Lansing — Michigan voters are being flooded with political advertisements featuring former President Barack Obama praising U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, but one critical fact is often left unclear: Obama has not endorsed Stevens in the 2026 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate.
The footage appearing in television, digital and mail advertisements is not from the current Senate campaign. It comes from an October 2018 Democratic rally in Detroit, when Obama supported Stevens during her first campaign for the U.S. House.
“She was a critical part of my team that helped the American auto industry come roaring back,” Obama says in the recycled footage.
The statement is authentic, but it is nearly eight years old and referred to Stevens’ work on the Obama administration’s auto task force and her 2018 congressional campaign — not the current Senate primary.
Obama has not publicly endorsed either Stevens or her Democratic opponent, former Michigan health director Abdul El-Sayed, in the Aug. 4 primary. Bridge Michigan reported that Obama has not intervened in the Michigan race and that his only public U.S. Senate endorsement during the 2026 election cycle has been in Texas.
An endorsement without saying “endorsement”
The advertisements generally stop short of explicitly stating that Obama endorsed Stevens for Senate. Instead, they place footage of Obama alongside messages urging voters to send Stevens to the Senate.
That distinction may protect the advertisers from making a technically false statement, but it does not erase the impression created for voters.
One advertisement reportedly ends with the declaration, “If President Obama trusts her, so do I.”
The obvious objective is to transfer Obama’s popularity and credibility to Stevens without clearly informing viewers that his remarks were recorded during a different election eight years earlier.
Former Obama adviser David Axelrod publicly acknowledged the effect of the advertising. According to Bridge Michigan, Axelrod wrote that Michigan voters seeing the commercial would think Obama had endorsed Stevens, even though he had not.
Reports from Michigan have documented voters saying they believed Obama was supporting Stevens because they saw him in the advertisements. That confusion is not an accidental side effect. Political commercials are carefully produced, tested and purchased to create specific impressions.
When a popular former president appears on screen praising a candidate while a narrator urges voters to elect that candidate to a different office, many viewers will naturally interpret it as a current endorsement.
Outside groups behind the advertising
The most heavily aired Obama advertisement was financed by United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC.
Because federal law prohibits super PACs from coordinating their spending with candidates, Stevens’ campaign is not legally responsible for creating or distributing United Democracy Project’s advertisements. That separation must be made clear.
However, Stevens has repeatedly promoted her association with the Obama administration and previously used the same Obama footage in campaign material, including the video announcing her Senate campaign. Her campaign also has defended the current ads as an accurate portrayal of Obama’s assessment of her work, while emphasizing that the advertisements never explicitly claim he endorsed her for Senate.
That defense relies on a narrow technicality.
The controversy is not whether Obama once praised Stevens. He did. The controversy is whether footage from 2018 is being presented in a way designed to make voters believe Obama is backing her in 2026.
The answer is evident from the structure of the advertisements: Obama’s face, Obama’s voice, praise for Stevens and an immediate appeal to elect her to the Senate.
Tens of millions of dollars shaping the race
Outside organizations have poured extraordinary amounts of money into the Michigan Senate contest.
Bridge Michigan reported that United Democracy Project had spent nearly $15 million in the race as of mid-July, including approximately $9.3 million supporting Stevens and $5.7 million opposing El-Sayed. Another super PAC, A Stronger Michigan, reported spending more than $12 million supporting Stevens.
Overall, roughly $28 million in outside expenditures had either supported Stevens or attacked El-Sayed, according to federal disclosures reviewed by Bridge Michigan. That gave Stevens an enormous advertising advantage and allowed supportive groups to broadcast the Obama footage repeatedly across Michigan’s largest media markets.
The scale matters. A misleading impression repeated once may be corrected. An impression reinforced thousands of times through television, digital advertising and political mailers can become accepted as fact before many voters learn otherwise.
UAW also accuses pro-Stevens group of misleading voters
The Obama controversy is not the only dispute involving advertisements supporting Stevens.
The United Auto Workers issued a cease-and-desist demand to A Stronger Michigan after a pro-Stevens advertisement displayed the union’s recognizable wheel logo, even though the UAW endorsed El-Sayed.
The union called the advertisements “a deliberate attempt at misleading voters in Michigan,” including active and retired UAW members and their families. The UAW said it would not allow a corporate entity to undermine the union’s member-driven endorsement process.
The union endorsed El-Sayed after he received the two-thirds vote required through its internal endorsement process. A Stronger Michigan, meanwhile, has spent more than $12 million promoting Stevens.
As with the Obama footage, the UAW logo appears to capitalize on a trusted institution’s reputation without clearly explaining that the institution is supporting someone else.
Stevens’ legitimate auto-industry record
Stevens has every right to discuss her work in the Obama administration.
She served as chief of staff for the U.S. Auto Rescue Task Force during the financial crisis and helped coordinate between federal officials, automakers, suppliers, dealers and organized labor. Obama genuinely praised her role in that effort.
That history is relevant in Michigan, where the survival of General Motors and Chrysler protected hundreds of thousands of jobs and helped stabilize communities throughout the state.
But highlighting a candidate’s record is different from creating the appearance of a current endorsement.
A straightforward advertisement could tell voters that Stevens worked in the Obama administration and include an on-screen disclosure stating that Obama’s remarks were made in 2018 and that he has not endorsed a candidate in the 2026 Michigan Senate primary.
The groups financing the ads apparently chose not to provide that clarity.
Technically defensible, practically deceptive
Supporters of Stevens argue that the advertisements contain truthful footage. Obama made the comments, Stevens worked on the auto rescue and the advertisements do not use the specific word “endorsement.”
But political deception does not always require an outright lie.
An advertisement can use true statements, selective editing and omitted context to create a conclusion that is not true. In this case, the advertisements encourage voters to believe Obama is participating in the current campaign when he has remained publicly neutral.
The phrase offered by one Stevens supporter — that Obama has “not not endorsed her” — demonstrates the problem. A failure to endorse someone is not a form of endorsement. Silence cannot honestly be converted into support.
Obama either endorsed Stevens in the 2026 Senate primary or he did not.
He did not.
Voters deserve a clear disclosure
Michigan voters should not have to research the date of every video clip to determine whether an endorsement is current, expired or nonexistent.
At minimum, political advertisements using footage from previous elections should prominently disclose when and why the remarks were originally made. A small disclaimer identifying the sponsoring super PAC does not correct the larger visual message.
The issue is bigger than Stevens, Obama or one Democratic primary. Campaign organizations across the political spectrum increasingly use old footage, artificial intelligence, selective editing and institutional imagery to manufacture associations that may not exist.
Those practices weaken informed voting while allowing campaigns and outside groups to retreat behind carefully constructed technical defenses.
Haley Stevens has a legitimate record to present to Michigan voters. Her supporters should be able to make that case without allowing millions of dollars in advertising to create an Obama endorsement that does not exist.
As of July 17, 2026, Barack Obama has not endorsed Haley Stevens, Abdul El-Sayed or any other candidate in Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary.
Anything suggesting otherwise is an impression created by political advertising — not a statement made by the former president.
No comments:
Post a Comment