POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: NH Ad Distorts the Facts in Claiming Pappas Grew Rich in Office
The Claim A viral political advertisement currently circulating in the New Hampshire Senate race, produced by the Senate Senate Leadership Fund (a Republican super PAC), alleges that Democratic...
The Claim
A viral political advertisement currently circulating in the New Hampshire Senate race, produced by the Senate Senate Leadership Fund (a Republican super PAC), alleges that Democratic Representative. Chris Pappas is ‘out for himself.’ The ad claims that Pappas’ net worth has ‘skyrocketed’ by upwards of 1,000% while serving in office. Furthermore, the advertisement asserts that Pappas voted for specific legislation designed to benefit his husband, a former Amazon lobbyist who currently works for the tech giant Uber.
The claim, which has gained significant traction on broadcast and streaming platforms since late October, utilizes specific figures to suggest a corrupt conflict of interest. It asserts that Pappas went from a negative net worth of nearly $700,000 to over $6 million, linking this to his legislative record and his spouse’s career.
The Details & Investigation
Our investigation into the figures presented in the ad reveals that the ‘1,000% increase’ is based on a mathematically flawed method of cherry-picking from financial disclosure forms. Members of Congress are required to report assets and liabilities in ranges rather than exact figures. To arrive at the ad’s claim of a $669,974 deficit in 2018, producers subtracted the high-end estimate of Pappas’ liabilities ($2 million) from the low-end estimate of his assets ($1,330,026). Conversely, to reach the 2025 figure of $6 million, they performed the reverse: subtracting the low-end estimate of liabilities ($1,015,006) from the high-end estimate of assets ($7,095,000). This methodology is intentionally deceptive, as the same data could be used to claim that Pappas’ net worth actually decreased by millions of dollars during his tenure.
Regarding the source of the wealth, the majority of Pappas’ assets in both periods stem from his partial ownership of ‘The Puritan Backroom,’ a New Hampshire restaurant that his family has operated for decades. This asset was valued between $1 million and $5 million in both the 2018 and 2025 disclosures. The increase in reported wealth is largely due to the inclusion of his spouse’s assets in the later filing—including Uber and Amazon stock and a 401(k)—which were not listed in the 2018 filing. Without these additions, Pappas’ reported assets would be approximately $1.4 million to $6.3 million, a figure not far different from his standing as a freshman lawmaker.
The claim that Pappas voted to make it ‘harder to sue’ Uber to benefit his husband is also a misrepresentation of legislative procedure. The ad refers to an amendment proposed by Rep. Vince Fong that would shield ride-hailing apps from liability unless the company was ‘grossly negligent’ or committed a crime. While Pappas did vote against this specific amendment in committee, he subsequently voted to advance the larger ‘BUILD America 250 Act’ in a bipartisan 62-2 vote. This larger bill contained hundreds of other transportation provisions, and Pappas has since advocated for the liability-shield to be removed from the final version of the legislation.
This investigation categorizes the campaign as DISINFORMATION. While the ad uses real financial disclosure documents, it employs a deceptive mathematical strategy (mixing high-end and low-end range estimates) to create a fabricated narrative of a ‘1,000% increase.’ It also misrepresents the nature of his votes by omitting the broader context of the legislation he supported, creating a false impression of a corrupt conflict of interest.
The Verdict
The claim that Chris Pappas grew his net worth by 1,000% through corrupt means is FALSE and MISLEADING. The figures used in the advertisement rely on a manipulation of financial disclosure ranges to produce a misleading narrative of wealth accumulation. Additionally, the portrayal of his voting record regarding Uber ignores the bipartisan nature of the bill in question and his continued opposition to the specific liability-shield amendment.
em>Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).
