Sullivan’s charge about Begich’s amnesty vote rated ‘False’ by national fact-checking group

The national fact checking group Politifact—one that both Republicans and Democrats use when it suits them– has labeled a charge leveled by Senate candidate Dan Sullivan against Sen. Mark Begich about immigration “false.”

In fundraising emails and on the stump, Sullivan has been saying that Begich was the deciding vote to give Obama executive authority to grant citizenship for illegal aliens. In fact, what Begich voted on was to block a Republican-sponsored amendment that would have denied Obama such authority in some specific cases. He voted to block the amendment because it would have slowed down the larger bill that, among other things, contained funding for Syrian rebels, which he also opposes. Begich was the only red-state Democrat to vote to block the amendment.

Here’s Politifact’s conclusion:

Begich never voted on this question. In reality, Begich voted “no” on a procedural measure, along with 49 other senators. As a result, an amendment regarding immigration policy did not come up for a vote. It’s debatable whether this amendment really addressed “executive amnesty,” and it had little chance of passing even if it hadn’t been blocked. Begich’s vote did not increase Obama’s authority, as Sullivan’s statement makes it seem. Rather, it maintained the status quo.

We rate this claim False.


9 thoughts on “Sullivan’s charge about Begich’s amnesty vote rated ‘False’ by national fact-checking group

  1. ThugzruleAlaska

    Isn’t Sullivan being bankrolled by the Koch bros? No wonder the lies about Begich.
    Remember the Koch bros are funding your fave EX GINO, Sarah! Remember that when you vote. Do you want ethics or not. A vote for Sullivan is a vote for Koch bros and Sarah rules.

  2. Ethan

    It’s pretty obvious, at least from my perspective, that Dan Sullivan is just a cog in the Republican political machine, just like Begich is a cog in the Democratic political machine, and regardless of what he says about how much he will advocate for Alaska if he is elected to the Senate, he is almost guaranteed to do whatever the Republican machine tells him to do.

    Based on their actions, and ignoring the endless spewing of talking points, I would generally characterize the Republican party’s quest in this world as:
    1. Facilitate the pursuit of profit.
    2. Destroy anything that interferes with #1.

    Everything else is just window dressing to attract support.

    So if you’re a person who thinks that the Republican party’s agenda lines up perfectly with Alaska’s interests, then Dan is your guy.

  3. Jon K


    And what about when Mark’s ads get listed as pants on fire lying? While it is disappointing to see this from Dan, Mark has lied repeatedly about Dan’s positions on Pebble, hunting rights, land management, Jerry Active, subsistence, the Mercer settlement, the Flint Hills debacle, and his efforts on domestic violence and sexual assault. Mark is even running ads saying that he is standing up to the President and that he is the biggest thorn in the side of the president.

  4. Janice

    Mae’s comments are blided by his hatred or foolishness. He either doesn’t understand the issues that he writes about or is just a liar. In either case, it leaves a lot to be desired.
    I live in rural Alaska and know that family that Dan has married in to. Mae, keep commenting as more and more people will recognize them for what they are worth. You’re too dumb to be clever even.

  5. Mike

    I typed in “Deciding vote on ObamaCare” and got twenty + articles/websites/ads/blogs that listed different candidates from across the country running for either Congress or U.S. Senate that were listed as having cast the deciding vote. That simply can’t be considering a deciding vote is singular. Anytime I hear “deciding vote” I ignore the message behind the statement. Give me funny, not stupid any day.

  6. Jon K


    Dan isn’t anti -subsistence. As AG and DnR commissioner he was obligated to uphold the Alaska Constitution which allows for subsistence preference but it does not allow for a rural preference. Don’t blame him for the complying with the constitution as interpreted by the AK Supreme Court. heather kendell and others are having a field day taking cheap shots. So it goes.

    But if you are trying to say he is anti native or anti rural, that’s a load of shit. Ask joe Masters, Charlotte Brower, or Emil Notti what they thought of Dan’s efforts to help rural Alaska. Or go read Mike Black’s oped in today’s ADN.

  7. Mae

    L48 Dan should stick to what he knows best: being anti subsistence, anti Alaskan voice.

    L48 Dan is so lower 48-ish, he decided to wait for lower 48 media to call the aksen primary republican ticket.

Comments are closed.