HELENA -- This 30-second ad by the Montana Democratic Party, criticizing U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, began running July 13 in markets around the state, primarily Billings and Great Falls. It was produced by Squier Knapp Dunn Communications, a Washington, D.C., and New York City-based firm.

Content: The ad shows flashing images of confessed felon and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Sen. Burns, stacks of money, oil wells at sunset, someone putting gas in a car, and others.

Script: Narrator: " 'Every appropriation we wanted from Burns, we got.' That's what convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff said about Conrad Burns. But he's not alone. Burns took $490,000 from the big oil and gas industry, then gave them billions in tax breaks. And Burns sided with big oil voting against greater use of renewable fuels. Now: record profits for big oil while Montana pays at the pump. Burns is delivering, but not for Montana.''

Analysis: The ad makes a clumsy and generally misleading attempt to suggest that while Burns received campaign donations from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and allegedly did his bidding, Burns also received money from "big oil'' and voted to make life easier for oil companies on the backs of Montanans. The comparison doesn't hold up.

The oil-and-gas lobby has not been a dominant contributor to Burns' campaign funds. The votes cited to support the ad are either misrepresented, or are on other legislation designed to do something other than help the oil industry -- although they did affect the industry. The ad also fails to show that Burns' two votes contributed in any significant way to the record-breaking profits enjoyed by some energy companies and higher gasoline prices.

The quote from Abramoff is from an article published in the April 2006 edition of Vanity Fair magazine. Abramoff was quoted: "Every appropriation we wanted from Burns' subcommittee, we got. Our staffs were as close as they could be. They practically used (Abramoff's restaurant) Signatures as their cafeteria. I mean, it's a little difficult for (Burns) to run from that record.''

It's accurate to say that Burns received about $490,000 from "big oil,'' but it's measured over 17 years, and is a small percentage of his total campaign funds for that period.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C- based group that tracks money in politics, says Burns received $510,000 in campaign donations from oil interests.

The ad refers to Burns' vote in favor of a 2006 major tax cut bill as the "billions in tax cuts'' Burns supported for oil companies. This bill involved a wide variety of tax cuts and rebates that had nothing to do with the oil industry. While there was debate in the Senate about removing oil-company tax cuts from the bill, a vote on that particular element never came before Burns. He voted in favor of the entire bill, which passed on a mostly party-line vote, with Republicans in favor.

Burns' alleged vote against "greater use of renewable fuels'' was in 2004, when he voted on an amendment to require more ethanol in U.S. gasoline. The amendment would have been attached to an unrelated Internet bill. Burns voted on a procedural motion that essentially opposed the amendment, but the amendment itself never actually came to a vote. Burns voted in favor of the final bill, which had nothing to do with ethanol.

It's hard to see how these two votes by Burns have much to do with the oil industry's record profits and the rising cost of gasoline.