Midterms See Surge in Nasty Attack Ads
Left 25%
Center 50%
Right 25%
1 left · 2 center · 1 right
What happened
In the closing stretch of the November U.S. midterm campaigns, candidates in several closely contested races aired personal attack ads and traded charges on the trail and debate stage. In Ohio’s governor’s race, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy ran an ad in which Democrat Amy Acton’s long-estranged mother, Donna Arthur, called Acton a liar; Arthur had sided with her second husband, Cledith Arthur, who was indicted for raping Acton when she was 12, and Acton has had no contact with her mother since 1978. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and other Republicans denounced the ad, while President Trump defended it as fair game. In Texas, Rep. Monica De La Cruz accused House opponent Bobby Pulido of helping a former bandmate whose child-rape charge disappeared—Pulido said he never knew of the charges—and Attorney General Ken Paxton ran an AI-generated Senate ad claiming Democrat James Talarico “voted for an income tax,” a charge fact-checkers called false. Other episodes included a candidate telling an opponent to “shut up” during a debate, and a Des Moines-area ad in which council member Shellie Flockhart called a Democrat “just plain dangerous” for kids after she had pleaded guilty to child endangerment for driving drunk with two of her children, according to The Washington Post.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Secoriea Turner's family denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Rick Jackson campaign, Amy Acton and Vivek Ramaswamy campaign
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- On-record denial 1
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Secoriea Turner's family (Axios, Oct 26, 09:30 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 26, 09:30 UTC by Axios, naming its source.
- Not counted 2
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage treats the Ohio attack ad as a nameless controversy, while right-leaning coverage describes it as a family smear tied to a childhood rape indictment. Left-leaning coverage at The Hill cites a controversial campaign ad in Ohio without naming who ran it or what it showed. Right-leaning coverage at Fox News reports that Vivek Ramaswamy featured Democrat Amy Acton's mother calling her a liar. That coverage adds that the mother sided with her second husband after he was indicted for raping Acton at age 12. The same account notes that Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine denounced the ad and that President Trump defended it.
Right-leaning coverage reaches for "filthiest charges." Left-leaning coverage stays with "fiery policy exchanges and personal attacks."
How does this cycle's attack-ad spend compare with the last midterms?
Bottom line
The Hill's mean-season roundup never names who made the Ohio attack ad or that it put Amy Acton's mother on camera; Fox News does, and ties the spot to a rape indictment in the family.
The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Iowa council member Shellie Flockhart appeared in an ad calling a Democrat dangerous for kids after pleading guilty to child endangerment for driving drunk with two of her children
- Rep. Monica De La Cruz emailed that Bobby Pulido got a bandmate's child-rape charge to disappear through a district-attorney uncle
The Left View
The Hill framed November’s midterms as a “mean campaign season” whose “nastiest moments” had been criticized for going “beyond the pale.” It contrasted ordinary “fiery policy exchanges and personal attacks” with the controversial Ohio ad and a candidate telling an opponent to “shut up” on the debate stage, presenting those incidents as signs that closely contested battleground races had intensified into unusually harsh combat.
The Right View
Fox News called the final week “last-minute garbage time,” with candidates “uncorking their dirtiest ads, their filthiest charges and their ugliest rhetoric,” a barrage “fueled as never before by social media” because any of about a dozen states could decide Senate control. It treated the Ramaswamy ad as likely to become “a national referendum on sleaziness,” noted Republican denunciations alongside Trump’s claim that Democrats would use such material against him, and catalogued further attacks including De La Cruz’s emails, Paxton’s AI spot, the Flockhart ad, and a Vanity Fair story on Jared Kushner whose “timing sounds more than coincidental.” The piece said this cycle was “dirtier and more unhinged than ever” and asked how many voters would sort out the charges, hit mute, or “just stay home.”
Our Take (balanced)
The Hill’s strongest argument is that named battleground moments—the Ohio ad and a debate-stage “shut up”—have been criticized as going “beyond the pale,” a claim given force by fellow Republicans’ denunciations of that ad. Fox’s strongest argument is documentary: a last-week pile-up of family-trauma advertising, an AI-generated tax charge fact-checkers called false, and a child-safety messenger with her own endangerment plea, which it calls a uniquely “dirtier and more unhinged” barrage amplified by social media and the fight for the Senate. The central unresolved tension is whether these attacks mark a qualitative break that will lead voters to tune out or stay home, or whether “beyond the pale” and “fair game” are competing labels for the same high-stakes, nationalized midterm combat.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.