5 ways Senate candidates in toss-up races tried to mislead voters, fact-checked

Candidates have been waging high-stakes, high-dollar campaigns in Senate races across the country this year, as Senate control rests on a few swing states.

Democrats, who now control the Senate with 51 seats, are playing defense, looking to protect incumbents in competitive races and stop Republicans from gaining open seats in Michigan and Arizona. 

Republicans need a net gain of two seats to gain control of the chamber, or one if the incoming vice president is a Republican.

Claims about Medicare and Social Security, abortion rights and voting rights have been common themes PolitiFact has checked as we’ve identified misleading campaign claims and misinformation.

We rounded up the most common themes we’ve checked from more than 50 claims in races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Millions of retired Americans rely on Social Security payments and Medicare health coverage. Older Americans reliably have a higher voting turnout than other age groups, so concerns about these programs often play highly in national campaigns. 

In campaign attacks, Democratic candidates have claimed their opponents want to cut Social Security and Medicare or raise the retirement age for benefits in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

In Michigan, the United Auto Workers labor union ran an ad saying Republican candidate Mike Rogers "wants to cut Medicare and Social Security." In Nevada, incumbent Sen. Jacky Rosen said Republican opponent Sam Brown "publicly supported forcing massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare."

Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate vying for the open Michigan U.S. Senate seat, answers questions from the Oct. 14, 2024, media after he debated U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly. (AP)

Republicans have in the past floated plans to raise the age for retirement benefits under Medicare or Social Security or change the benefit structures in some way. But these Republicans generally aren’t calling to cut the programs now; most candidates have said this year they will not support cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits. 

Republicans in Montana and Arizona have also wrongly accused their Democratic opponents of planning to cut Social Security, pointing to statements from more than a decade ago that were taken out of context. 

The Montana claim pointed to 2011 statements from Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who said he supported a commission that recommended cutting federal spending; some moves would have trimmed Social Security payments. Tester said he did not support all of the commission’s recommendations and opposed the Social Security proposals. In Arizona Republican candidate Kari Lake’s case, the evidence for her claim had nothing to do with U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, her Democratic opponent.

Social Security and Medicare both face funding shortfalls; major trust funds behind both programs are expected to be depleted in a little more than a decade, according to recent reports. However, strategies to address this funding have proven politically dangerous for both parties.

With about 63% of Americans believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases, Democrats are leaning on popular support for abortion rights in their campaign messages. 

Democrats have argued that Republicans plan to ban abortion nationally if they take power, often saying their opponents oppose rape and incest exceptions to abortion restrictions.

The attacks have come from Democratic candidates in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Nevada and Florida. 

In Nevada, Rosen said Brown said "abortion should be banned without any exceptions for rape or incest." In Pennsylvania, a Democratic political action committee said Republican Dave McCormick is "fully against abortion." 

Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., takes questions from reporters after a debate with Republican senatorial candidate Sam Brown, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024, in Las Vegas. (AP)

These attacks often point to a candidate’s long history of supporting abortion restrictions, including some cases in which candidates hadn’t supported rape and incest exceptions. But during this election, Republicans are mostly not arguing for a national abortion ban; all have said they support exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the pregnant woman’s life. 

In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans Rogers and McCormick have both said they would vote no on a national abortion ban. They’ve deferred to their states’ laws, which both allow abortions until around 24 weeks, the point of fetal viability, with exceptions later if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. 

Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno has said he supports national legislation to ban abortion in most cases at 15 weeks, with exceptions after that for rape, incest and to save the pregnant woman’s life. When he ran for the party’s Senate nomination in 2022, Moreno said he did not support any exceptions to abortion bans, but he has since changed that position. 

Republicans have tried to paint Democrats as extreme on abortion during this campaign cycle. Candidates have said their opponents support abortion until the moment of birth or they do not support any limits on abortion. 

Republican Tim Sheehy in Montana said Tester supports "elective abortions up to and including the moment of birth." In Nevada, Republican Sam Brown said a proposed state constitutional amendment would put "no limit" on abortion access.

Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy speaks to supporters Sept. 4, 2024, in Billings, Mont. (AP)

Earlier this year, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said Senate Democrats voted "to support unlimited abortions up to the moment of birth." We rated these claims False, and they ignore the limits imposed by the Senate legislation that Democrats support. 

Senate Democrats voted in May 2022 for the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would have imposed a national right to an abortion until fetal viability mirroring the rights in place under Roe v. Wade. The bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass in the Senate.

The bill would have allowed abortions after fetal viability, if the pregnancy risked the pregnant woman’s life or health. 

The bill does not allow abortion for any reason late in pregnancy and up to the moment of birth, experts said. Instead, it allows for medical judgment by a health care provider in rare instances in which a pregnancy risks the pregnant woman’s health. 

"This is not abortion on demand until the moment of birth," Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit, and director of the nonprofit’s Women’s Health Policy Program, told us in a previous fact-check. "Even if politicians and anti-abortion activists make this claim, there are no clinicians that provide ‘abortions’ moments before birth." 

In Nevada, Brown’s "no limit" argument made the same error, ignoring the amendment’s provision that abortion can be restricted after fetal viability unless a woman’s health or life is at risk. The proposed amendment is worded to provide similar protections as those already in state law, but it enshrines them in the state constitution, making them harder to overturn. Nevada voters will vote on the amendment Nov. 5. 

In an election rife with claims about immigration and election security, some Republicans have pushed the incorrect claim that Democrats recently voted to allow immigrants in the country illegally to vote in federal elections. 

The claim gives a misleading picture of a bill that most House Democrats voted against earlier this year. It is illegal under federal law for immigrants in the country illegally to vote, and Democrats in Congress have not recommended or supported measures to change that. 

In July, the majority House Republicans passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, mostly along party lines with Republicans in the majority. The bill would have required people to show proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote in federal elections. 

But Republicans, including Lake in Arizona and Rogers in Michigan, have argued their opponents’ votes against that bill was a vote to "let illegals vote in U.S. elections," as Rogers falsely put it. 

Democrats’ opposition to the bill was not a vote to open voter registration up to noncitizens, though, because federal and state laws already ban noncitizen voting. Whether the bill passed or failed, that prohibition would not have changed. 

Democrats said the bill impeded access to voting for eligible citizens who may lack easy access to proof of citizenship. 

Republicans in the race’s final weeks have zeroed in on transgender-focused policies. 

Republicans in Ohio, Montana and Wisconsin ran ads accusing Democratic candidates of supporting transgender women competing in women’s sports or gender-affirming care for minors. 

In Ohio, Republicans said incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown voted to "allow transgender biological men to compete in girls’ sports" and "supported allowing puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries for minor children." 

Brown voted against an amendment that would have stripped funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls and women to compete in sports matching their gender identities. The amendment did not directly dictate athletic eligibility, which states and governing sports bodies usually decide. 

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, speaks at a campaign rally, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Cincinnati. (AP)

In another ad, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC working to build a Republican Senate majority, said Brown supported allowing puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgery for minors. Brown has generally supported transgender rights. 

Although Brown expressed broad support for preventing government restrictions on gender affirming care for minors, he did not specifically address support for puberty blockers and surgery. 

In Wisconsin, Republican Eric Hovde said his Democratic opponent, incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, gave taxpayer money to a "transgender-affirming clinic … that does it without even telling parents." 

The statement referred to a Wisconsin nonprofit that serves runaway and homeless youth. Although Hovde did not specify what he meant by "does it," the wider conversation touched on puberty blockers and surgeries for transgender youth.

The nonprofit, Briarpatch Youth Services, offers a support group for LGBTQ+ teens, but it does not provide medical interventions, with or without parents’ consent. Guidelines from American Academy of Pediatrics say parental consent is required for a person younger than 18 to receive puberty blockers, hormones or gender-affirming surgeries. Hovde’s claim is False.

RELATED: Read our coverage of 2024 tossup Senate races

RELATED: Republicans use sleight of hand to blame Inflation Reduction Act for boosting prices