The heated race for the Republican nomination in 19th congressional district grew more pitched on Monday with John Faso releasing a TV ad knocking his GOP opponent, Andrew Heaney.

Heaney’s campaign, meanwhile, released an attack on Faso for not agreeing to a series of debates ahead of next month’s primary.

In the Faso campaign ad, Heaney is criticized as a “New York City millionaire” who has launched false attacks on Faso’s record as a lobbyist working with the firm Manatt Phelps.

And, as his campaign has done repeatedly, the ad knocks Heaney for donating to President Obama’s campaign in 2007.

New York Post columnist Fred Dicker is also featured in the spot, saying “there is no indication that Faso is guilty of the things Heaney is accusing him of.”

The Heaney campaign, however, is knocking Faso for his “reluctance” to agree to a series of three debates (including Time Warner Cable News among others) and pointed to Faso’s firm donating money to Democratic candidates through a political action committee.

The Heaney campaign, too, insists Faso should be tied more closely to the firm that employed him after he left elected office.

From the Heaney campaign:

But in fact John Faso was not just another employee at Manatt, he was a partner. According to a December 1, 2006 press release: “Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, the national law and consulting firm, announced today that John J. Faso rejoined the firm as a government and regulatory partner in New York following a leave of absence to undertake his New York gubernatorial campaign.”

John Faso was not just another employee he was the “Albany based partner lobbyist” upon which Manatt’s fine and ban were based. According to reports, even Faso’s lawyer, Steptoe & Johnson’s Evan Barr, identified him as the unamed Albany based partner “at the center of the investigation.”

Moreover there are multiple reports that indicate Faso unsuccessfully represented clients before the Comptrollers office. Most importantly, if Faso was just another employee, as he claims, the firm would have not been liable for his actions.