Apr 11, 2016 4 min read

HARRISBURG – Accusations are being hurled in the Democratic Party’s primary race for U.S. Senate between John Fetterman, Katie McGinty and Joe Sestak, and some of them are missing the mark.

The three candidates are seeking to take on Republican Sen. Pat Toomey in November’s election.

Among the accusations are questions about campaign donations from the oil and gas industry, stances on cutting Social Security benefits and a state Supreme Court reprimand in an ethics case. A look at those three accusations, and the facts and background surrounding them:

In last Tuesday night’s televised debate in Pittsburgh, Fetterman accused McGinty of taking $180,000 in contributions from the “oil and gas industry,” which McGinty says is not true.

Fetterman’s figure comes from a tally that takes a broad view of an “oil and gas” interest: a contributor’s business must somehow profit by expansion of natural gas markets due to fracking.

Included in the tally are contributions from professionals or executives in fields such as law, lobbying, utilities or the downstream petroleum industry, including pipelines, refining and delivery.

Out of that, Fetterman’s campaign points to $2,000 from a Talisman Energy employee as the one example of a contribution to McGinty from an oil or gas exploration or drilling firm, or one of its employees or advocacy groups.

McGinty’s campaign says Fetterman’s broad definition of oil and gas interests would include contributions to both his campaign and Sestak’s.

McGinty and her allies have accused Sestak of endorsing cuts to Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age, an assertion that Sestak calls false. On Tuesday, the Washington, D.C.-based group Emily’s List will begin airing a TV ad that makes the same accusation.

They are referring to Sestak’s statements about a 2010 deficit-reduction plan from a presidential commission created by President Barack Obama, called the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. In January, he called it “the template upon which you can address both the needed raise in revenues and the proper reform of entitlements.”

That 65-page plan included 10 recommendations on how to put Social Security on a sustainable path. The recommendations included: moving to a benefit formula that slows future benefit growth; bolstering benefits for the lowest earners, oldest beneficiaries and the long-term disabled; gradually increasing the normal retirement age from 67 to 68 by about 2050 and to 69 by about 2075; and gradually increasing the taxable maximum to cover 90 percent of wages by 2050, up from an estimated 83 percent in 2020.

It came to a vote in the House in 2012, and was defeated by a 10-to-1 margin.

McGinty has not pointed to any specific statement or vote in Congress by Sestak about his support for raising the retirement age or cutting benefits.

Sestak maintains that he would vote against cutting benefits and raising the retirement age. Sestak says he supports increasing the taxable maximum to cover a higher percentage of wages.

In last Tuesday night’s debate, Sestak told McGinty, “the Supreme Court actually reprimanded you for ethics for giving millions to a company with a conflict of interest.”

He was referring to a case that drew scrutiny, beginning in 2007, when McGinty’s nomination was before the state Senate for a second term as Pennsylvania’s environmental protection secretary. McGinty had approved more than $2.7 million in grants for a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization that employed McGinty’s husband as a consultant. Senate leaders had demanded that McGinty’s boss, then-Gov. Ed Rendell, request an advisory opinion from the state Ethics Commission on whether such an arrangement violated ethics laws.

The Ethics Commission ruled that such a grant-making arrangement would violate ethics laws, and the state Supreme Court, in 2009, effectively rejected a Rendell administration challenge to the commission’s rationale. In that decision, however, the Ethics Commission did not judge whether the grants already awarded by McGinty violated ethics laws.

McGinty was never sanctioned or reprimanded for her actions.