Despite the recent attacks against Sen. Ron Johnson from the Democrats, the truth has prevailed. Two recent articles debunk the attacks and warn of the nastiness to come, including a wave of negative television ads from the Democrat group The Lincoln Project.
Breitbart reported that The Lincoln Project, “a left-wing super PAC,” will soon be bombarding Wisconsin residents with negative television ads attempting to inject racial tension into the 2022 Senate race. This is the same Lincoln Project which failed miserably in the 2021 Virginia governor’s race when it staged a fake hate rally at an event for Republican Glenn Youngkin, who was ultimately elected governor of Virginia.
The Spectator took apart four separate assaults on Johnson’s record, including debunking media reports on Johnson’s comments on school shootings, his Senate travel reimbursements, his support for employer tax cuts, and his personal finances.
Read more from The Spectator below:
Why the left is after Ron Johnson
The Spectator World
June 6, 2022
Senator Ron Johnson, the Republican from Wisconsin, is facing a relentless and coordinated smear campaign orchestrated by Democrats and the mainstream media. The reason why seems obvious. Johnson is running for re-election this midterm cycle and the Democratic Party has identified his seat as one they can flip.
Most recently, the media made the claim that Senator Johnson had blamed school shootings on liberal indoctrination and wokeness in schools. As per usual, the establishment media failed to contextualize Johnson’s remarks and instead chose to mock him because he didn’t advocate for gun control.
Johnson’s full comments were much more astute than he received credit for. He blamed a decline in religion, the breakdown of families, a lack of community, isolation and our inability to teach kids the right values in schools for school shootings. On that last point, Johnson noted that traditional values have, in many cases, been replaced by woke curricula that reinforces feelings of inadequacy among children. Is that really so off-base?
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, for example, suggested Johnson had been improperly reimbursed for travel between a family vacation home in Florida and Washington, DC. He was reimbursed for nine such trips in 2021, the article explains.
Johnson’s team, however, noted that he was never reimbursed for travel to Florida, only for return trips that he made for official business in DC. According to Senate ethics rules, if a member returns from a city other than that of their district or residence, then they “may be reimbursed for transportation expenses incurred which are less than or equal to the amount” of traveling from their district. Further, each reimbursement was approved by the Senate Rules Committee. Whether Johnson flew home to Wisconsin to see his family or flew to Florida to see his family, his reimbursements for a return flight to DC would be the same amount.
Lopez’s inclusion in the article is, shall we say, problematic, because of her affiliation with the Elias Law Group. The Elias Law Group is founded by Marc Elias, the Democrat-backed lawyer who was a part of the 2016 election effort to tie Trump to Russia and who incorporated Majority Forward, a left-wing super PAC that is pouring millions into ad buys in Wisconsin against Johnson.
Further, the law firm has received money for legal services from at least two of Johnson’s opponents: Sarah Godlewski and Mandela Barnes.
The allegation that Johnson is using his Senate seat to enrich himself is also undermined by two key facts. One, he sold all of his stocks, bonds and mutual funds before taking office in 2011 to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. This move would likely cost him money, as cash accounts won’t generate as much value as investments over time. But, by doing so, he avoided probes into his finances over allegations of insider trading, like Senators Kelly Loeffler and Richard Burr.
Johnson also does not accept a healthcare subsidy created for members of Congress under Obamacare and even filed a lawsuit challenging the subsidy, arguing that politicians shouldn’t receive special treatment under the law. His rejection of the subsidy reportedly saved taxpayers nearly a hundred thousand dollars, far more than the cost of his return flights to DC from Florida.