There are moments in politics when an attack ad crosses the line from hard-hitting criticism into something far more dangerous: a distortion that preys on fear and outrage. That is exactly what is happening in Arizona’s 1st Congressional District, where a new television spot is accusing Dr. Amish Shah, the Democratic nominee, of having voted to let convicted child molesters “back into our schools.” The ad, paid for by a group called Safety and Affordability PAC—an offshoot of the pro-Donald Trump operation MAGA Inc.—is designed to make voters feel angry and unsafe. But the claim is false. It misrepresents both Shah’s record and the facts of a painful, decades-old case involving a young girl named Kayleigh Kozak. Shah never voted to put abusers near children. He never supported a law that would open school doors to predators. And the real story behind the ad is far more complicated—and far less sinister—than the thirty-second spot suggests. In a race that is already being called one of the most competitive House contests of 2026, the ad is a textbook example of how political messaging can weaponize tragedy for electoral gain, leaving voters with a distorted picture of a candidate whose actual record on child safety is not only defensible, but genuinely strong.
The emotional core of the ad revolves around the horrifying case of Kayleigh Kozak, a young Arizona girl who was sexually abused by her teacher and soccer coach, Josh Jacobson, nearly twenty years ago. The details of that betrayal are stomach-churning: an adult in a position of trust, abusing a child in his care. The ad uses her story to suggest that Shah somehow enabled Jacobson’s release or supported his ability to roam free after a shockingly short sentence. But that is simply not true. Shah had nothing whatsoever to do with Jacobson’s sentencing, his parole, or his supervision. Jacobson was never given the kind of leniency the ad implies. Court records show that when Jacobson avoided a longer prison term, it was because he agreed to strict probation conditions that explicitly prohibited him from having any contact with minors. The conditions went even further: if he ever did find himself near children, the parents of those children had to sign notarized letters allowing the contact. According to KTVK News, Jacobson accepted those restrictions precisely to avoid a longer incarceration. At no point was he legally permitted to enter school buildings or interact with children. The ad’s voiceover says her perpetrator was “back on our streets” after “only nine months in jail,” but that framing leaves out the reality of his supervised release and the fact that Shah was not even in public office at the time. Shah served in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2019 to 2024. Jacobson’s case was long over by then. The implication that Shah is somehow responsible for Jacobson’s freedom is not just misleading—it is a fabrication.
So what is the ad actually referring to when it claims Shah opposed a law requiring “pedophiles” to notify schools of their past convictions? The legislation in question is Senate Bill 1253, a proposal that would have required sex offenders who were legal guardians of students to annually notify the school of their offender status. On its face, that might sound like common sense. Who could possibly oppose a law that tells schools about convicted sex offenders? But the reality is far more nuanced. The Arizona Department of Public Safety already maintains a sex offender registry and already notifies school districts about registered offenders in their areas. SB 1253 would not have provided schools with any new information—it would have simply added an extra layer of paperwork and a redundant reporting requirement. Worse, advocates warned that the law could have unintended and harmful consequences. Because it targeted sex offenders who were also legal guardians of students, it would have effectively exposed the children of those offenders to bullying, harassment, and stigma. Imagine a child whose parent made a terrible mistake years ago, served their time, and is now trying to rebuild a life. Under this bill, that child’s classmates would be able to find out that their parent is a registered sex offender, simply because they had to drop the child off at school. That is not a public safety measure—it is a recipe for humiliating innocent kids. This is why Shah opposed the bill. It was not because he was soft on predators. It was because the law was redundant, poorly targeted, and likely to cause more harm than good.
The legislative history of SB 1253 further undermines the ad’s claims. The bill narrowly passed the Arizona House in 2023, but it was vetoed by Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs. If the law were truly a critical public safety measure, one might expect bipartisan urgency to override the veto. That did not happen. The bill died, not because of Shah alone, but because of a broader recognition that the proposal was flawed. In fact, the very idea that Shah’s opposition to this one bill makes him an ally of child molesters ignores his actual record on sexual abuse prevention and survivor justice. Shah voted in favor of Kayleigh’s Law, a piece of legislation named after the very woman whose story the attack ad exploits. Kayleigh’s Law made it a class 1 misdemeanor for a convicted abuser to contact their victims. That means Shah supported a law that specifically protected survivors from further harassment and intimidation by their abusers. He also supported a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for child sexual assault survivors to file civil lawsuits against their abusers and against institutions—including schools—that enabled or covered up such abuse. These are not the actions of someone who is soft on child predators. They are the actions of someone who understands that real justice for survivors requires more than just catchy campaign slogans. It requires changing the laws so that victims have a genuine path to accountability, both criminal and civil.
The attack ad also reflects a troubling pattern in modern politics: using real victims as props to smear opponents, without any regard for the truth or for the survivors themselves. Kayleigh Kozak did not ask to become a campaign talking point. Her trauma is being repackaged as a political weapon in a district that is expected to be fiercely contested. That is not just unfair to Shah—it is unfair to Kozak and to every survivor who has to watch their worst experience be twisted for partisan advantage. The ad’s anonymous funders, operating through Safety and Affordability PAC, are banking on voters reacting emotionally rather than factually. They want you to hear “child molester” and “schools” in the same breath as Shah’s name, and to make a snap judgment based on fear. But when you actually look at the facts, the entire narrative collapses. Shah did not support putting abusers in classrooms. He did not oppose real measures to keep children safe. He opposed a redundant bill that would have stigmatized innocent children. He supported laws that extended the statute of limitations for survivors and made it a crime for abusers to contact their victims. That is a record that deserves scrutiny, but it also deserves respect. The district deserves a campaign that talks about real issues—affordability, healthcare, education—rather than one that traffics in lies about a man’s commitment to protecting children.
In the end, this ad is less about Shah and more about the state of our political discourse. It is easier to manufacture outrage than to engage in honest debate. It is easier to take a complex legislative vote and reduce it to a sinister soundbite. But voters are capable of more. They can handle the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. And the truth here is that Amish Shah, a physician who spent his career serving patients and then serving in the Arizona Legislature, has a record on child safety that is far better than the ad suggests. His opponent, former NFL kicker Jay Feely, may benefit from the ad in the short term, but the broader question is whether voters in Arizona’s 1st District will allow themselves to be manipulated by dark money groups that have no connection to their community. The race is competitive because the district is genuinely divided, and both candidates deserve a fair hearing. But when a political action committee has to resort to false accusations about child molestation to score points, it reveals not strength, but desperation. The ad is a lie, wrapped in the tragedy of a survivor’s pain, aimed at deceiving the public. It should be rejected, not because Shah is beyond criticism, but because the accusations are demonstrably false. And in a democracy, falsehoods that exploit victims are not just bad politics—they are an insult to everyone who cares about the truth.