Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The latest on redistricting reform
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
Posted in:
* Politifact begins with this question…
Is Jason Gonzales a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gov. Bruce Rauner and his associates as Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan claims?
* But the actual Madigan statement they supposedly set out to fact check is this one…
“Gonzales’ losing campaign against me last spring was funded with more than $1 million from supporters and allies of Governor Bruce Rauner.”
* And then they ask…
While it’s no secret Gonzales was backed by Republicans and supporters of Rauner — Madigan’s biggest political foe — is it true his campaign was funded with more than $1 million from them?
* But then they change the question yet again…
Indeed, Gonzales’ campaign received big donations from people who also gave to Rauner’s campaign fund, but the speaker implies that every donation came from individuals and groups aligned with the governor. In fact, a few of Gonzales’ top donors have also contributed to Democrats and one of his top five donors contributed to Gonzales and no one else.
Where do they get “every donation” came from Rauner opponents?
He said the campaign was funded with more than a million bucks from Rauner allies. Was it? They didn’t actually do that math.
* And then this…
Further, Madigan’s “more than $1 million” includes spending by the Illinois United for Change super PAC, despite the fact that super PAC money cannot be given directly to a candidate’s campaign nor can it be coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.
So, they exclude Blair Hull’s Super PAC money, even though it was most of the money spent (almost a million dollars) during that campaign? How do you wish all that cash away?
* Conclusion…
We rate Madigan’s claim Mostly False.
Which claim?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 9:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The latest on redistricting reform
Next Post: Unclear on the concept
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Very confusing as you indicate. Also, aren’t there active races they can focus on?
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:04 am
Umm, isn’t it almost September.
I always thought timeliness was a news value.
When did that stop?
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:06 am
Weird article. Either very naive or duplicitous, and it’s hard to tell which.
Comment by northsider (the original) Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:15 am
I’ve read this three times and I am still confused.
Comment by illini Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:20 am
Blair Hull’s money alone accounts for 873K. Would they have preferred Madigan say “almost $1 million” rather than “more than $1 million”?
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:32 am
I rate this politifact fact check as:
Politifail
Comment by jerry 101 Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:41 am
Politifact basically gives it’s fact checking job to Reboot. Reboot has good articles, but they are definitely in the “Madigan bad” camp and can be a bit hyperbolic. I always take their stories with a grain of salt.
They certainly missed the mark here.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:42 am
What is Politifact, but some self-appointed experts? I know a bunch of people will tune out, but Rachel Maddow has been deeply critical of them. See if this from HuffPo sounds familiar after reading what Rich posted above:
Even though the fact-checking site confirmed Martina Navratilova’s claim that an employer could fire a person in 29 U.S. states for being gay, the site rated the tennis star’s comment as only “half true.”
“This is why the very important concept of fact-checking has become pointless at a time in our country when we really need it to mean something,” Maddow said. “Because Politifact exists and has branded themselves as the generic arbiter of fact, and the paragon of fact-checking, and they are terrible at it!
They fact-checked a statement about state law, found it to be true, decided it didn’t seem seemly or whatever to actually call it true, so then they researched other unrelated information about how there are other kinds of things besides states like, ‘Some companies decide they don’t want to discriminate and doesn’t that count for something?’ NO! Because that is not the statement you are fact-checking.
Comment by Moe Berg Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:42 am
The whole campaign finance world is designed to evade scrutiny and analysis.
Comment by walker Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 10:45 am
Dont forget u cant beat somebody with nobody. They couldnt find a guy with no criminal record? This cliwn show has been over since March why is it still being discussed
Comment by Regular democrat Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 11:00 am
“Weird article. Either very naive or duplicitous, and it’s hard to tell which.”
Could be both.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 11:04 am
PolitiFact is a joke. They run out of “facts” and start truthsquadding rhetoric. Then that’s when they have a whole set of subjective choices. And the whole exercise fails and looks silly.
Comment by Albany Park Patriot Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 11:10 am
I miss the days when articles were edited.
Comment by siriusly Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 11:34 am
Let’s also remember PolitiFact apparently rented one of ReBoot’s junior journalists for this epic. The basic dreamland conclusion that Blair Hull did not work with Rauner aides to help Gonzo is purely mythical. But let us remember ReBooters are strugglin’ to replace the loss of Mrs. ReBoot $$$ so it appears they will do anything to stay afloat.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 11:37 am
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/politifact-fails-again-destroy-277552195924
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 1:55 pm
“Politicrap”
Comment by RIJ Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 2:17 pm
I find Poliifact useful, and not usually as disappointing as this. But yup, they do carry a bias, and they do farm out their state-level operations to other local groups like Reboot.
If you’re enough of a skeptic to regularly check sites like Politifact, Snopes, and FactCheck, then you should be reading them carefully anyway.
Comment by Threepwood Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 2:59 pm
Broad brush much? Politifact is consistently wrong. I have not experienced the same with Snopes.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 25, 16 @ 3:51 pm