A political advertisement funded by Democrats in Iowa’s U.S. Senate race alleges that Republican Representative Ashley Hinson accepted campaign funds from individuals linked to the Jeffrey Epstein documents, subsequently voting to block the public release of those records.
According to the commercial produced by the WinSenate super PAC, individuals among her primary contributors appear in the investigative files over 700 times. Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender, died in a federal jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.
The spot claims Hinson initially opposed releasing the documentation in Congress and later missed subsequent votes, opting instead to fundraise from a billionaire whose name appears frequently in the cache.
In a separate video distributed by WinSenate, a narrator asserts that Hinson accepted nearly $90,000 from people listed in the Epstein files and supported keeping the materials classified.
As an independent-expenditure political committee, WinSenate is legally permitted to raise and deploy unlimited funds—including corporate and union contributions—to support federal candidates. The Iowa Senate contest features Hinson against Democratic state Representative Josh Turek, as they vie to succeed retiring Republican Senator Joni Ernst.
Federal Election Commission records indicate Hinson did indeed accept contributions from individuals whose names surface within the Epstein documentation. While these figures are among numerous individuals referenced in the material, inclusion in the papers does not equate to criminal conduct or a close association with Epstein, who routinely interacted with prominent figures across the political spectrum.
The allegations regarding Hinson’s legislative voting record on the Epstein papers, however, present a misleading picture.
Hinson resisted procedural shortcuts, yet ultimately backed the Epstein Files Transparency Act
On July 14, 2025, Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California proposed an amendment instructing the attorney general to publish the Epstein investigation files within 30 days. The House Rules Committee declined to attach the provision to an unrelated cryptocurrency measure headed for the floor.
The following day, Democrats attempted to block a standard parliamentary motion known as “ordering the previous question,” a mechanism used to halt debate and immediately proceed to voting on current legislation, which that day included a defense spending bill and the crypto measure. Defeating that motion would have cleared a path to debate Khanna’s amendment. Instead, the procedural vote succeeded 211 to 210 along party lines, with Hinson and her Republican colleagues voting in the affirmative. The attack ad points to this specific tally as proof of her opposition.
Around that period, Hinson characterized Epstein as a “disgusting human being and an absolute pedophile,” while stating her opposition to bypassing regular committee processes to force a floor vote.
Records show Hinson similarly voted with the GOP majority on analogous “previous question” votes in July 2025 and September 2025, votes that prevented standalone measures concerning the Epstein files from reaching the floor. Furthermore, she declined to sign a discharge petition initiated by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, which eventually gathered sufficient signatures to compel a direct vote.
Nonetheless, the commercial omits the detail that Hinson subsequently voted in favor of the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, co-sponsored by Massie and Khanna. Amid mounting public pressure, President Donald Trump urged lawmakers to pass legislation compelling the Justice Department to release all online records pertaining to Epstein. The measure cleared the House in November 2025 by a 427-1 margin.
The advertisement also references an August 27 report by the left-leaning outlet American Journal News, noting that Hinson was absent for certain Epstein-related roll calls in September 2025, including proposals to leverage funding restrictions to force transparency. Her campaign offered no explanation for her absences.
Responding to inquiries about the WinSenate campaign, Hinson representative Billy Fuerst highlighted her eventual vote for the Transparency Act, dismissing the July vote highlighted in the spot as a routine “procedural motion to advance several bills, including a defense appropriations bill.”
Political contributions from individuals in the files do not imply wrongdoing
Throughout the current midterm election cycle, campaigns from both major parties have utilized the Epstein records as a weapon in political messaging.
Although WinSenate did not name specific contributors in its spot, public FEC data and journalistic investigations indicate Hinson accepted donations from prominent figures such as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Blackwater founder Stephen Schwarzman, and Apollo Global Management CEO Marc Rowan, all of whom are mentioned in the documents. None of these individuals face formal accusations of legal wrongdoing related to Epstein.
An investigative report by The Daily Beast estimated that Hinson and aligned PACs secured nearly $90,000 across multiple cycles from contributors featured in the papers, though that precise tally could not be independently verified.
Contributors from across the aisle also appear in the records. For instance, Hinson’s Democratic rival, Turek, received campaign backing from venture capitalist and Kleiner Perkins Chairman John Doerr, whose name similarly surfaces in the texts. Doerr has not been accused of misconduct, and the documents show no evidence of direct communication with Epstein.
Conclusion
The WinSenate promotional spot asserted that Hinson voted against publishing the Epstein files.
While Hinson initially resisted procedural tactics designed to fast-track a vote on DOJ document disclosure—along with similar parliamentary efforts linked to the Epstein Files Transparency Act—she ultimately cast a vote in support of the legislation when it reached the floor in November 2025, helping it pass overwhelmingly.
The claim is rated Mostly False.