POLICY WIRE FACT CHECK: Viral NC Attack Ad Alleges Candidate Received Duke Energy Funding for Data Centers
The Claim A viral attack ad circulating on social media platforms and within North Carolina political circles has sparked controversy by alleging that a local candidate received significant funding...
The Claim
A viral attack ad circulating on social media platforms and within North Carolina political circles has sparked controversy by alleging that a local candidate received significant funding from Duke Energy, the state’s largest utility company, to support the development of data centers. The ad, which appears to be part of a broader campaign targeting the candidate, claims that the candidate accepted money from Duke Energy to advance corporate interests over public welfare.
The ad was first shared widely on Facebook and Twitter, with users noting its aggressive tone and use of bold, red text emphasizing the alleged financial ties between the candidate and Duke Energy. A screenshot of the ad, captioned as ‘Duke Energy Money in the Bank,’ was posted on multiple political forums, prompting immediate backlash from the candidate’s supporters and scrutiny from fact-checking organizations. The ad also includes a graphic suggesting that the candidate is aligned with big energy corporations, further fueling public concern about potential conflicts of interest.
The Details & Investigation
Upon investigation, the ad in question was traced back to an anonymous political group operating under the name ‘North Carolina Voices for Progress.’ While the group claims to be nonpartisan, it has no publicly available registration or funding disclosures, raising questions about its affiliations and motives. The ad itself does not provide specific evidence or documentation to substantiate the claim that the candidate received direct funding from Duke Energy for data center projects.
According to official records from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, the candidate in question has not received any direct contributions from Duke Energy or its subsidiaries. Furthermore, there is no public record of the candidate being involved in any data center initiatives funded by the utility company. A review of Duke Energy’s public filings and lobbying expenditures also fails to show any financial support directed toward the candidate in question.
📄 POLICY WIRE WHITEPAPER PUBLISHED: PAKISTAN’S NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY PRIORITIES
However, the ad’s framing is misleading. It implies a connection between the candidate and Duke Energy based on vague references to policy positions and general statements about the candidate’s support for infrastructure development. This could be classified as MISINFORMATION, as the ad may have been created without full knowledge of the candidate’s actual financial ties or may have taken statements out of context to mislead viewers. That said, the lack of credible sources or evidence supporting the claim, combined with the ad’s apparent intent to sway public opinion, raises concerns about whether it might also be DISINFORMATION—particularly if it was intentionally designed to deceive voters through selective or distorted information.
Additionally, the ad’s use of emotionally charged language and visual elements—such as a red banner with the phrase ‘Duke Energy Money in the Bank’—suggests a deliberate effort to evoke distrust in the candidate. This type of messaging is often seen in coordinated disinformation campaigns aimed at undermining political opponents. However, without clear evidence of a larger network or intentional coordination behind the ad, it remains difficult to definitively label it as DISINFORMATION.
The Verdict
Based on the available evidence, the claim that a North Carolina candidate received funding from Duke Energy for data centers is FALSE. There is no documented evidence of such a financial relationship, and the candidate’s public records do not reflect any direct contributions from the utility company. The ad’s assertion appears to be based on a misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or omission of key facts, which aligns with the definition of MISINFORMATION.
While the ad may not be part of a large-scale disinformation operation, its design and messaging suggest an attempt to influence public perception through selective or misleading information. As such, it should be considered a case of MISLEADING content rather than outright DISINFORMATION. Voters are advised to consult verified sources and official records when evaluating political claims.
Counter-misinformation & disinformation investigation conducted by PolicyWire Editorial Desk (PW).
