When Political Ads Tell Part of the Truth: A Look at the Claims Against Keisha Lance Bottoms

As Georgia moves deeper into the 2026 election season, voters are seeing political advertisements attacking former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms over spending controversies from her time at Atlanta City Hall.

The question voters should ask is not simply, “Did these things happen?” The better question is: Are we being given the entire story?

In this case, some of the statements in the campaign advertisements are based on actual events. But some of the advertising leaves out important facts that could change how voters view those events.

The Super Bowl Trip

One of the most discussed claims involves a trip to the 2018 Super Bowl in Minneapolis.

Atlanta sent a delegation to Minneapolis because the city was preparing to host the Super Bowl the following year. Bottoms, who had recently taken office as mayor, was part of that delegation, and her husband, Derek Bottoms, traveled with her.

City records showed that taxpayers initially paid $2,610 for a first-class airline ticket for Derek Bottoms, who was not a City of Atlanta employee. The charge was made using a city-issued credit card.

So when a political advertisement says taxpayer money was used for her husband’s airline ticket, that portion of the claim is true.

But that is not the entire story.

Bottoms’ office said the city credit card had been used in error and that Bottoms did not know city funds had been used to purchase her husband’s ticket. Records showed that she reimbursed the city $1,434.42 on February 15, 2018, within days of the trip.

Therefore, saying simply that Bottoms “used taxpayer money to take her husband to the Super Bowl” can create an impression that she knowingly ordered taxpayers to pay for her husband’s trip and kept the benefit.

The available reporting does not establish that.

The more complete statement would be:

Taxpayer money was initially used to purchase her husband’s airline ticket, but Bottoms said the charge was made by mistake and reimbursed the city after discovering it.

That distinction matters.

The Chauffeured Car Expenses

Another claim in the current advertising concerns expensive chauffeured transportation.

Investigative reporting found that during Bottoms’ first five months as mayor, approximately $11,651 was spent on 27 chauffeured rides, averaging about $431 per trip.

Again, the basic number used against Bottoms is real.

However, her administration explained that she initially used a previously vetted transportation service because of concerns involving security, reliability and transportation for the mayor while traveling. The administration later recognized that costs were increasing and began looking for less expensive alternatives.

Voters can certainly debate whether spending almost $12,000 on chauffeured transportation was reasonable. That is a legitimate question.

But there is a difference between questioning whether government spending was excessive and suggesting that the mayor simply took taxpayer money for her personal enjoyment.

Campaign Finance Violations

The current political advertisement also points to campaign-finance violations from Bottoms’ 2017 campaign for mayor.

In 2021, her campaign agreed to pay a $37,000 state ethics fine. The campaign acknowledged $6,900 in contributions above individual limits along with additional money that violated other campaign-finance provisions. State officials said some of the violations were procedural.

Therefore, it would be wrong to say there were no campaign-finance violations.

There were.

But once again, political advertising often takes a complicated issue and reduces it to a few words designed to create the strongest possible negative impression.

So Are the Political Ads True or False?

The answer is: parts are true, but the presentation can be misleading when important context is left out.

It is true that taxpayer funds initially paid for Derek Bottoms’ airline ticket.

It is also true that Bottoms reimbursed the city and said the city credit card had been used mistakenly.

It is true that thousands of dollars were spent on chauffeured transportation.

It is also true that her administration said the service was being used for security and reliability and later looked for less expensive transportation.

And it is true that her campaign paid a state ethics fine over campaign-finance violations.

What becomes questionable is when these facts are presented in a way that encourages voters to reach conclusions that go beyond what the records actually establish.

Voters Deserve the Whole Story

This is bigger than Keisha Lance Bottoms.

Political advertisements from both parties are designed to persuade us. They are not documentaries, and they are rarely designed to provide every fact surrounding an issue.

A statement can contain a true number, a true event or a true allegation and still give voters a misleading impression when important information is omitted.

That is why voters should investigate political claims before repeating them.

Ask:

What happened? What was left out? Was the problem corrected? Was wrongdoing actually proven, or is the advertisement asking me to assume it?

We should hold every public official accountable when taxpayer money is improperly spent or campaign-finance laws are violated. But accountability should also be based on complete facts, not simply the portion of a story that benefits one political campaign.

Democrat, Republican or Independent, the standard should remain the same:

Tell voters the truth — and tell them the whole truth.

Join the conversation: Do you believe political campaigns have a responsibility to provide the complete context behind their claims, or is it the voter’s responsibility to investigate political advertisements for themselves?

Marvin Dixon/Founder

VMGreview.com, Verifacts Investigation, and Frontline Investigator Training Academy.