Majority Action, a liberal 527 group funded by investor George Soros, ran a radio ad last weekend that attacks U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's record on mileage standards.

What it says: "Gas prices are over $4 a gallon, and if you’re traveling this holiday weekend one person you can thank for your higher fuel costs is Elizabeth Dole. In July of 2003, Dole voted against raising fuel mileage standards for our cars and trucks. If Dole had voted to raise mileage standards then, they would be taking effect today and North Carolina families could be saving $1,600 or more on fuel costs every year. Dole has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry and voted to give oil company giants like ExxonMobil billions in tax breaks."

The background: In 2003, the U.S. Senate debated a mammoth energy bill for more than two months. One amendment to the bill would have raised mileage standards on new cars, trucks and SUVs by specific benchmarks over several years, including 32 miles per gallon in 2008.

Dole voted against that amendment, which failed by nearly a two-thirds vote. She voted for a different amendment that would have left mileage standards up to the U.S. secretary of transportation.

In the end, both amendments were a moot point, since the bill never came to a vote.

According to a 2006 U.S. Department of Energy report, the average vehicle in the United States gets 20.2 mpg. In theory, a household with two cars both going the average 12,408 miles a year could save more than $1,600 a year on gas if they got 32 mpg instead.

Still, that presumes that the family replaced both cars and did not change its driving habits.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dole has received $261,456 from the oil and gas industries since her election in 2002.

But as FactCheck.org has reported, while the 2005 energy bill that Dole supported had $2.6 billion in tax cuts for oil and gas companies, it also had $2.9 billion in tax hikes for those same companies — a net increase of $300 million over 11 years.

Is the ad accurate? It's a stretch.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's campaign has one more caveat on that 527 ad.

In an e-mail to Dome, campaign manager Marty Ryall notes another problem with Majority Action's radio ad attacking Dole's 2003 vote against a provision to raise mileage standards.

As Ryall points out, the amendment failed 65-32.

"If Senator Dole had voted for the amendment it would have failed 33 to 64 instead of 32 to 65," Ryall writes. "(Is) Majority Action running any ads against the 18 Democrats that voted the same way as Senator Dole?"

They have a fair point about the group running ads against Democrats, especially since it is a so-called "issue ad" that supposedly has nothing to do with the ongoing Senate race.

But the ad is artfully worded to avoid singling Dole out for blame:

"Gas prices are over $4 a gallon, and if you're traveling this holiday weekend one person you can thank for your higher fuel costs is Elizabeth Dole." (Emphasis ours)

Of course, if you're paying a lot for gas because you drive a car, truck or SUV that gets low gas mileage, another person you can thank is yourself.

How much would higher mileage standards save you?

A radio ad by a 527 group against U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole claims that higher standards proposed in a 2003 bill would save North Carolina families "$1,600 or more" a year on gas.

Dome ran through Majority Action's math and found that the numbers they provided added up.

But what about their argument? Here are a few caveats to consider:

* People drive less when gas costs more. Majority Action's argument rests on comparing the average miles-per-gallon of U.S. vehicles with the proposed benchmarks from 2003 and multiplying it by the number of miles driven. But it does not factor in the fact that people tend to drive less when gas prices rise.

* People still own older cars. The comparison between the average mileage of existing U.S. vehicles with the proposed benchmarks for new cars is specious, since people tend to hang on to older cars. In fact, the same report (page 55) they cite showed that more than half of U.S. cars in 2001 were more than five years old. 

* North Carolina is not the United States. Majority Action used national figures for miles-per-gallon, number of vehicles owned and number of miles driven, but the ad refers to "North Carolina families." If anything, North Carolinians probably drive more than residents of more mass transit-friendly states, but it's worth noting the distinction.  

In the end, it's true that families driving higher mileage vehicles will spend less on gas, but there are a lot of factors to consider when trying to put an exact dollar figure on the savings.

Would higher mileage standards really save you money?

A radio ad by a 527 group against U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole claims that higher standards proposed in a 2003 bill would save North Carolina families "$1,600 or more on fuel costs every year."

We asked Majority Action how they got to that number. Here's their chain of logic and a quick double-checking of the figures:

* According to a November 2005 report (page 17) from the U.S. Department of Energy, the average American household with a car, truck or SUV owns 1.9 of them.

* The same report (page 60) found that the average miles-per-gallon of vehicles in U.S. households was 20.2 mpg.

* A report from the U.S. Department of Transportation found that the average miles traveled in 2006 was 12,408 per vehicle.

* Gas is currently about $4 a gallon, so the average U.S. vehicle-owning household is spending $4,668 a year on gas. (12,408 miles times 1.9 vehicles divided by 20.2 miles per gallon times $4 a gallon.)

* If the average fuel efficiency were 32 miles per gallon — the figure mandated by the failed 2003 amendment — those same households would be spending $2,947 a year on gas. (12,408 times 1.9 divided by 32 times $4.)

That adds up to a savings of $1,721. (The number is slightly higher because Majority Action used 1.8 vehicles per household instead of 1.9.) Still, there are a few caveats to that number.

We'll look at them next.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole faced two key votes on mileage standards in 2003.

At the time, the U.S. Senate was considering a mammoth energy bill, with debate going on for more than two months. Two of the many proposed amendments to the bill touched on Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for cars, trucks and SUVs.

At the time, the mileage standards were 27.5 mpg for cars and 20 mpg for SUVs and minivans.

Durbin Amendment: Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, proposed raising mileage standards by specific amounts, including a benchmark of 32 miles per gallon by 2008. The amendment failed 65-32, with Dole voting against it.

On the Senate floor, Durbin argued that the existing standards were causing "more air pollution" and "creating a bigger soup in the atmosphere to heat up our planet Earth."

Bond-Levin Amendment: Sens. Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, and Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, then proposed directing the Secretary of Transportation to raise mileage standards to the "maximum feasible" amount. The amendment passed 66-30, with Dole voting for it.

Arguing for his amendment, Bond said that too-high standards would lead to more dangerous car accidents and said that car buyers favor safety over mileage standards.

In the end, both votes were a moot point, since the Senate energy bill was shelved and never came to a vote.

In an e-mail to Dome today, a Dole staffer said the Durbin standards were "arbitrary" and would have favored foreign automakers.

"The amendment that was rejected would have been unrealistic and have cost thousands of manufacturing jobs," wrote Marty Ryall.