These ad frames appear on Internet location www.pederson2006.com/mediacenter/ on a campaign ad critical of Jim Pederson's opponent, Sen. Jon Kyl.

More Photos (3):

Other articles by Josh Brodesky:

Sellers also-rans in market for homesJosh Brodesky: For untold thousands, it all began at BrodskyBeaudry RV buys time in reorg plan All aboard survive Tucson air crash Pima foreclosure filings spiked in JuneState has help for buying foreclosuresJosh Brodesky: What will we do with all that dirt?Parade of Homes houses go to bankJosh Brodesky: Quarrel clouds Sun City VistosoHOA in Sun City Vistoso seeks to create real estate brokerage

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

Today: We look at an ad for Democrat Jim Pederson.

The Race: U.S. Senate.

Medium: A 30-second television ad.

The Message: The spot begins with an image of U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl as a narrator claims Kyl voted to raise his pay five times. A second narrator, this time a woman, then says Kyl voted 16 times against raising the minimum wage as the commercial cuts to an image of two women, presumably mother and daughter, looking solemnly at the camera.

It then cuts back to Kyl, and the male narrator says Kyl voted to raise his pay to more than $160,000. The woman's voice then says he voted against reimbursing veterans for lost pay while in Iraq as the image shifts to soldiers saluting.

The back and forth continues one more time, with the commercial stating Kyl gets an automatic annual pay raise, "but voted for the Bush plan to cut Social Security benefits." It shows an image of a senior citizen.

The ad ends by stating "Jon Kyl has changed, he's gone Washington (D.C.)."

The Intent: To portray Kyl as a senator who has looked out for his own interests and not those of his constituents, particularly those from lower incomes.

Fact Check: Like many of the political ads this election cycle, some of the claims are accurate and others are not.

As a member of the House, Kyl did support the Government Ethics Reform Act of 1989 which gave the Senate a 9.7 percent salary increase to cover three years of inflation. The House received a 7.9 percent pay raise for two years, followed by a 25 percent increase in 1991. The act also limits how much outside income lawmakers can receive from speeches.

The other pay-raise votes cited in the ad are misleading. Three of the votes aren't for pay raises, but votes not to cancel an automatic cost-of-living raise. Kyl voted not to reject the raise, which is not the same as voting for a pay raise.

The votes the ad cites on minimum wage are accurate. Kyl has historically voted against amendments to raise the federal minimum wage. In June, however, he voted for an amendment to increase the minimum wage to $6.25 an hour. That amendment, which failed, also had a "workplace flexibility" provision that would have allowed employers to shift overtime hours from one week to another, treating them as essentially compensatory time, rather than overtime.

The 2006 salary for a senator is $165,200. When Kyl took office in 1994 the salary was $133,600

The vote against reimbursing veterans deployed to Iraq refers to a 2005 Kyl vote not to guarantee federal employees who take leaves of absence to serve in the National Guard will continue to receive pay equal to what they would have been making if they were not in the service. The amendment, which combines military allowance with a portion of federal salary, passed.

The statement that Kyl voted to "cut Social Security benefits" is misleading. Kyl voted for an amendment that sought to require Social Security surpluses be spent on Social Security and not other programs. The amendment, which failed, also provided for voluntary accounts, but made no changes to the benefits of those born before Jan. 1, 1950.

While most Republicans supported the measure, Democrats did not.

Sources: Congressional archives, Project Vote Smart, The Dirksen Congressional Center's Congresslink.