Fact Check Center

Scott Brown and his out of state special interest backers are flooding New Hampshire with millions to run misleadings, false attacks to prop up his campaign. Learn the truth and get the facts about Jeanne Shaheen’s record of making a difference for New Hampshire. Read more and spread the word to your friends to help us push back against these false attacks.

Fact Check: In NH, The Affordable Care Act Is Expanding Coverage, Lowering Costs
Fact Check: Jeanne Shaheen Never Profited From Public Service
Fact Check: Jeanne Shaheen’s Voting Record Proves She’s For New Hampshire
Fact Check: Brown’s ACA Repeal Would Be Devastating For New Hampshire
Fact Check: Jeanne Shaheen Has Never Supported A National Energy Tax
Fact Check: Women Can’t Trust Scott Brown When It Comes To Their Healthcare



Nearly 100,000 Granite Staters Will Be Able To Get Affordable Healthcare Coverage Because Of The ACA

  •  More Than 40,000 Granite Staters Have Secured Healthcare Through The ACA Marketplace In New Hampshire. [Valley News, 5/01/14]
  • NH’s Bipartisan Medicaid Expansion Meant An Estimated 50,000 Granite Staters Would Be Able To Obtain Health Care Through Private Insurers. [New Hampshire Union Leader, 3/27/14]
  • Average Premium Payment For ACA Plans In NH Was $100 Or Less. “New Hampshire residents who buy the Silver plan, the most popular plan on the federal health-insurance marketplace, paid on average $87 per month, after tax credits, according to a new report from the federal government. The report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said that 62 percent of New Hampshire enrollees who selected any type of plan from the federally operated marketplace with tax credits had premiums of $100 a month or less, and 38 percent of $50 a month or less after tax credits.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/18/14]

The ACA Meant Tens Of Thousands Of Previously Uninsured Granite Staters Now Have The Health Coverage They need, Millions More Nationwide

  • 22,000 Previously Uninsured Granite Staters Obtained Health Insurance Through The ACA In Just The First 5 Months Of Thee Year. [New Hampshire Business Review, 9/2/14]
  • Uninsured Rate In New Hampshire Dropped By 14%. [New Hampshire Business Review, 9/2/14]
  • 9.5 Million Previously Uninsured Have Gained Coverage Under Obamacare. [Los Angeles Times, 3/30/14]
  • An Estimated 87 Percent Of Healthcare.gov Enrollees Were Previously Uninsured. [Vox, 5/1/14]

Because Of The ACA, People In New Hampshire Can Count On Coverage When They Need It Most

  • 545k Granite States No Longer Had To Worry About Lifetime Dollar Limits On Health Benefits That Were Eliminated By The ACA. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]

Hundreds Of Thousands Of Granite Staters Gained Access To Important, Free Preventive Care Because Of The ACA

  • 365k Granite States Got Access To Free Preventative Health Services Like Colonoscopies, Flu Shots And Mammograms Because Of The ACA. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]

Nearly 600k Granite Staters With A Preexisting Condition Are Protected From Discriminatory Insurance Practices

  • Nearly 600k Granite Staters, Including Nearly 70k Children, With A Preexisting Condition Will No Longer Face Increased Premiums Or Denial Of Coverage. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]

New Hampshire Seniors Are Saving On Prescription Drugs & Getting Greater Access To Important, Free Preventive Care

  • Over 150k Granite State Medicare Enrollees Received Free Preventive Health Services. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]
  • 15,535 NH Medicare Recipients Had Saved Over $13M On Prescription Drugs In 2013 Because Of The ACA. [Department of Health and Human Services, 6/2/14]
  • ACA Would Continue To Close Donut Hole Until It Is Completely Closed, Saving Seniors Even More Money. [Department of Health and Human Services, 6/2/14]
  • Seniors In New Hampshire Have Saved $40,381,080 On Prescription Drugs Since 2010. [Department of Health & Human Services, 7/29/14]

The ACA Is Helping Women In New Hampshire & Across The Country

  • Over 250k Women In NH Gained Access To Women’s Preventative Health Services Without Cost-Sharing Because Of The ACA, Including Coverage For Contraception And Mammograms. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]

Women Can No Longer Be Charged Higher Rates Simply For Being Women 

  • In 2014, Insurance Companies In The Individual And Small Group Markets Will No Longer Be Permitted To Charge Women Higher Rates. [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/30/13]
  • Before The ACA, Women Were Charged Higher Premiums Because Of Regulations That Allowed Insurance Companies To Discriminate Against Women. [Families USA, How the Affordable Care Act Makes Health Coverage More Affordable, 5/13]

The ACA Expanded Access To Contraception And Maternity Services For Women

  • Estimated 8.7 Million American Women Currently Purchasing Individual Insurance Will Gain Coverage For Maternity Services. [Department of Health and Human Services, 7/30/13]
  • Headline: Under Obamacare, nearly three times as many women are getting free birth control pills [Washington Post, Wonkblog, 12/11/13]
  • Increased Access To Birth Control Saves Money; One Study Estimated That Contraceptive Services Save $4.26 For Every Dollar Invested. [Vox, 7/9/14]

The ACA Allows Young People To Stay On Their Parents Insurance Plans Longer, Leading To Higher Wages For 10,000 Young Granite Staters

  • 10k Granite Staters Up To Age 26 Got Healthcare Coverage Through Their Parents But Would Have Been Uninsured Otherwise. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]
  • Allowing Young People To Remain On Their Parents Plans Offers Them More Flexibility In Educational And Work Choices And To Higher Overall Wages. [Business Insider, 5/14/14]

Young Women Are More Likely To Experience Increased Wages Thanks To The ACA

  • Young Women Were More Likely To Experience Increased Wages From ACA. “Based on the state laws studied in the research, women experience wage gains of about 3.1% while they have access to their parents’ health insurance, an increase that largely continues to be evident after they lose access to dependent coverage. Men, meanwhile, experience gains of about 1.6% after they no longer have access to dependent coverage.” [Business Insider, 5/14/14]

After Its First Year, ACA Premiums Remained Flat

  • Anthem: Overall Rates Will Remain Flat For 2015, “We Are Really Pleased To Be Able To Offer Our Customers Not Only Continued Affordability But Also Price Stability. [Bloomberg Businessweek, 10/24/14]
  • Anthem: Granite Staters Who Purchased Insurance Through The ACA Will Not Experience Premium Increases Next Year On Average. [Bloomberg Businessweek, 10/24/14]

After Just Its First Year, NH’s ACA Marketplace Will See More Choices & Competition With An Additional 4 Providers Entering The 2015 Marketplace, Meaning 5 Providers In The State

  • NH Insurance Commissioner: In 2015, Granite Staters “Will Have Five Insurance Companies To Choose From, As Well As A Variety Of Plans And Networks. It’s All About Choice – Choice Of Carriers, Choice Of Plans, And Choice Of Provider Networks. Choice Is Good For Consumers And Good For Competition.” [NH Department Of Insurance Release, 6/2/14]Fifth Insurer Joins NH’s Health Care Exchange. [SeaCoastOnline, 10/5/14]
  • Five Insurers Will Participate In The New Hampshire Marketplace In 2015, Providing Consumers With “More Choices” And “Potentially Lower Prices.” [Business Insider, 6/4/14New York Times, 9/24/14]
  • Increased Competition Through More Provider Participation Will Lead To Lower Prices In The NH Marketplace. “Overall, five insurers are expected to offer plans through the HealthCare.gov marketplace in the state: Anthem, Harvard Pilgrim, Minuteman Health, Assurant Health, and Maine Community Health Options.” [Business Insider, 6/4/14]

Every New Hampshire Hospital Will Be Covered By At Least Three ACA Insurers Next Year

  • Next Year, All Of New Hampshire’s 26 Hospitals Will Have Contracts With At Least Three Carriers. [Conway Daily Sun, 6/24/14]

Beyond Direct Benefits To Granite Staters, The ACA Increased The Efficiency & Effectiveness Of Our Healthcare System 

The ACA Has Helped Extend Medicare Solvency By 13 Years Through 2030

  • ACA Helped Improve Medicare’s Solvency By 13 Years, Through 2030. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 8/4/14]
  • ACA Extends Medicare Trust Fund. [SeaCoastOnline, 10/6/14]

The ACA Has Saved Granite Staters Millions in Prescription Drug Costs

  • In New Hampshire, Medicare Beneficiaries Have Saved Over $40 Million on Prescription Drugs.  In 2013 alone, 15,535 individuals in the Granite State saved over $13,091,931, or an average of $843 per beneficiary. [SeaCoastOnline, 10/6/14]

The ACA Is Ensuring Better Value For Every Premium Dollar Spent By Consumers

  • Because Insurance Companies Are Required To Spend 80% Of Every Premium Dollar On Health Care, Over 15k NH Residents Will Receive Over $1.1m In Refunds. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]
  • Children And Families Receive Free Immunizations Because Of The ACA. [Department of Health and Human Services, 1/10/12]

The ACA Created Stronger Fraud Protections, Saving Consumers Money

  • ACA Created Stronger Prevention Of Medicare Fraud, $14.9b Had Been Recovered In Just 4 Years. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]
  • DHS: “For Every Dollar Spent On Health Care-Related Fraud And Abuse Activities In The Last Three Years
  • The Administration Has Returned $7.90.” [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]

The ACA Has Slowed The Growth Of Healthcare Costs For The First Time In Decades

  • Report Showed Healthcare Spending Grew At Slowest Rate Ever Under The ACA. [The Hill, Healthwatch, 11/20/13]
  • Healthcare Costs Fell For First Time In Nearly 4 Decades. “U.S. health-care costs fell in May for the first time in almost four decades, the latest evidence that government policies and an expansion in generic drugs are constraining prices” [Wall Street Journal, Real Time Economics, 6/18/13]
  • ACA’s Effects Appeared To “Be Trickling Down To Consumers.” “The effects of the federal health care overhaul — the Affordable Care Act that passed in 2010 —and constrained government payments to doctors and hospitals seems to be trickling down to consumers, both those directly purchasing insurance plans and those buying drugs and treatments” [Wall Street Journal, Real Time Economics, 6/18/13]
  • Affordable Care Act Reduces Costs for Hospitals, Report Says.  [New York Times, 9/24/14]

Learn more here.



Scott Brown’s Wall Street Backers Are Falsely Attacking Senator Shaheen’s Family And Independent Fact Checkers Have Already Discredited Their Attacks

Factcheck.org: Ending Spending’s Ad Made Scandalous Accusations Against Shaheen – “But The Scandal Is How The Group Distorts The Facts.” [Factcheck.org, 8/28/14]

  • Politico Labeled Ending Spending’s Attack On Shaheen As “Whopper Of The Week.” [Politico, Morning Score, 8/29/14]
  • Concord Monitor Editorial: Ending Spending Ad’s “Claims Just Don’t Hold Up Under Scrutiny;” Attack Amounted To A False “Manipulation Of Statistics.” [Concord Monitor, Editorial, 9/5/14]

FALSE ATTACK: Ending Spending Falsely Claims Recovery Act Earmarked For Company

TRUTH: Recovery Act Did Not Even Mention The Company, The Industry Or The Grant The Company Would Apply For Months Later

  • There Was No Mention Of The Company, The Industry Involved, Or The Grant The Company Would Apply For Months Later. [Public Law 111-5, 2/17/09]
  • Ultrawave’s $77,715 Grant Was “A Rounding Error In A Bill Worth $816 Billion,” And Was Not Earmarked In The Stimulus Bill When Shaheen Voted For It. [Factcheck.org, 8/28/14]
  • Ultrawave Never Reached Out To Senator Shaheen, Her Husband, Or His Law Firm When Applying For Its Stimulus Grant. “The Shaheen campaign kept filling out the record noting Bill Shaheen not only did not get a dime from Ultrawave but the company failed to reach out to either the senator, Bill Shaheen or Shaheen’s law firm for any help in getting the stimulus grant.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/30/14]
  • Ultrawave Labs Stated That Jeanne Shaheen Had No Role In The Company And Neither Shaheen Was Asked To Help Obtain Government Funding. [Boston Globe, 6/24/14]

FALSE ATTACK: Ending Spending Falsely Claims That Shaheen Profited From Company

TRUTH: William Shaheen Did Not Profit From Stock Options With Company

  • William Shaheen Did Not Profit From His Stock Options In Ultrawave Labs. “The Shaheen campaign kept filling out the record noting Bill Shaheen not only did not get a dime from Ultrawave but the company failed to reach out to either the senator, Bill Shaheen or Shaheen’s law firm for any help in getting the stimulus grant.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/30/14]

FALSE ATTACK: Ending Spending Falsely Claims That William Shaheen Profited From Company

TRUTH: Boston Globe Story Failed To Mention That Campaign Said It Would Be Filing Amended Disclosure

  • Shaheen Campaign: Boston Globe Story On Shaheen’s Finances Failed To Mention That Her Campaign Had Already Told The Globe She Was Going To File An Amended Disclosure. “According to Kirstein, The Globe did not report that Shaheen’s campaign had already told the newspaper Shaheen was going to file an amended financial disclosure firm.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/30/14]
  • PolitiFact: Ending Spending’s Ad Claimed Shaheen “Failed To Properly Report” Her Husband’s Ultrawave Stock – But The Only Misreporting Was “Only Because Shaheen Failed To Show It Had Already Expired” And Was Worthless. [PolitiFact, 9/2/14]

FALSE ATTACK: Ending Spending Falsely Claims William Shaheen Profited From Stimulus Team

TRUTH: William Shaheen Was Not A Member Of The Firm’s Economic Stimulus Team, Which Represented No Clients

  • William Shaheen Was Not A Member Of The Firm’s Economic Stimulus Opportunities Team. According to Shaheen & Gordon’s website, the firm’s Economic Stimulus Opportunities Team did not include Bill Shaheen. The team consisted of Sean O’Connell, Arpiar Saunders, Karyn Forbes, Lucy Karl, Steven Gordon, Steve Duggan, Michael McMcLaughlin. [Shaheen & Gordon, Archived 6/11/09]
  • Stimulus Opportunities Team Was Short-Lived And Represented No Clients. “Meanwhile, Bill Shaheen’s law firm, Shaheen and Gordon issued its own statement. ‘The firm’s Stimulus Opportunities Team was operational for a very brief time. We represented no clients in this area. Mr. Shaheen was not the firm’s managing partner at this time and was not a member of the team,’ said Mike Noonan, the firm’s president and managing director since January 2007.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/30/14]

Read more here.

For NH


Shaheen Not Only Voted Against The Obama-Backed Internet Sales Tax Proposal, She Worked To Protect The New Hampshire Advantage

  • EDITORIAL: Shaheen Was One Of “The Leading Critics” Of Internet Sales Tax Bill. In April 2013, the Nashua Telegraph wrote: “Kelly Ayotte and Jeanne Shaheen don’t often take the same side, but this week, they joined forces to try to protect New Hampshire businesses. The U.S. Senators have emerged among the leading critics of the Marketplace Fairness Act, a bill that would authorize states to require large Internet retailers to collect sales taxes on online purchases.” [Nashua Telegraph, Editorial, 4/25/13]
  • HEADLINE: Obama backs Internet sales tax bill, White House says [USA Today, 4/22/13]
  • Shaheen Filed Amendments To Internet Tax Bill That Would Exempt NH From Collecting Sales Taxes For Other State And Restrict Collection Of Sales Taxes From Businesses “Predominantly Located” In NH. [Associated Press, 4/24/13]

Shaheen Is Protecting New Hampshire’s Military Bases From President Obama’s Call For New A BRAC Round That Could Put Them At Risk Of Closure

  • HEADLINE: N.E. lawmakers vow to fight base closings; Alliance called crucial to effort [Boston Globe, 1/27/12]
  • Shaheen Opposed BRAC Round That Could Endanger NH Military Installations. [Boston Globe, 1/27/12]

Shaheen Opposed And Worked To Prevent The President’s Call For A New BRAC Round

  • CAPITAL BEAT: In Face Of Call For BRAC Round By President Obama, Shaheen Among NH’s “Heavy Hitters” To Protect PNSY And Pease. [Concord Monitor, Capital Beat, 7/7/13]
  • Shaheen’s Readiness Subcommittee Rejected Defense Department’s BRAC Request, Shaheen Said Initial Costs Were Too High. [Associated Press, 6/11/13]
  • HEADLINE: Shaheen, Ayotte reject another round of base closures [Foster’s Daily Democrat, 6/12/13]
  • Shaheen Said Readiness Approps Bill “Cuts Wasteful Spending And Reinvests Into Vital Training And Defense Maintenance” While Blocking New BRAC Round That Would Be Expensive. [Foster’s Daily Democrat, 6/12/13]

Shaheen Opposed LIHEAP Cuts In President Obama’s Budget Proposal

  • SHAHEEN: Cut In LIHEAP Funding For NH In President’s Budget “Makes No Sense,” Said More Funding Should Be Released Quickly. [New Hampshire Union Leader, 11/1/11]
  • 38,021 Households In New Hampshire Received LIHEAP Financial Assistance In 2012 To Help Meet Their Home Energy Needs. [Campaign for Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP Action Center, Accessed 10/11/13]

Shaheen Opposed President Obama’s Chained CPI Proposal That Would Hurt Seniors

  • Shaheen Opposed President’s Chained CPI Proposal And Said Social Security Should Not Be On The Table As Part Of Debt Talks. [Huffington Post, 5/7/13]
  • The Chained CPI Is A Benefit Cut. “The chained CPI is a significant benefit cut, not a ‘technical change,’ as some in Washington would like you to believe.” [AARP, 3/27/13]

Shaheen Reaches Across The Aisle To Republican Senators To Pass Meaningful Legislation For The Granite State

Shaheen Worked With Sen. Ayotte To Bring NH Veterans The Medical Care They Deserve

  • Korean War Vet Pointed To Shaheen & Ayotte’s Work As “Just The Beginning Of What Bipartisanship Can Do For The Country.” [Concord Monitor, 8/2/14]
  • Shaheen & Ayotte Held Joint Press Conference To Mark Passage Of The VA Reform Bill Containing The Equivalent Care Provision They Crafted [NH Union Leader, 8/1/14]
  • Shaheen Praised Ayotte For Working With Her On Legislation Allowing Veterans To Seek Care Outside The VA Hospital Network. [Keene Sentinel, 8/3/14]

Shaheen Has Worked Throughout Her Senate Career With Sen. Rob Portman To Pass A Bipartisan Energy Efficiency Bill That Would Create Nearly 200,000 Jobs

  • Shaheen-Portman Had “Broad Bipartisan Support” Despite Wide Division Over Other Climate-Related Policies. [The Hill, 4/5/14]
  • Bill Won Support Of Over 200 Groups, Including US Chamber Of Commerce. ThinkProgress, 2/28/14]
  • Shaheen-Portman Would Have Created Nearly 200,000 Jobs. [Huffington Post, 5/14/14]
  • Shaheen-Portman Would Have Saved $16.2 Billion A Year On Energy Bills By 2030. [Huffington Post, 5/14/14]

Shaheen Worked With Ayotte And Other Senators To Craft A Bipartisan Resolution To The Government Shutdown

  • Shaheen And Ayotte Co-Hosted Bipartisan Dinner Of Female Senators To Discuss How To End The Government Shutdown. [WMUR, Political Scoop, 10/8/13]
  • In Joint Op-Ed, Shaheen & Ayotte Called For Democrats And Republicans To Work Together To Open The Government And Craft A Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan To Avoid A Similar Episode. [Concord Monitor, Shaheen & Ayotte Op-Ed, 10/13/13]
  • SHAHEEN & AYOTTE OP-ED: “We Have Been Part Of Bipartisan Efforts” To Address The Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook.” [Concord Monitor, Shaheen & Ayotte Op-Ed, 10/13/13]

Shaheen Worked With Sen. Kirk To Reform A Wasteful Sugar Subsidy Program

  • Shaheen Introduced Bipartisan Legislation To Reform Federal Sugar Program To Save Consumers Money After She Supported Related Bipartisan Measures In 2011 And 2012 [Associates Press, 2/14/13; S.25, Introduced 1/25/11]
  • EDITORIAL: Shaheen’s Bipartisan Bill To End Wasteful Federal Sugar Program “A Seriously Necessary Proposal.” “Congress and the Obama administration are in the market for fresh ideas to create jobs. Or so we are told. So far, however, we haven’t seen too many specifics – but that may be about to change. Two senators, one from each party, have introduced legislation that would phase out the costly, job-destroying federal sugar program. Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois call their bill the Stop Unfair Giveaways and Restrictions (SUGAR) Act. Despite the cutesy title, it’s a seriously necessary proposal.” [Washington Post, Editorial, 1/30/11]

Scott Brown Pretends That He Is Above The Partisan Gridlock In Washington, But The Truth Is He Has Repeatedly Been The Cause Of The Gridlock

During His Time In The Senate Brown Repeatedly Blocked Votes On Key Legislation, Creating Gridlock…

  • Brown Voted “Overwhelmingly” With Republicans To Block The Progress Of Legislation In The Senate. [ProgressMass, 5/7/12]

Brown Personally (But Quietly) Added To The Gridlock When He Lobbied Senate Republicans To Block A Bipartisan Energy Efficiency Bill…

  • Brown Campaign Did Not Deny That He Personally Lobbied Senate Republicans To Block Shaheen-Portman From Coming To A Vote. [Politico, 5/14/14]
  • Brown’s Spokeswoman Said His Phone Calls To Senators Expressed His Concern That Shaheen Was Preventing A Vote On Keystone – Even Though Reid Offered That Very Vote. [Huffington Post, 5/15/14]
  • Even After Brown Spoke To Her, Sen. Ayotte Voted To Advance Shaheen-Portman Because It “Was Best Based On My State.” [Huffington Post, 5/15/14]

…And He Worked In Secret To Water Down Wall Street Reform, Standing With Republicans To Block The Bill Until They Wrung Major Concessions For The Financial Industry

  • Brown Broke His Promise To Support Financial Regulatory Reform And At The Last Minute Stood With Republicans To Block The Bill. [Talking Points Memo, 5/19/10]
  • Brown Said He Would Change Washington’s Deal-Making Ways, But Himself “Proved To Be A Highly Adept Negotiator In His Own Right” At Extracting Concessions From Wall Street Reform Bill. [Boston Globe, 6/30/10]
  • As The Money Poured In, Brown And His Senate Staff Were Working Both Publicly And Behind The Scenes” To Kill $19 Billion In Fees On The Financial Industry And Weaken Wall Street Reform. [Boston Globe, 12/12/10]

Because, At The End Of The Day, Scott Brown Is Only Looking Out For Scott Brown (Not The Voters Of New Hampshire… Or Massachusetts For That Matter)

Scott Brown Sold His Name To The Fraudsters At GDSI For Over $1 Million…

  • Brown Received $1.3 Million In Stock To Serve On Advisory Board Of GDSI, “The Kind Of Company […] Financial Professionals Warn Investors To Steer Away From.” [Boston Globe, 5/31/14]

Brown Hobnobbed At A Vegas Hedge Fund Conference, A Gathering Of Wall Street Execs Organized By One Of His Top Donors

  • Brown’s Trip To A Lavish Hedge Fund Conference In Las Vegas Conflicted With The “Everyman Image” He Cultivated On The Campaign Trail. [Boston Globe, 5/15/14]
  • Brown Was Scheduled To Appear At Las Vegas Hedge Fund Conference Organized By One Of His Top Donors. [Boston Globe, 4/16/14]

Brown Raked In Cash Working For A Company With A “Penchant” For Shipping Jobs Overseas

  • HEADLINE: Brown’s $270K Income From Mass. Company Exporting Jobs Overseas Belies Campaign Promises [Nashua Telegraph, 8/22/14]
  • Brown Sat On The Board Of A Company With A “Penchant For Exporting Jobs To Cheap Foreign Labor Alternatives Such As China,” Which Was In Conflict With His Campaign Promise To Create More High Paying Jobs In NH And America. [Nashua Telegraph, 8/22/14]

Brown Rented His Email List To Conservative News Site Newsmax, Which Sent Multiple Emails Including One From Doctor Who Had Insane Beliefs

  • Brown Allowed The Conservative News Website Newsmax To Send Multiple Emails Including The Most Recent From A Doctor Who Believed “The Soviet Union Was Responsible For Introducing Drugs And AIDS In The United States. [WMUR, 2/5/14]
  • In The Video Link From Brown’s Email, Blaylock Warned People “Not To Drink Fluorinated Water Or Use Toothpaste As A Way Of Avoiding Alzheimer’s Disease.” [Union Leader, 2/5/14]
  • Brown Can Now Add “E-Mail Spammer” To His Long List Of Jobs. [Boston Globe, 2/5/14]

Brown Was Paid $12K For A Speech In Taiwan After He Announced He Was Running For Senate In NH

  • Brown’s Tax Returns Revealed He Was Paid $12K For A Speech He Gave In Taiwan After Announcing His Intention To Run For Senate In New Hampshire. “Brown was paid $12,000 for a speech he gave in Taiwan this spring after he had announced he would seek the U.S. Senate seat here.” [Nashua Telegraph, 6/21/14]

Brown Planned To Give A (Probably Paid) Speech In California Barely One Month Before The Election

  • Brown Planned To Fly To California A Month Before Election Day To Deliver What Was “Almost Certainly” A Paid Speech. [Politico, 8/18/14]

Read more here.

ACA Repeal


Brown Said We Would Repeal The ACA. At the April 2013 Grafton County Lincoln-Regan Luncheon, Brown discussed his votes against the ACA and maintained his opposition to the law saying, “The whole Obamacare mess, and I voted to repeal it and would do it again, is because I was there. I was able to try and stop it. And I think that its no a good bill.” [Grafton County Lincoln-Reagan Luncheon, 4/20/2013]

  • Brown Voted Three Different Times To Repeal The ACA While He Was Still In The US Senate. [Think Progress, 3/26/14]

Fact: ACA Repeal Would Mean Higher Premiums, Less Coverage, Higher Prescription Drug Costs For Seniors & An Increase In The Deficit

ACA Repeal Would Leave Millions Without Coverage

  • 32 Million Fewer Nonelderly Americans Would Have Coverage In 2019. “A Congressional Budget Office analysis of the GOP’s repeal measure from 2011 found that ‘32 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2019, leaving a total of about 54 million nonelderly people uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, compared with a projected share of 94 percent under current law (and 83 percent currently).’” [Think Progress, 7/6/12]

ACA Repeal Would Reopen The Donut Hole, Bring Higher Prescription Drug Costs For NH Seniors

  • CNN Factcheck: Seniors Would Pay More “If The Affordable Care Act Was Not In Place.” [CNN, 10/4/12]
  • Seniors In New Hampshire Have Saved $40,381,080 On Prescription Drugs Since 2010. [Department of Health & Human Services, 7/29/14]
  • Nearly 6,000 NH Seniors Have Averaged Near $800 In Savings Already In 2014. [Department of Health And Human Services, 7/29/14]

ACA Repeal Would Mean Denial Of Coverage, Higher Premiums For Granite Staters With Preexisting Conditions

  • Americans With Preexisting Conditions Will Lose Access To Coverage If The ACA Was Repealed. “Republicans have said that they would not replace the Affordable Care Act’s federal rules prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Instead, they would encourage states to form expensive high-risk pools to cover the sick or, alternatively, leave them to find their own coverage in the individual market — where many will likely go uninsured.” [Think Progress, 7/6/12]
  • Nearly 600k Granite Staters, Including Nearly 70k Children, With A Preexisting Condition Will No Longer Face Increased Premiums Or Denial Of Coverage. [Department of Health and Human Services, 8/1/13]

ACA Repeal Would Mean Higher Costs, Premiums For Americans

  • USA Today: “All Consumers Would Take A Huge Financial Hit, Because Health Care Costs Would Continue To Rise, And Insurers Would Probably Recoup Their Losses By Charging Higher Premiums.” “Republicans may not agree with President Obama’s State of the Union call to drop the idea of repealing the Affordable Care Act, but health experts say the law has taken such hold that it may be impossible to get rid of it. The consequences of repeal, health care officials and industry analysts say, go beyond the fact that 9 million people would suddenly lose their insurance or that anyone with a pre-existing condition would either lose insurance or pay much higher premiums. All consumers would take a huge financial hit, because health care costs would continue to rise, and insurers would probably recoup their losses by charging higher premiums.” [USA Today, 2/1/2014]
  • Repealing The ACA Eliminate Many Cost Saving Measures In The Law Including Incentives To Use Electronic Medical Records, Explanations For Premium Increases, Penalties For Patient Readmission And Accountable Care Organizations. [USA Today, 2/1/2014]

ACA Repeal Would Increase The Deficit

  • Repealing The ACA Would Increase The Deficit By $109 Billion Over 10 Years. “Congressional budget analysts said Wednesday that repealing ObamaCare would increase the deficit by scrapping the law’s taxes, fees and spending cuts. The notice from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came ahead of Thursday’s House vote on full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The CBO refused to provide a new cost estimate for repeal, saying there is too little time before the vote. But Director Doug Elmendorf pointed to an estimate from July 2012 that abolishing healthcare reform would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.” [The Hill, Floor Action, 5/15/13]
  • PolitiFact: Claim That Repealing The ACA Will Increase The Deficit Is “Mostly True.” [PolitiFact, 9/20/13]

Read more here.


Brown’s Leveling Claim Ruled False By Independent Factcheckers With Debunked National Energy Tax Attack

  • PolitiFact: Brown’s Claim That Shaheen Voted For A National Energy Tax Was “Mostly False.” [PolitiFact, 6/18/14]
  • FactCheck.org: AFP Ad Claiming Whitehouse Amendment Established A Tax Was “Not True.”  [FactCheck.org, 2/28/14]
  • Republican Claims That Shaheen Supported A “National Energy Tax” Relied On Her Support For An Amendment That “Didn’t Actually Put A Tax On Carbon.” [Concord Monitor, 6/15/14]
  • Whitehouse Amendment Did Not Establish Carbon Tax – Rather, Would Ensure That If A Carbon Tax Were Ever Imposed, The Money Collected Would Be “Returned To The American People In The Form Of Federal Deficit Reduction, Reduced Federal Tax Rates, Cost Savings, Or Other Direct Benefits.” Whitehouse Amendment No. 646 would ensure that all revenue from any carbon tax would be dedicated to deficit reduction, tax relief or other cost savings for the American people. The text of the amendment read:Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to ensuring that all revenue from a fee on carbon pollution is returned to the American people

    At the end of title III, add the following:
    SEC. 3ll. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING THAT ALL REVENUE FROM A FEE ON CARBON POLLUTION IS RETURNED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to the establishment of a fee on carbon pollution, provided that— (1) all revenue from such fee is returned to the American people in the form of Federal deficit reduction, reduced Federal tax rates, cost savings, or other direct benefits; and (2) such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023. [Congressional Record S2270, Senate Amendment 646, 3/22/13]

Brown Backs Up His False Claim With “Study” From The Hyper-Partisan National Association Of Manufacturers That Assumed A Worst-Case Scenario Nowhere Close To Reality And On Something That Jeanne Shaheen Did Not Support

  • The NAM Study Analyzed Two Potential Carbon Tax Situations: One Imposed A $20 Fee Per Ton Of Carbon, The Second Assumed An Emissions Cut Of 80%. [NAM Study, accessed 6/5/14]
  • A U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Study That Claimed Carbon Tax Would Hurt Jobs And Raise Energy Bills, Which Was Fact Checked False, Assumed EPA Would Seek To Reduce Emission By 42%, Half Of What NAM Study Assumed. [Washington Post, Fact Checker Blog, 6/3/14; NAM Study, accessed 6/5/14]
  • Boehner Claim That EPA Rules Will Put An Average of 224,000 People Out Of Work Every Year – Based On U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Study – Rated False. [PolitiFact, 6/2/14]
  • Jeanne Shaheen Did Not Vote For A Carbon Tax. [PolitiFact, 6/18/14]


  • The National Association Of Manufacturers Was A “Right-Wing Trade Organization;” Duke Energy Withdrew From NAM Because The Group Refused To Even Acknowledge Climate Change. [Think Progress, 5/8/09

Read more here. 



Brown Backed Bill To Force Women Considering An Abortion To Look At Pictures Of Developing Fetuses

Women’s Right To Know Act Was Introduced In 2005 By Then-State Senator Brown. [Massachusetts General Court, SB 979, Introduced 1/5/05]

  • Right To Know Law Would Require A Woman To View “Color Photographs” Detailing The Development “Of The Unborn Child At Two Week Gestational Increments From Fertilization To Full Term.” [Massachusetts General Court, SB 979, Introduced 1/5/05]

Brown Cosponsored 2003 Right To Know Legislation As A Member Of The Massachusetts House Of Representatives. “Brown also co-sponsored the so-called “Women’s Right to Know Bill,” which would require doctors at reproductive clinics to inform patients in graphic detail about the risks associated with abortions and would require women to observe a 24-hour ‘reflection period’ before the procedure can be performed.” [Milford Daily News, 3/1/04]

  • The Text Of The 2003 Act Was Identical To That Of The 2005 Act, Including Requiring A Woman To View “Color Photographs” Detailing The Development “Of The Unborn Child At Two Week Gestational Increments From Fertilization To Full Term.” [Massachusetts General Court, HB 2644, Introduced 1/3/03]
  • Boston Globe: “Brown Cosponsored Women’s Right To Know Act” That Would “Require” Women “To Review Pictures And Information Detailing The Development Of Their Fetus.” [Boston Globe, 8/24/12]
  • WGBH: Brown Had Cosponsored Bill To “Require” Women Seeking An Abortion To View “Pictures And Information On The Development Of Their Fetus. [WGBH, 8/24/12]
  • Massachusetts Citizens For Life: “Scott Brown Has Cosponsored The Woman’s Right To Know Act.” [Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 12/8/09]

Brown Voted For & Cosponsored The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Allow Employers To Deny Women Access To Contraception On Any Religious Or Moral Grounds.

  • Brown Voted For And Cosponsored The Blunt Amendment, Which Would Allow Employers Or Insurers To Deny Coverage On Religious Or Moral Grounds. [Vote 24, 3/1/12; Boston Globe, 2/18/12; S. 1467, Cosponsored 2/9/12]
  • Blunt Amendment Would Allow Employers To Block Access To Women’s Contraception Or Any Procedure They Object To On Religious Or Moral Grounds. [Associated Press, 3/1/12; Washington Post, 3/1/12]
  • Boston Globe: Blunt Amendment Would Broaden Conscience Clause Such That Contraception, In-Vitro Fertilization, Blood Transfusions, Vaccines Could Be Excluded From Insurance Coverage. [Boston Globe, 2/18/12]

Brown Supports The Hobby Lobby Decision That Allows Employers To Restrict Their Female Employee’s Access To Healthcare

  • Brown Supported Hobby Lobby Decision, Falsely Defended It As A “Narrowly Drawn” Decision. “BROWN: Sure well first of all. I’ve always supported women’s health care and access to contraception, but by injecting government into every aspect of our lives, Obamacare threatens our freedoms. I think most folks have seen the mandates from Washington are really effecting people’s everyday lives and this is just another aspect of it. The court’s ruling, obviously represents another drawback for Obamacare and it’s clear that that prevision violated the Constitution and it’s guarantee of religious freedom, and I’ve supported in the past and will continue to support the right of people of faith to practice their faith and– even though that may be out-of-touch with social opinion. It’s a narrowly drawn case.” [WKXL, 7/2/14]
  • Reality: Supreme Court Confirmed That Its Ruling In Hobby Lobby Case Applied To All 20 Forms Of Government-Approved Contraception. [Associated Press, 7/1/14]
  • Concord Monitor Editorial Said Brown’s Claim To Support Women’s Health Care In Wake Of Hobby Lobby Decision Was “Patronizing,” “Disingenuous,” And Cynical. [Concord Monitor, Editorial, 7/2/14]

Even Co-Chair Of Women For Brown Group Thought Brown Was Wrong To Support Hobby Lobby Decision

  • Women For Brown Co-Chair On Whether Brown Should Change Position On Hobby Lobby: “I Think He Should, Yes.” Said Brown Was Wrong To Support The Hobby Lobby Ruling And Planned To Tell Him In Person That He Should Change His Position. [The Guardian, 7/16/14]

Brown Would Support Anti-Choice Nominees To The Supreme Court, Voted Against Pro-Choice Nominee From His Own State Of Massachusetts

  • Brown Would Be A Vote To Confirm Anti-Choice Supreme Court Nominees. Brown recently told the Boston Globe that if elected to the US Senate, he would be willing to vote to confirm nominees to the United States Supreme Court even if those nominees were anti-choice when he said, “that he would not apply an abortion rights litmus test in Supreme Court confirmations.” [Boston Globe, 11/20/09]
  • Brown “Would Vote To Confirm A U.S. Supreme Court Justice Who Opposed Roe v. Wade.” The Boston Herald wrote, “Brown ducked the label ‘pro-choice’ while saying abortion should be a woman’s personal choice. In the next breath, he said he would vote to confirm a U.S. Supreme Court justice who opposed Roe v. Wade – but added he would have supported Justice Sonia Sotomayor.” [Boston Herald, 1/7/10]
  • Brown Voted Against Confirming Justice Kagan as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. On August 5, 2010, Brown voted against confirming Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. [Vote 229, 8/5/10]

Brown Received Strong Backing From Anti-Choice Interests In Massachusetts Because He Voted Their Way

  • Massachusetts Citizens For Life President Said Brown “Votes With Us.” [GoLocalWorcester, 8/24/12]
  • Springfield Republican: In The US Senate And The Massachusetts Legislature, “Brown Has Consistently Supported So-Called ‘Conscience” Amendments” That Limit The Provision of Contraception And Abortion Services. [Springfield Republican, 6/20/12]
  • MA Brown Supporter Ray Flynn Said Brown “Would Be More Prolife Than His Opponent” And “His Heart Is Prolife.” [Boston Globe, 8/24/12]
  • In 2012 MA Senate Election, National Right to Life Committee Spent $45,000 On Mailers For Brown. [Boston Globe, 10/25/12]
  • MA NARAL Director: Scott Brown Was Not A “Trust-Worthy Defender Of Women’s Right And Access To Full Health Care Coverage.” [GoLocalWorcester, 8/24/12]