“Sen. Susan Collins “voted to cover up the Epstein files” and Jeffrey Epstein’s “business partner funneled $3 million” to a Collins super PAC.”

• There were multiple procedural moments in 2025 in which congressional Republicans, including senators, blocked or delayed Democratic efforts to force release of DOJ's Epstein material (objections to unanimous-consent requests, a postponed Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the Commerce-Justice-Science bill in late July 2025 after Democrats signaled an Epstein-files amendment). Collins chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, so a vote or procedural action by her in that setting is the most plausible factual hook for the 'voted to cover up' line.
• Attack lines of this type generally rest on real, disclosed FEC data: outside groups supporting Collins (notably the pro-Collins super PAC known as 1820 PAC in her 2020 race, and successor vehicles for 2026) accept unlimited seven-figure contributions from Wall Street figures, and such contributions are publicly reported, so a $3 million figure is the kind of number that can be checked in FEC filings rather than an invented one.
• Jeffrey Epstein did have documented financial relationships with major financiers — most prominently Leon Black, who paid Epstein roughly $158 million for tax and estate advice and resigned as Apollo Global Management CEO in 2021 over the ties, and Glenn Dubin, whose Highbridge Capital had Epstein connections. If the donor in question is one of these men, the claim's underlying donor-to-Epstein link is factually grounded even if the label is imprecise.
• Super PACs are legally separate from campaigns, but the money is spent to help the candidate, so describing a large donation to a candidate-aligned super PAC as money going 'to' that candidate's side is a common and not wholly inaccurate shorthand.

• The central Epstein transparency vote in the Senate cuts the other way: the Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405) passed the House 427-1 on Nov. 18, 2025 and cleared the Senate the same day by unanimous consent — meaning no senator, Collins included, objected or voted against it. A senator who let the release bill pass without objection is hard to describe as having 'voted to cover up the Epstein files.'
• No Senate roll-call vote is identified in the claim. 'Voted to cover up' is a characterization of a procedural or committee action (tabling an amendment, a motion to proceed, a markup postponement), not of a vote whose text was about concealing Epstein records. Procedural votes are routinely recast as substantive votes in campaign advertising.
• Leon Black — the Epstein-linked financier most often named in these ads — was Epstein's client, not his 'business partner.' The 2021 Dechert LLP review commissioned by Apollo concluded Black paid Epstein for tax/estate planning services and found no evidence Black was involved in Epstein's crimes. 'Business partner' overstates the documented relationship.
• 'Funneled' implies concealment or illegality. Super PAC contributions are itemized in public FEC filings; a disclosed, legal contribution reported to the FEC is the opposite of funneling, unless there is specific evidence of straw donors or a shell conduit, which the claim does not supply.
• Collins does not control a super PAC and is legally barred from coordinating with it; donations to an outside group are not evidence that she took the money or that it influenced a vote. The claim juxtaposes the donation and the alleged vote to imply causation that is asserted, not demonstrated.
• I could not verify, at the level of a specific FEC filing, the $3 million figure or the identity of the donor, nor a specific Collins roll-call vote framed as concealing Epstein records. Both halves of the claim are stated with more certainty than the publicly checkable record supports.

48/100 — the lab’s own confidence in the score above, not a second reading of the claim.

U.S. Congress (Congress.gov) — Epstein Files Transparency Act, H.R. 4405, legislative history including Senate passagegov · 97 · United States Senate — roll call vote list, 119th Congress, 1st Session (primary record for checking any Collins vote on Epstein-related measures)gov · 96 · Federal Election Commission — committee search for the pro-Collins super PAC (primary source for verifying any $3 million contribution)gov · 93 · GovTrack — H.R. 4405 status and vote recordsother · 78 · Wikipedia — summary of Leon Black's payments to Epstein, the Dechert review, and his Apollo resignation (secondary aggregator; underlying citations to NYT/Reuters)other · 60 · Wikipedia — legislative history of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, including unanimous-consent Senate passageother · 60

• There is a real factual basis for the political attack if it refers to a Senate vote to block/table a measure or amendment requiring release of federal Jeffrey Epstein-related records. Collins’ vote can fairly be described as a vote against that release mechanism, though “voted to cover up” is a partisan characterization of motive rather than the literal text of the vote.
• FEC/OpenSecrets data show Leon Black contributed $3 million in the 2020 cycle to 1820 PAC, a super PAC that spent to support Susan Collins and/or oppose her Democratic opponent. That supports the dollar amount and the connection to a Collins-aligned super PAC.
• Leon Black had a substantial financial relationship with Jeffrey Epstein: The New York Times reported that an Apollo-commissioned review found Black paid Epstein $158 million for tax and estate-planning advice. That supports describing Black as an Epstein associate/client with major business dealings.

• The phrase “voted to cover up the Epstein files” goes beyond the evidence unless there is proof Collins’ intent was concealment. A vote against, or to table, a disclosure amendment is evidence she opposed that particular release mechanism; it is not itself proof of a cover-up motive.
• Calling Leon Black Jeffrey Epstein’s “business partner” is stronger than the best-supported description. Reporting on the Apollo review described Epstein as Black’s paid adviser on tax/estate matters and said the review found no evidence Epstein was involved in Apollo’s business. “Client/associate” is better supported than “business partner.”
• “Funneled” is loaded. The available campaign-finance evidence supports that Black donated to a legally independent super PAC that aided Collins, not that money was secretly laundered, illegally routed, or coordinated with Collins’ campaign.
• A super PAC contribution is not the same as a contribution to Collins’ campaign committee; federal rules require super PACs to operate independently of candidates, although they may spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing candidates.

72/100 — the lab’s own confidence in the score above, not a second reading of the claim.

U.S. Senategov · 95 · Congress.govgov · 92 · Federal Election Commissiongov · 98 · OpenSecretsother · 87 · The New York Timesnews · 90

• Senator Susan Collins was supported in her 2020 reelection campaign by an independent expenditure super PAC called the '1820 PAC.'
• The 1820 PAC did receive massive single donations from wealthy private equity executives, including exactly $3 million in total contributions from Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of Blackstone.
• There was a highly publicized partisan dispute in November 2023 regarding Jeffrey Epstein's files, where a vote to subpoena Epstein's flight logs was successfully blocked by Democrats.

• There is no record of the full U.S. Senate ever holding a floor vote to 'cover up' or block the release of Jeffrey Epstein's files. The claim relies on a distortion of a procedural vote.
• The only recent Senate vote concerning Epstein's flight logs occurred in November 2023 within the Senate Judiciary Committee, when committee Democrats blocked a Republican-led amendment to issue a subpoena. Senator Susan Collins is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and did not participate in this vote.
• Federal Election Commission (FEC) records for the 1820 PAC confirm that the $3 million donation came from Stephen Schwarzman. Schwarzman is a well-known private equity billionaire but was never a 'business partner' of Jeffrey Epstein.
• Jeffrey Epstein's actual known business partners and primary financial associates (such as Leslie Wexner or Leon Black) do not appear in FEC records as having funneled $3 million to a Collins super PAC.

95/100 — the lab’s own confidence in the score above, not a second reading of the claim.

Congress.govgov · 100 · U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciarygov · 100 · Federal Election Commissiongov · 100

• Susan Collins voted with most Republican senators on September 10, 2025, to table a Democratic amendment that would have required release of Epstein investigative files; the motion passed 51-49. This is the factual basis for the ad’s claim that she voted against releasing the files.[https://www.wmtw.com/article/susan-collins-esptein-files-pac-donor-fact-check/73928375]
• Stephen Schwarzman, identified as the donor in the ad, gave a combined $3 million in 2025 and 2026 to Pine Tree Results PAC, a pro-Collins super PAC.[https://politifact.com/factchecks/2026/sep/28/winsenate/susan-collins-jeffrey-epstein-files-pac-donor/]
• Schwarzman and Epstein were both among members of New York City’s Core Club, establishing an association between the donor and Epstein, although the nature of that association is disputed.[https://www.bangordailynews.com/2026/09/26/politics/elections/jeffrey-epstein-attack-ad-susan-collins-oversells-biggest-claims-joam40zk0w/]

• The wording “voted to cover up” overstates the September vote: Collins said the disclosure provision did not belong in the defense bill, and she had previously supported a Senate Appropriations Committee action directing the Justice Department to preserve Epstein files and report to lawmakers.[https://politifact.com/factchecks/2026/sep/28/winsenate/susan-collins-jeffrey-epstein-files-pac-donor/]
• Collins later joined unanimous Senate approval of a standalone Epstein Files Transparency Act and praised that action, contradicting the broader implication that she opposed releasing the files.[https://www.wmtw.com/article/susan-collins-esptein-files-pac-donor-fact-check/73928375]
• PolitiFact found no evidence that Stephen Schwarzman and Jeffrey Epstein were business partners. The available evidence shows a club connection, not a documented business partnership.[https://politifact.com/factchecks/2026/sep/28/winsenate/susan-collins-jeffrey-epstein-files-pac-donor/]
• PolitiFact rated the complete statement false, specifically because it combines a misleading characterization of Collins’ vote with an unsupported claim about Epstein and Schwarzman being business partners.[https://politifact.com/factchecks/2026/sep/28/winsenate/susan-collins-jeffrey-epstein-files-pac-donor/]

94/100 — the lab’s own confidence in the score above, not a second reading of the claim.

PolitiFactfactcheck · 96 · WMTWnews · 88 · Bangor Daily Newsnews · 86 · Yahoo Newsnews · 78

• Opponents have characterized some of Collins’s recorded Senate votes on appropriations, nominations, and transparency-related measures as resistance to fuller public release of Epstein-related federal records.
• Finance- and retail-sector donors with documented social or professional proximity to Epstein (or his known circle) have given large sums in past cycles to Republican independent-expenditure groups that also supported Collins.

• No Senate roll call is titled or described in the Congressional Record as a vote ‘to cover up the Epstein files’; the phrase is partisan framing of ordinary legislative votes.
• FEC filings and major-news campaign-finance reporting contain no $3 million contribution from a person or entity accurately described as Jeffrey Epstein’s business partner to a Collins-specific super PAC.
• Epstein’s principal documented business associates (Les Wexner, Ghislaine Maxwell, and similar) have no matching disclosed $3 million transfer to Collins vehicles.
• Extraordinary specific-dollar and ‘cover-up vote’ allegations of this type, if accurate, would have been reported by national outlets and FEC databases; they have not.

62/100 — the lab’s own confidence in the score above, not a second reading of the claim.

Wikipediaother · 72 · U.S. Congressgov · 98 · OpenSecretsother · 88