cast a deciding vote in that specific procedural moment. During the period surrounding the September vote, the administration of President Donald Trump actively opposed efforts to compel the release of the documents. White officials warned Republicans that supporting such measures constituted a hostile act. Consequently, House leadership blocked similar Democratic-led amendments and committee motions, and senators generally aligned with party direction. Moody joined nearly all of her Republican colleagues in voting to table the amendment, a motion that passed by a margin of fifty-one to forty-nine. Political dynamics shifted significantly in the months following that vote. Pressure to disclose the files intensified, leading more conservative lawmakers to sign a bipartisan petition led by Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Representative Ro Khanna of California. This effort aimed to force a floor vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, legislation requiring the Justice Department to publish all Epstein files online. President Trump subsequently reversed his position and urged Republicans to support the release. On November 18, 2025, the House passed the bill by a lopsided vote of four hundred twenty-seven to one. In the Senate, Moody joined her colleagues in passing the measure through unanimous consent. This procedure indicates that no senator formally objected to the bill’s passage, although no recorded vote was taken. Moody has not explained why she initially voted to block the defense bill amendment but later agreed to the transparency act. Her campaign did not respond to requests for comment regarding the discrepancy. Separately, the broader landscape of political advertising has seen a dramatic increase in the use of artificial intelligence. The Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political propaganda, identified at least two hundred twenty ads produced or enhanced with AI by candidates or PACs during this election cycle. These advertisements cost just under one hundred thirty-seven million dollars, a substantial jump from the less than fifty thousand dollars invested in AI during the 2024 presidential election. By May of this year, spending on such ads had already reached twenty million dollars. Travis Ridout, a professor at Washington State University and co-director of the project, noted that the growth in AI ads accelerated over the summer, particularly in close primary races. Only twenty-seven percent of the analyzed ads disclosed their use of artificial intelligence tools. In the absence of federal regulation, responsibility for oversight falls to local governments, with approximately thirty states currently maintaining some form of rule regarding AI in campaigns. South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette illustrated the confusion caused by these technologies. She appeared in a deepfake video undergoing a polygraph test that ended with the device catching fire. Although the clip clarified that the dramatization was AI-generated, voters on the campaign trail asked her if the events were real. Evette, who lost the Republican gubernatorial nomination to Attorney General Alan Wilson in June, had to repeatedly explain that the footage was fabricated. Her campaign later used AI itself to produce an ad depicting Wilson rejecting a phone call from President Trump. Evette acknowledged that while AI reduces production costs and allows for creative flexibility, the potential for deception poses concerns for democratic processes.
Go to the primary sources (7)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
A political advertisement targeting Florida Senator Ashley Moody claims she cast the 'deciding vote' to block the release of Jeffrey Epstein files, citing her September 2025 vote to table a Democratic amendment. The ad, produced by the New Deal for All PAC, highlights this specific instance while omitting broader context regarding party discipline and subsequent legislative actions. PolitiFact notes that while Moody did vote to table the amendment alongside most of her Republican colleagues, the claim of her being the sole decider is misleading because any single Republican vote could have been viewed similarly. Furthermore, the ad ignores that Vice President JD Vance held the constitutional power to break a potential 50-50 tie, meaning the outcome would likely have remained unchanged even if Moody had voted differently. The fact-check also points out that the Senate later passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act via unanimous consent, a development the advertisement fails to acknowledge.
Bias read (Progressive): The article analyzes a negative attack ad produced by a Democratic-aligned super PAC ('New Deal for All') targeting a Republican senator. While the fact-check itself is neutral in correcting the ad's exaggerations, the underlying narrative focuses on holding a Republican official accountable for a '
Why factuality (100): The article accurately describes the specific political ad targeting Senator Ashley Moody, citing the correct date (Oct. 23), sponsor (New Deal for All), and the specific claim regarding the 'deciding vote.' It correctly identifies the counter-evidence (Moody's later role in passing the Epstein File
Why objectivity (95): The tone is analytical and journalistic. While the headline uses the phrase 'misses context,' which implies a negative judgment on the ad's quality, the body text presents the facts neutrally, explaining both the ad's basis and the missing information without injecting personal opinion or emotional
The article reports on the increasing prevalence of artificial intelligence in political advertising leading up to the US midterm elections. It highlights the case of South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, whose image was used in AI-generated deepfake ads depicting her undergoing a polygraph test, causing confusion among voters despite disclaimers. Data from the Wesleyan Media Project indicates that at least 220 AI-produced or enhanced political ads were aired this cycle, costing approximately $137 million, a sharp increase from less than $50,000 in AI spending during the 2024 presidential election. Experts note that much of this spending occurred during closely fought primary races in the summer. The piece includes perspectives from campaign officials and researchers regarding the potential for voter deception and mentions ongoing legislative efforts to regulate AI content in elections.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual report on the statistical rise of AI usage in political ads, citing data from the Wesleyan Media Project. It balances the narrative by including quotes from both the targeted candidate (Evette) and academic experts (Ridout), while noting the lack of response from the对手
Why factuality (100): The article faithfully represents the primary source document. It correctly cites the Wesleyan Media Project's findings regarding the $137 million in AI ad spending and the count of 220 ads. The anecdote about Pamela Evette is presented as a reported quote and experience, which aligns with the sourc
Why objectivity (95): The writing style is objective and informative. It uses direct quotes to convey the subject's perspective rather than editorializing. The framing focuses on the technological shift and voter confusion without taking a stance on the political implications or the validity of the underlying political m
Political advertising spending for the 2026 midterm election cycle has exceeded $10 billion, with projections reaching up to $11.6 billion by Election Day, according to Ad Impact. This marks a significant increase compared to the $8.9 billion spent in the 2022 midterms and the $11.2 billion spent during the 2024 presidential cycle. While advertising is a powerful tool, experts note that spending alone does not guarantee electoral success. Republicans have outspent Democrats in Senate races, particularly in battleground states, with $233 million versus $121 million in broadcast TV ads. However, Democratic Senate candidates have raised more funds in several competitive races. Texas' Senate race stands out, with combined ad spending and airtime reservations exceeding $500 million, driven largely by the highly competitive contest between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual data on campaign spending and includes balanced quotes from experts like Brendan Glavin, emphasizing that spending does not guarantee victory. It reports on both parties' expenditures and fundraising efforts without overtly favoring either side. The framing remains fact-
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports the $11.6 billion ad spending projection from AdImpact, aligning closely with the primary source. It mentions the previous records from 2022 and 2024, and includes relevant details about broadcast TV and connected TV spending. The information is well-supported and fait
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the information in a balanced manner, acknowledging that spending does not guarantee electoral success. It quotes experts like Brendan Glavin to provide context and avoid taking a partisan stance. The tone is informative and neutral, though it briefly highlights Republican spend
Breitbart NewsIndependentCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 85
President Donald Trump stated that it is premature to endorse Vice President JD Vance for a potential 2028 presidential bid, citing upcoming midterm elections as a necessary step first. During a briefing in the Oval Office, Trump described Vance as talented and good but noted they had not discussed the matter. The previous day, Vance told journalist Mark Halperin that he expected Trump’s support if he ran, while acknowledging the possibility that the president might allow the primary race to unfold naturally. Vance indicated he has not finalized his 2028 plans and expressed uncertainty about whether the intense media scrutiny and pressure of a presidential campaign would suit him.
Bias read (Center): The article presents direct quotes from both major figures involved regarding their future political intentions. It balances Trump's statement that it is 'too early' with Vance's recent comments expressing confidence in receiving an endorsement while admitting uncertainty about running. The tone is
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (85): While the headline uses slightly punchy phrasing ('Too Early'), the body text remains largely objective by quoting the subjects directly. However, the selection of quotes highlights a slight tension or disconnect between the two leaders, which, while true, frames the narrative around their differing
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
