In Kansas’ tight Senate race, ads from Democratic and Republican outside groups are accusing the other party’s candidate of having protected pedophiles. In both cases, the attacks are misleading or unsupported by the evidence.

Ads from Democratic groups misleadingly claim Sen. Roger Marshall, the Republican incumbent, helped cover up Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes by voting to keep the Epstein files under wraps while taking money from the convicted sex offender’s “associates.” 

Marshall supported the November 2025 law that required the Justice Department to publicly release the files. He previously voted against a Democratic amendment calling for the files’ release, saying he opposed attaching it to an unrelated defense bill. As for the purported Epstein “associates,” they’re people whose names appear incidentally in the files but had no documented contact with Epstein, or whose interactions with him were limited. None has been accused of wrongdoing.

An ad from a Republican group, meanwhile, claims Democratic candidate Adam Hamilton, a pastor, “protected a pedophile” accused of molesting teenage boys two decades ago at a camp his church ran.

According to court records reviewed by local news outlets, the boys reported the abuse but couldn’t identify the culprit, and the church didn’t notify police. It’s unclear what role Hamilton played in that decision. The next year, a camp volunteer was caught and reported to police. Hamilton has acknowledged that the church could have handled the situation better, but there’s no evidence he knowingly protected a predator.

The Cook Political Report rates the Kansas race as one of several toss-ups that could determine control of the Senate on Nov. 3. President Donald Trump campaigned for Marshall in Kansas on Nov. 1, the president’s second rally in the state in two weeks.

Votes on the Epstein Files

Multiple Democratic-aligned groups have run ads accusing Marshall of voting to cover up the Epstein files.

“It was one of the worst child abuse scandals in history,” states an ad from WinSenate, a super PAC working to elect Democrats. “Dozens of young girls sexually trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein. Drugged, molested, and raped. And Roger Marshall helped cover it up. Marshall voted to keep the Epstein files sealed, ignoring pleas from victims and saying releasing the information was, quote, ‘not of much interest to me.’ Roger Marshall used his office to protect pedophiles.”

Another WinSenate ad makes a similar claim, interspersing images of Marshall with what appears to be a photo of an Epstein victim with her face redacted. 

“She was a 14-year-old girl,” the ad’s narrator says. “He was a 65-year-old senator. She was drugged, molested, and raped. And he helped cover it up. Roger Marshall took nearly $40,000 from Jeffrey Epstein’s associates. Then voted to keep the Epstein files sealed, protecting pedophiles.”

WinSenate had spent more than $6 million on the two ads combined as of the afternoon of Nov. 2, according to the ad-tracking service AdImpact. At least two other groups backing Democrats have also aired ads attacking Marshall over the Epstein files.

These ads don’t give a full account of Marshall’s votes on this issue.

In September 2025, Senate Democrats proposed an amendment to the annual defense policy bill that would have directed the Department of Justice to make the Epstein files publicly available. The amendment was killed in a mostly party-line vote, with all but two Republicans opposed to the amendment. Marshall was among those voting against it.

According to local NBC affiliate KSNT, Marshall said at the time that he supported releasing the files but opposed tying it to an unrelated defense bill, which he called a “political stunt.” 

Two months later, Marshall supported a standalone bill compelling release of the Epstein files. The bill cleared the Senate with unanimous consent, which means the bill was not opposed by Marshall or any other senator. 

That vote came after Trump threw his support behind the bill, after resisting calls to disclose the files for months. 

Marshall’s statement that releasing the files was “not of much interest to me” came in July 2025. Asked about the issue by reporters, he responded that there were bigger priorities in his view. Here’s the full quotation:

“It’s just not my focus,” Marshall said. “I mean, I want justice to be served, but we need to be focused right now on telling Americans about this reconciliation bill that we did. It’s going to be the largest tax cut in American history, the largest decrease in spending, we’re going to secure the border, a whole lot of other things. So it’s just not of much interest to me right now.”

Lauren French, a spokesperson for WinSenate, said in an emailed statement that Marshall’s initial vote against releasing the files “was a decision to keep evidence about the sexual abuse of children locked away for months longer, while the powerful people named in it kept their secrets.”

“When survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse pleaded with Roger Marshall for justice and transparency, he turned his back on them,” she said. “Marshall voted to kill an effort to force the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, blaming technicalities and saying, ‘it’s just not of much interest to me.’ ” 

We reached out to Marshall’s campaign and haven’t heard back.

Claims About ‘Epstein’s Associates’

One of the WinSenate ads also claims that Marshall “took nearly $40,000 from Jeffrey Epstein’s associates.” The claim doesn’t hold up.

The ad cites an article on a partisan website called American Journal News, which is published by Democratic operative David Brock’s True Blue Media and partly funded by a Democratic-aligned group he co-founded, American Bridge 21st Century. (He stepped away from American Bridge in 2022.)

The article cites four people whose names appear in the Epstein files and who also gave to one of Marshall’s campaigns. As we’ve written before, the mere fact that someone is mentioned in the files does not indicate that the person is implicated in wrongdoing, or even had a direct relationship with the disgraced financier. 

One of the people mentioned in the article is Stephen Schwarzman, chairman and CEO of the private equity firm Blackstone. We previously wrote about a separate WinSenate ad in Maine that referred to Schwarzman as Epstein’s “business partner,” based on the fact that both men were among the initial investors in an exclusive New York City club. 

As we noted at the time, they were among about 150 founding members paying $100,000 each. Aside from paying money to join the same club, it’s not clear the two men ever did business together or had a close working relationship. 

The Epstein files include emails from a publicist inviting Epstein to two events Schwarzman was involved in: a 2015 event celebrating the movie “The Imitation Game” co-hosted by Schwarzman and his wife (along with former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others) at the Schwarzman’s New York home; and a 2013 anniversary celebration for the New York Observer, which lists Schwarzman as one of more than two dozen co-hosts. Epstein was out of town for the 2015 event, and it’s unclear if he attended the other. None of the emails shows Schwarzman and Epstein corresponding directly.

A spokesperson for Schwarzman previously told us the two men had no relationship. 

“It would be categorically false and reckless to claim or imply that Steve had any relationship with this despicable individual,” the spokesperson said in an email.

The article also mentions Joseph Baratta, an executive at Blackstone, who donated $6,000 to Marshall’s campaign in 2025. There’s no evidence he was an “associate” of Epstein. 

We could find only one mention of Baratta in the files: a 2011 email exchange between Baratta and Peter Mandelson, the British politician who later lost his post as ambassador to the U.S. over his relationship with Epstein. Mandelson was in private practice as a lobbyist at the time, and the exchange seems to involve him advising Baratta on a Blackstone public relations matter. Mandelson forwarded the exchange to Epstein with the note “fyi He’s nice, bright guy.” 

Nothing in the emails indicates Baratta and Epstein communicated directly.

“Joe never met, spoke with, or interacted with him in any way – period,” a spokesperson for Baratta told us. “Joe had absolutely no relationship with him, and it would be outrageous and patently false to suggest otherwise.”

A third supposed Epstein “associate” mentioned in the article is Joel Magerman, head of the investment bank Bryant Park Capital, who gave $11,400 to Marshall’s campaign in 2019. Again, we could find no evidence that Magerman and Epstein were associated. Magerman’s only mentions in the Epstein files are two emails that a broker named Barry Zelin sent to multiple recipients, including Magerman and Epstein. There’s no record in the files of Magerman responding, and nothing to indicate he interacted with Epstein directly.

We reached out to Magerman through his company and haven’t heard back.

The fourth person cited in the article is a Paul, Weiss lawyer named Greg Ezring who gave $500 to Marshall’s 2020 campaign. Emails indicate that in 2014, Ezring was working on a donor-advised fund that Epstein was trying to stand up with the Gates Foundation, a deal that ultimately fell through.

Ezring was also copied on a 2013 email, which was forwarded to Epstein, about a matter involving private equity firm Apollo Global Management. The co-founder of Apollo, Leon Black, stepped down from the company in 2021 amid scrutiny for his ties to Epstein.

Nothing in the emails suggests wrongdoing or indicates that Ezring and Epstein had a relationship beyond those matters. Ezring did not respond to an email requesting comment.

And again, none of the four has been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein.

French, the WinSenate spokesperson, did not answer a question about the ad’s characterization of these individuals as Epstein “associates.”

Church Camp Allegations

The Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC affiliated with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, has spent more than $1.6 million on an ad alleging Hamilton covered up for a man who was accused of sexually abusing teens at a church camp two decades ago. 

The accusation was first made last spring by one of Hamilton’s primary opponents. After reviewing the relevant court records, the Kansas City Star wrote that they did “not back up the core of [the opponent’s] claims.”

The Senate Leadership Fund ad opens on two boys in a darkened room with bunkbeds.

“They say there’s a special place in hell for pedophiles. But what about the enablers?” the narrator says, as an image of Hamilton appears. “What about pastor Adam Hamilton? Boys molested at Hamilton’s church camp. Victims reported the predator. Hamilton’s church swept it under the rug, then welcomed the pervert back to do it again. God will judge Adam Hamilton’s heart. You can judge his leadership. Adam Hamilton protected a pedophile. He’s unfit for U.S. Senate.”

Here’s a quick synopsis of what happened, according to the Star’s reporting. (We were unable to view the records ourselves because they were not available online.)

In 2005, teenage boys at a youth camp run by Church of the Resurrection, the church Hamilton co-founded, reported that a man had entered their rooms at night and molested them. 

Camp leaders were initially “dismissive of their claims” but did an internal investigation, according to a court decision quoted by the Star. That investigation was “unable to conclusively identify the perpetrator,” according to the document, though there were rumors it was a camp volunteer named Scott Preston Moore, according to records cited by another local news outlet, the Kansas Reflector.

“Neither boy was able to make out the facial features of the suspect or positively identify the defendant due to the darkness of the room and the blinding light that had been shined directly at their faces,” according to another court filing quoted by the Star. 

The church did not report the incidents to police. Hamilton’s name does not appear in documents related to the handling of the incident, the Star reported.

The following year, Moore was accused of sneaking into boys’ rooms at night, and this time identified as the culprit. Church leaders reported it to law enforcement and barred Moore from working with children or youth. Local prosecutors ultimately declined to file charges, according to the Star.

In 2010, the Star reported, a man living out of state told Hamilton that Moore had abused him decades earlier, when Moore was his babysitter. According to the Star, the man decided to report the abuse to law enforcement after speaking with Hamilton. 

Shortly thereafter, police investigated a report that Moore had inappropriately touched a 16-year-old during a sleepover, according to the Star. Moore was convicted of that charge in 2013 and sentenced to a year in jail.

The Reflector reported that the incidents from 2005 and 2006 were considerations in the case that led to his conviction. 

Hamilton has acknowledged the church could have handled the situation better, but has called the allegations that he protected or covered up for a predator false. 

“First of all, others investigated. I was actually preaching that weekend at Church of the Resurrection,” he said in an October debate. “And I did not sign off on him going back. I should have checked to make sure that he wasn’t going back. That was a mistake on my part. But I will tell you, when he was investigated the next year, we forbade him from working with youth or children any more. He left our church angry and upset. And again, we played a critical role several years later in getting him arrested and convicted.”

Asked by CNN last month whether he would have done anything differently now, Hamilton responded, “Absolutely. We should have called the police immediately. But that was not our policies 21 years ago.” 

Asked for evidence to support the ad’s claims, a Senate Leadership Fund spokesperson pointed us to a Senate Leadership Fund press release highlighting the CNN quote.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.