PORTLAND, Ore. — During an ongoing series fact-checking political attack ads, KGW's The Story previously looked into an ad against Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer, running for reelection in Oregon's 5th Congressional District. But many viewers had questions about ads with a different set of claims — so we're back, by popular demand.
Chavez-DeRemer is a Republican wrapping up her first term in Congress, representing a district that historically leaned Democrat, albeit before redistricting majorly reshaped the district a few years ago. There remain more registered Democrats than Republicans in the 5th District, but unaffiliated voters make up the largest voting bloc.
The congresswoman is being challenged in this race by Janelle Bynum, a Democratic state representative who twice beat Chavez-DeRemer in races for the Oregon Legislature.
An ad we looked at previously, endorsed by Bynum, largely accused Chavez-DeRemer of supporting former President Donald Trump in his 2024 campaign, which is true — Chavez-DeRemer publicly endorsed him earlier this year.
But another ad takes aim at Chavez-DeRemer's record in Congress, accusing her of repeatedly voting against Social Security and Medicare. This one is paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC.
Cuts to those popular programs are highly unpopular — nobody wants to be publicly associated with them, no matter what their actual agenda. So the ad's claim is a big one, and one that a number of viewers have asked about.
Claim: Chavez-DeRemer voted against Social Security
"Social Security. It's America's contract with the middle class. You pay into it every paycheck," the ad's voiceover begins. "But will it be there when you retire? The congressional record shows Lori Chavez-DeRemer voted 26 times against Social Security and Medicare. Twenty-six times!"
The Story's Pat Dooris asked Chavez-DeRemer's campaign about this claim, and they said they had no idea where it came from.
Buckle up, because we're going to have to get into the weeds to track it down.
Chavez-DeRemer took office in early January 2023, after she was elected in November 2022. On Jan. 31, the congressional record shows that Chavez-DeRemer cast a vote along with her fellow Republicans — and that's where this starts.
The vote in question came at the end of a debate over the Republican-sponsored Resolution 75, which had to do with ending the COVID-19 public health emergency, ending vaccine mandates, and requiring a federal study on agencies using work-from-home policies.
Toward the end of that debate, Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts rose to make the following statement:
"Again, I am going to just say that I am urging my colleagues to vote 'no' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on my proposal, basically, which says that Social Security benefits must be protected, that there is nothing in any of these bills or any bills going forward that would in any way negatively impact Social Security. Protecting the benefits that Social Security provides should be a priority for this Congress."
But Republicans, including Chavez-DeRemer, prevailed in a "yes" vote to forward the original resolution, essentially passing over McGovern's Social Security proposal. But there was nothing in Resolution 75 directly related to Social Security — it's just that McGovern wanted there to be some guaranteed protections put in.
By the logic of the attack ad, this was the first of many times that Chavez-DeRemer voted against Social Security and Medicare. Similar votes followed during the time Congress was in session in 2023.
On May 23, 2023, the House debated a Republican-backed resolution that dealt with fentanyl, the Environmental Protection Agency, heavy truck engine rules and student loan debt. During the debate, Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat from New Mexico, rose to make the following statement:
"Madam Speaker, I point out that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs."
Once again, Chavez-DeRemer voted with her Republican colleagues to forward the previous question, which was the resolution they were debating. Leger Fernandez's amendment on Social Security and Medicare did not get a vote.
This was another of the 26 occasions cited in the ad where Chavez-DeRemer "voted against" Social Security.
In our final example, we'll return to Rep. McGovern. On Nov. 2, 2023, the House was debating two bills from Republicans; one dealt with spending cuts targeting the Department of Transportation and a plan to create an electric vehicle fleet, and also the Department of Housing and Urban Development cutting money intended to promote environmental justice priorities in public housing. A second bill would send $14 billion to Israel.
During the debate, McGovern rose to say this:
"My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have promised the American people that they won't cut a single dime from Social Security and Medicare. However, this past September, Budget Committee Republicans passed a budget that favors the wealthy and well connected over working families and makes massive cuts to critical programs that Americans rely on. They even rejected amendments to protect Social Security and Medicare-earned benefits.
"Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer a resolution to state unequivocally that the House won't cut a single cent from these crucial programs that so many of our constituents rely on."
Again, Chavez-DeRemer voted with Republicans to forward the two bills they were debating, denying McGovern's resolution. This was another example counted by the ad as a vote against Social Security.
So, while there is a basis for the claim that Chavez-DeRemer voted against Social Security 26 times, the logic to get there is particularly tortured. She voted to move forward with bills she supported, instead of voting against them in order to take up unrelated resolutions protecting Social Security and Medicare. The proposals were, by and large, non-sequiturs that had no hope of making their way into the resolutions being debated.
Playing politics
Jim Moore, a political science professor at Pacific University, said Democrats' tactics here are an age-old trick that goes back at least 40 years — but it was a Republican who really made it fashionable.
"Remember Newt Gingrich? This is what happens when you put a PhD in Congress," Moore said. "So he was there in Congress. He was the leader of the minority, but he wasn't the head of the minority. Republicans had been in the minority for 40 years. So as he's moving up in the the leadership of the minority in the late '80s and especially into the early '90s, he started figuring out these kinds of techniques. 'When the Democrats are voting on something that they're going to vote on along party lines, we can put things that we want in there, they'll vote no. And we can campaign on that.'
"And so it's just grown over the times. This is 40-plus years that we've been seeing this kind of thing, the kind of thing that people may really remember is the Republican House, a decade ago, voted dozens of times to repeal Obamacare. Did it ever have a chance of passing? No, because it would go to the Senate and they were gonna vote against it. But they're piling things up, saying, 'Look, I voted to stop this horrible program 53 times' or whatever it was. And so it's a technique Newt Gingrich developed (and) has been growing over time, and it's now used almost as a sport just to set up ads for the election year."
The kind of vote that the Chavez-DeRemer attack ad implies, one where she flat-out voted against Social Security, just isn't the way Congress works these days, Moore said — it isn't the way bills are passed.
"So many things are buried in there because they're in these clumpy bills," Moore said. "There's so many things buried in there. So when you vote for something, you might actually be voting against something at the same time just because of the way the amendments work and things like that.
"So, unless you're a parliamentarian or you're sitting there watching exactly what's happening, all that subtlety is lost. The politicians know that, their campaigns know that, the big contributors know that, so they just use those nuances to make it into a sledgehammer."
Chavez-DeRemer has said that she supports Social Security and Medicare, telling the New York Times back when she was running for office in Oct. 2022 that she "absolutely" would not support cuts.
"Cutting those programs is not where I, as a Republican, see myself," Chavez-DeRemer told the Times. "I want to make sure that we can fill those coffers."
It's worth noting that in March, a huge group of lawmakers called the Republican Study Committee — composed of the majority of Republicans in the House — released a proposed budget for 2025. The Biden administration accused them of trying to cut Social Security and Medicare in this budget.
At least one thing that budget would have done is raise the retirement age for Social Security, meaning everyone would receive fewer benefits over their lifetime. And that's something that Moore says politicians might risk, because it only impacts future recipients. What they won't do is cut benefits from current Social Security recipients.
"It's the third rail of politics," Moore said. "And why is it important? Because people over the age of 65 are the group that turns out at the highest rate. So Medicare, Social Security, those are the things that you hit on if you're trying to get that voting group to move."
DeRemer is not a member of the Republican Study Committee, and Congress has yet to pass a comprehensive 2025 budget — kicking the can down the road with stopgap spending bills.