TV Ads Favor Biden 2:1 in Last Month

Photo: Becker1999/Flickr

Record Breaking Volume of US House and US Senate Airings

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) September 9, 2020 – A new analysis from the Wesleyan Media Project, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that pro-Biden television ads have dominated the presidential race in the past month. Since August 10, Joe Biden and his group supporters have aired 106,000 television ads at a cost of $58.9 million compared to 57,000 ads at a cost of $35.8 million for Trump and his group supporters (Table 1). Biden’s campaign has put up 92,000 ad airings (at a cost of almost $46 million), while Trump’s campaign has aired 26,000 ad airings at a cost of about $14 million. America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC, has spent $6.7 million on ads in the past month.

Table 1: Top Spenders in Presidential Race on TV (since August 10)

Sponsor	Airings	Spend ($)	Party Lean
Biden, Joe	92,360	45,815,160	D
Trump, Donald	26,159	13,776,640	R
America First Action	10,887	6,746,710	R
Club for Growth Action	6556	4,648,360	R
The Lincoln Project	2103	3,685,500	D
AB PAC	5710	3,348,860	D
NRA Victory Fund, Inc.	6039	3,194,100	R
Preserve America PAC	4855	3,092,420	R
Restoration PAC	2090	2,883,130	R
Americans For Limited Government	2944	2,629,090	D
Priorities USA Action	2612	2,248,800	D
Committee to Defend the President	218	1,342,210	R
Future Majority, Inc	164	422,220	D
EDF Action Votes	170	264,270	D
Unite the Country	191	118,140	D
Independent Women's Voice & Patients for Real Prices	9	112,920	R
MeidasTouch	113	108,920	D
Nuestro PAC	78	99,710	D
Republican Voters Against Trump	9	48,350	D
America's Progressive Promise PAC	2	30,710	D
AFT Solidarity	5	20,830	D
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association	5	19,330	D
ELPC Action Fund	25	4,300	D
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television and national cable between August 10 and September 4, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

All told, spending on broadcast television and national cable ads in the presidential race, including massive Bloomberg spending during the nomination campaign, is up to $993 million. Television ad spending in all federal races—including Senate, House and the presidential race—now totals $1.54 billion.

The ad advantage to Biden on television overall and in the last month is shown in Figure 1. (National ad buys are excluded from the map, but Biden has and even greater advantage there too, with more national cable spending than Trump and allies and 1,882 airings to 301 for Trump.) When looking at the full general election (defined here as April 9, which is the day after Bernie Sanders dropped out), pro-Biden and pro-Trump totals have been more balanced (247,053 pro-Trump airings to 207,737 pro-Biden spots), with both sides spending nearly the same ($126m for Biden and allies compared to $128.5m for the pro-Trump side). Changing the time filter to the last month shows clearly how the ad balance has tilted in Biden’s favor recently.

“Early in the general election period, Trump was massively out-airing Biden,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “In our earlier analysis of May and June ad totals, the Trump campaign had put up over 50,000 spots to Biden’s 3,000. With the fall campaign ramping up, the imbalance has heavily tipped to Biden.”

Figure 1: Advertising Advantage in the Presidential Race on Television

Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television (excluding national cable airings) between April 9 and September 4, 2020, and between August 10 and September 4, 2020.
Figure by Delta Lab’s Spencer Dean ’21 and Kevin McMorrow ’20
Download the data in this map as a spreadsheet.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Phoenix is Top Media Market in Presidential Race in Last Month

When it comes to both presidential ad airings and spending, the Phoenix media market sits on top (Table 2). The presidential campaigns and supportive groups have spent almost $8 million in Phoenix on almost 10,800 ad airings in the past month. Tucson, Arizona, ranks third in terms of total airings. Media markets in Florida (Tampa, Orlando and Miami), Wisconsin (Green Bay and Milwaukee) and Pennsylvania (Harrisburg and Pittsburgh) also make the top 10 in total ad airings for the past month. Pro-Biden forces have out-aired Trump and his allies in all top 25 markets since August 10.

Table 2: Airings and Spending by Media Market in Presidential Race (Since August 10)

Media Market	Airings	Spend ($)	Dem group spend ($)	Rep group spend ($)	Dem cand spend ($)	Rep Cand spend ($)	Rep (Trump) advantage
Phoenix, AZ	10,786	7,949,760	1,007,080	2,809,340	3,330,150	803,190	-1334
Tampa, FL	6,807	4,254,880	748,890	125,130	2,588,060	792,800	-3021
Tucson, AZ	6,573	2,838,920	73,130	1,066,710	1,293,470	405,610	-1907
Green Bay, WI	6,538	2,496,730	592,970	1,072,250	695,050	136,460	-682
Harrisburg, PA	6,383	4,542,090	1,038,530	1,843,600	1,656,660	3,300	-1445
Milwaukee, WI	6,211	3,186,640	605,790	1,106,000	1,232,660	242,190	-1003
Orlando, FL	5,676	4,848,170	531,240	109,810	3,186,180	1,020,940	-2186
Raleigh, NC	5,581	3,191,180	0	1,543,900	1,276,440	370,840	-527
Miami, FL	5,368	3,014,750	13,520	0	2,236,670	764,560	-2502
Pittsburgh, PA	5,316	4,881,290	1,432,250	2,180,830	1,268,210	0	-1520
La Crosse, WI	5,301	1,806,820	307,050	744,020	620,330	135,420	-543
Charlotte, NC	4,922	2,647,580	225,580	95,620	1,508,680	817,700	-1834
Philadelphia, PA	4,653	4,163,490	0	1,629,340	2,534,150	0	-2325
Johnstown, PA	4,650	1,819,870	388,100	892,980	538,790	0	-1010
Wilkes Barre, PA	4,583	2,221,470	442,020	1,226,010	553,440	0	-599
Greensboro, NC	4,577	1,360,820	0	714,920	507,770	138,130	-819
Wausau, WI	4,200	2,908,150	542,160	862,040	1,071,860	432,090	-298
Jacksonville, FL	3,982	1,194,320	336,910	74,220	578,120	205,070	-1584
Erie, PA	3,669	1,514,990	432,240	777,880	304,870	0	-141
Madison, WI	3,485	1,568,060	126,040	339,530	915,870	186,620	-1267
Detroit, MI	3,460	2,948,230	1,150,240	161,200	1,636,790	0	-3346
Ft. Myers, FL	3,032	1,104,230	130,680	0	687,800	285,750	-1464
Grand Rapids, MI	2,998	1,011,280	68,560	230,330	712,390	0	-1738
West Palm Beach, FL	2,918	1,273,130	221,030	0	725,300	326,800	-1146
Greenville, NC	2,666	616,240	0	175,370	308,640	132,230	-502
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television and national cable between August 10 and September 4, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Trump Leads Biden in Digital Spending but Gap Narrows

Trump continues to have the upper hand in digital advertising, on both Facebook and Google, though the margin is shrinking (see Table 3). Since early August, Trump’s campaign has spent about $45 million on ads on Facebook and Google, compared to $34 million for Biden’s campaign.

“Although Trump has outspent Biden on digital ads in the past month, that gap has narrowed from earlier in the year, when Trump’s digital spending massively outpaced Biden’s,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “Keep in mind also that much of this spending is not directed at persuasion; some of it is spending aimed at raising additional campaign funds.”

Table 3: Digital Ad Spending by Presidential Candidates and Single-Candidate SuperPACs

	FB $ (since mid-April)	FB $ (since early-Aug)	Google $ (since mid-April)	Google $ (since early-Aug)	FB+Google $ (since mid-April)	FB+Google $ (since early-Aug)
Biden	38,454,744	18,224,014	30,754,100	16,195,000	69,208,844	34,419,014
Trump	63,175,837	22,701,734	48,063,900	22,262,900	111,239,737	44,964,634
Unite the Country (pro-Biden)	734,831	404,179	29,900	21,600	764,731	425,779
Great America PAC (pro-Trump)	44,150	7,240	0	0	44,150	7,240
Digital spending figures come from the Facebook ad library reports and the Google Transparency Report. Spending covers April 9 or August 9 to September 4, 2020 (for Facebook); April 12 or August 9 to September 5, 2020 (for Google). Candidate spending numbers include spending by official campaign committees, leadership PACs, and joint fundraising committees. See “About the Data” section at the end of this report for more information on our methodology along with the specific page names and disclaimers that are counted.

Looking at the regional impressions for Trump and Biden on Facebook between August 9 and September 5 (Figure 2) reveals that both California and Florida are key areas of spending by the Biden and Trump campaigns. Texas ranks third in impressions for Trump while Pennsylvania is third for Biden.

Figure 2: Regional Focus of Facebook Advertising by Top Sponsors Over Time

Digital spending comes from the Facebook ad library reports. Data visualization application by Delta Lab’s Roshaan Siddiqui ’22. Classifications from the Wesleyan Media Project with help from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Television Ad Volumes Up Over Past Two Cycles

Overall, the volume of presidential advertising is much higher than in 2016—and in the past week was higher than in 2012 (Figure 3). Total volume is higher because of the heavy Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spending earlier in the Democratic nomination phase of the campaign. Airings bottomed-out in late March and the first half of April but have been steadily rising since June—and have since regularly come close to 2016 totals, even surpassing them in the most recent week.

Figure 3: Number of Presidential Ad Airings by Week (2012, 2016 and 2020)

Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

Senate airings are well above levels in 2012 and 2016. Indeed, the number of airings in the most recent week was about four times as much as in 2012 and 2016 (Figure 4).

“Certainly, the competitive nature of many Senate races—and the fact that control of the Senate is up for grabs this year—has made it easy for campaigns to raise money for Senate advertising,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

Figure 4: Number of Senate Ad Airings by Week (2012, 2016 and 2020)

Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

Figure 5 shows that House airings are also way up over 2012 and 2016. Week-to-week totals in the last six weeks have outpaced those earlier cycles by two to four times. More generally the Democratic majority in the House is not as vulnerable as GOP control of the U.S. Senate. Still, in the last month 20 House races have featured at least 2,000 airings on broadcast television stations. This included 12,000 airings in two Massachusetts primary campaigns, which were held on September 1.

Figure 5: Number of House Ad Airings by Week (2012, 2016 and 2020)

Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project

One Nation Spends Heavily on Senate TV, Digital Ads

The conservative group, One Nation, has been the top group spender in federal races this election cycle (among those groups that have spent on television). The group, which does not disclose its donors, has spent over $42 million on in support of Republican candidates in 11 U.S. Senate races—most of them extremely competitive. Table 4 looks at the top TV spenders in federal races (in the full cycle-to-date) and compares that spending to their Google and Facebook ad totals. Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic-leaning super PAC, has spent over $32 million on television, Facebook and Google in many of those same Senate races as One Nation. While most groups airing ads on television have spent vastly more on television than on Facebook or Google ads, Priorities USA Action is an exception, with $12 million Facebook ad spending and $4 million in Google ad spending.

Table 4: Top Outside Group Spenders

Sponsor	Party Lean	Television Spend ($)	FB spend ($)	Google spend ($)	Total ($)	Races (with TV ads)
One Nation	R	40,353,950	843,761	1,450,900	42,648,611	Sen: AL, AZ, CO, GA, IA, KS, KY, ME, MI, MT, NC
Senate Majority PAC	D	30,437,320	933,031	692,500	32,062,851	AZ, CO, GA, IA, ME, MI, MT, NC
Duty and Honor	D	22,244,230	382,943	223,400	22,850,573	AL, AZ, CO, GA, ME, MI, MT, NC
Majority Forward	D	22,017,350	674,903	335,000	23,027,253	AZ, CO, GA, IA, ME, MI, MT, NC
Doctor Patient Unity	R	21,524,640	803,226	0	22,327,866	Sen: AL, AZ, CO, GA, IA, KY, LA, ME, MI, MN, NC, NH, TX, VA; House: CA 23
Priorities USA Action	D	20,220,040	12,123,371	3,938,500	36,281,911	Pres
America First Action	R	19,201,930	1,526,920	1,838,700	22,567,550	Pres
Senate Leadership Fund	R	14,577,900	230,286	972,400	15,780,586	Pres; Sen: GA, IA, KS, ME, MT, NC
AB PAC	D	14,526,000	940,245	0	15,466,245	Pres
Club for Growth Action	R	14,245,360	1,302,790	137,100	15,685,250	Pres; Sen: AL, KS; House: AL01, AL02, FL19, GA07, GA09, IN05, KY04, ME02, MI10, NC03, NC09, OK05, SC01, TN01, TX12, TX21, VA07, WI07
Unite the Country	D	10,351,540	1,610,273	336,000	12,297,813	Pres
Persist PAC	D	9,622,250	347,718	367,100	10,337,068	Pres
VoteVets	D	9,321,370	261,155	26,100	9,608,625	Pres; Sen: NC, ME, NC, TX; House: NM03
House Majority Forward	D	8,535,940	140,550	161,100	8,837,590	House: CA21, CA49, IA01, IA03, ME02, MI08, MI11, MN02, NC09, NH01, NM02, NV03, NY19, NY22, NY24, OK05, PA08, PA10, SC01, TX16, UT04, VA02, VA07
American Action Network	R	7,828,320	887,858	937,200	9,653,378	House: IA01, IA03, IL13, ME02, MI08, MN01, MN07, NC08, NE02, NJ03, NM02, NV03, NY19, NY21, NY22, NY24, OK05, PA08, PA10, PA17, SC01, UT04, VA02, VA07
The Lincoln Project	D	7,373,960	3,123,389	50,300	10,547,649	Pres; Sen: AK, AZ, IA, KY, ME, MT, NC
Restoration PAC	R	7,058,180	435,987	345,800	7,839,967	Pres; Sen: MI
VoteVets Action Fund	D	4,922,140	649,586	152,700	5,724,426	Sen: AZ, MI, NC; House: NC09, NY24, VA05
U.S. Chamber of Commerce	R	4,729,420	1,429,104	86,700	6,245,224	Sen: AZ, CO, IA, KS, ME, NC; House: IA04
Women Vote	D	4,617,910	254,513	67,300	4,939,723	Sen: IA, TX; House: IA02, IL03, NY24, VA05
Table shows television, Facebook and Google spending for the top group spenders on television. For TV, numbers include ads aired on broadcast television and national cable between January 1, 2019, and September 4, 2020. Facebook ads are between January 6, 2019, and September 4, 2020. Google ads are between January 6, 2019, and September 5, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Dark Money Common in House, Senate Races

In partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, the Wesleyan Media Project tracks outside group ad spending by the type of donor disclosure. We classify groups as full-disclosure groups (meaning they disclose contributor lists to the Federal Election Commission), non-disclosing dark money groups (which are not required to disclose publicly their donors; these are most often 501c4 non-profits), and partial-disclosure groups (those that disclose donors but also accept contributions from dark money sources).

Groups airing ads using nondisclosed money are quite common in Senate and House races, though less so in the presidential race (Table 5). The table looks at outside group spending and ad totals and calculates the share of those airings that come from different group types. Sixty-five percent of pro-Republican outside group airings in Senate races during the entire 2019-2020 election cycle were from groups that do not disclose their money—so-called “dark money” groups—while almost half of pro-Democratic airings in the U.S. Senate races were undisclosed. In House races, 55 percent of pro-Democratic group airings were from dark money groups, while 39 percent of pro-Republican group airings were from dark money groups.

By contrast, dark money group airings were relatively rare in the presidential race, just 9.2 percent of pro-Democratic and 20.7 percent of pro-Republican group airings. Still, the majority of the pro-Democratic group airings came from groups that partially disclose their donors.

Table 5: Group Spending by Race and Disclosure Type

		Full Disclosure	Partial	Non-Disclosing (Dark Money)	Total	% Dark
President
Pro-Dem	Airings	34,310	61,129	9,649	105,088	9.20%
	est. $	31,140,250	39,344,430	7,277,760	77,762,440
Pro-GOP	Airings	56,097	0	14,683	70,780	20.70%
	est. $	35,698,980	0	6,045,590	41,744,570
Senate
Pro-Dem	Airings	40,583	81,650	108,535	230,768	47.00%
	est. $	25,631,200	48,211,010	62,531,130	136,373,340
Pro-GOP	Airings	59,488	0	111,203	170,691	65.10%
	est. $	33,979,960	0	73,847,390	107,827,350
House
Pro-Dem	Airings	18,679	1,336	23,931	43,946	54.50%
	est. $	8,634,690	886,760	13,890,350	23,411,800
Pro-GOP	Airings	22,879	6,105	18,539	47,523	39.00%
	est. $	13,084,610	5,990,060	10,172,610	29,247,280
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television and national cable between January 1, 2019, and September 4, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project. Group classification provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Figure 6 looks at group spending rates between 2012 and 2020 in presidential and congressional races by week. We collapse partial and full disclosing groups into one category and plot the percentage of group airings from those groups. These graphs do not scale for volume but look only at the profile of groups on the air across the campaigns. Notably, in presidential elections, groups that publicly disclose all or partial lists of donors were more common than in congressional elections, where dark money groups were always a higher share of group ad totals.

In congressional races, dark money is more common early in the campaign, and full and partial disclosing groups constitute a higher share of group spending as Election Day approaches. In 2020, the share of fully and partially disclosing ads has plateaued in the last number of months, and as of early September, about half of outside group ads in congressional campaigns were from dark money groups.

Figure 6: Percentage of Group Ads Disclosing Donors by Cycle Over Time

Numbers include ads aired on broadcast and national cable television between January 1 of the off-cycle year and September 4 of the election year.
CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project. Group disclosure classifications provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

MT and GA Top Senate Races; NY-22 Top House Race

Tables 6 and 7 show spending in the top Senate and House races since August 10. At least 20,000 ads have aired in seven states with Senate races. Georgia has two Senate races, and 46,000 ads have aired across both. Montana has seen over 60,000 ads in the last month, with nearly even pro-Democratic and pro-GOP airings. Outside groups are heavily involved in these top races, with groups accounting for at least one-third of pro-Democratic and pro-Republican totals in the top seven states. All told, outside groups account for 42 percent of all Senate advertising since August 10.

Table 6: Airings and Spending by Race in U.S. Senate

State	Airings	Cost ($)	Pro-Dem Airings	Pro-GOP Airings	Dem Cand $	GOP Cand $	Dem Grp % (of Dem)	GOP Grp % (of GOP)
MT	61,058	19,527,980	30,465	30,593	1,472,480	1,649,660	45.8%	34.9%
GA*	46,051	24,712,140	23,801	22,238	3,134,600	1,663,830	57.8%	70.9%
IA	34,056	13,617,420	20,645	13,228	1,865,850	770,860	41.9%	58.4%
NC	26,602	21,101,500	13,307	12,565	1,987,540	1,553,550	71.6%	53.2%
AZ	21,726	12,982,100	11,668	10,058	3,146,960	2,015,810	43.5%	43.1%
MI	21,009	10,456,320	9,819	11,190	1,920,520	2,488,810	38.7%	37.0%
ME	20,428	12,978,110	11,443	8,985	1,316,180	597,030	54.1%	47.2%
SC	18,327	4,216,720	13,375	4,952	3,250,970	965,750	0.0%	0.0%
KY	18,289	5,887,810	10,945	7,344	2,227,570	1,217,190	2.9%	40.2%
AL	15,635	3,326,850	12,953	2,682	1,726,180	0	9.5%	100.0%
CO	14,163	9,358,800	6,566	7,597	2,142,950	1,513,100	45.2%	42.9%
MA	10,924	7,313,660	10,924	0	2,797,140	0	37.2%	0.0%
KS	10,771	4,156,570	6,913	3,858	1,106,640	400	20.7%	99.8%
AK	7,503	810,440	1,163	2,835	0	174,390	100.0%	20.2%
NM	1,428	257,480	1,145	283	181,690	75,790	0.0%	0.0%
NH	1,098	395,060	662	436	254,380	140,680	0.0%	0.0%
MN	571	58,900	571	0	58,900	0	0.0%	0.0%
DE	519	184,260	519	0	89,260	0	27.0%	0.0%
TX	347	287,530	0	347	0	287,530	0.0%	0.0%
VA	312	24,950	312	0	24,950	0	0.0%	0.0%
WV	252	123,480	0	0	0	0	0.0%	0.0%
NE	245	94,750	0	0	0	0	0.0%	0.0%
MS	230	5,250	230	0	5,250	0	0.0%	0.0%
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between August 10 and September 4, 2020. Spending by formal party organizations is reflected in the airing and spending totals (as are any ads from third party candidates) but is not separated out in columns in this table. *Spending in Georgia collapses across both races in the state. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

The top House race since August 10 is New York’s 22nd congressional district. As noted, two contested Democratic primary campaigns in Massachusetts are in the top 10. Outside groups are less involved in House races, but they did account for 2 in every 5 ads in the MA-01 race. All told, outside groups have sponsored 19 percent of House ads in these top 25 races in the last month.

Table 7: Airings and Spending by Race in U.S. House

District	Airings	Cost ($)	Pro-Dem Airings	Pro-GOP Airings	Dem cand $	GOP cand $	Dem Grp % (of Dem)	GOP Grp % (of GOP)
NY-22	7,616	932,770	5,072	2,544	451,340	0	0.0%	28.8%
MA-01	7,472	1,683,340	7,472	0	688,670	0	42.5%	0.0%
NM-02	6,799	1,325,290	5,276	1,523	502,900	201,990	25.7%	16.1%
NY-24	5,699	1,203,490	3,126	2,573	121,130	218,910	25.0%	9.9%
CA-21	5,689	824,070	3,806	1,883	219,200	0	34.7%	0.0%
MA-04	4,951	2,370,420	4,951	0	1,977,190	0	12.2%	0.0%
SC-01	4,620	1,479,170	2,844	1,776	383,190	0	30.1%	7.3%
OK-05	3,880	1,358,360	1,900	1,980	336,620	261,760	41.3%	52.9%
MT-01	3,442	391,150	2,480	962	241,960	149,190	0.0%	0.0%
VA-02	3,056	1,021,980	2,213	843	232,560	95,760	22.4%	59.0%
NY-21	4,088	654,130	2,757	1,331	391,310	262,820	0.0%	0.0%
ME-02	2,668	592,020	2,668	0	585,400	0	0.0%	0.0%
UT-04	2,582	518,290	2,335	247	489,410	1,570	0.0%	0.0%
FL-19	2,547	912,890	0	2,547	0	541,560	0.0%	18.4%
VA-07	2,399	923,890	1,582	817	323,870	210,190	0.0%	61.3%
AK-01*	2,287	199,500	2,287	0	199,500	0	0.0%	0.0%
IN-05	2,238	540,850	1,521	717	299,850	37,600	0.0%	56.8%
IA-02	2,193	641,410	1,661	532	276,760	0	34.0%	0.0%
IA-03	2,077	625,950	1,611	466	422,550	34,440	6.1%	0.0%
VA-05	1,967	326,540	1,877	90	75,440	7,510	76.6%	0.0%
TX-21	1,771	952,340	1,007	764	310,200	0	0.0%	100.0%
WA-03	1,722	534,800	1,143	579	283,150	251,650	0.0%	0.0%
IL-13	1,593	375,790	1,513	80	338,860	0	0.0%	100.0%
NE-02	1,586	426,030	885	701	260,410	64,150	0.0%	7.4%
OH-01	1,524	427,470	997	527	226,100	198,830	0.0%	0.0%
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between August 10 and September 4, 2020. Spending by formal party organizations is reflected in the airing and spending totals (as are any ads from third party candidates) but is not separated out in columns in this table. *Candidate in AK-01 is the Democratic nominee but is running as unenrolled in a party. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

About the Data

For the television ad totals, data reported here are from Kantar/CMAG and do not cover local cable buys, only broadcast television, national network and national cable advertising.

For Facebook ads, data come from the aggregate reports, but our figures are more comprehensive than what Facebook reports on their campaign page because we include spending on ads that are funded by the campaigns even when they run on different pages in our totals (e.g., Trump funded ads on Mike Pence or Brad Parscale’s pages are included in the Trump totals). We looked for pages attached to each candidate, including possible leadership PACs, joint-fund-raising committees, and, in the case of presidential candidates, affiliated Senate/House pages. Aggregate report entries are provided for each page name and disclaimer combination. Totals for most of this report reflect spending between April 9, 2020 or August 9, 2020 and September 4, 2020. These totals are calculated by subtracting the reported cumulative spending (as reported by Facebook as the total spent since May 2018) for the September 4, 2020 report and subtracting off the cumulative spending reported for April 8, 2020 or August 8, 2020.

Calculating cycle-to-date Facebook totals is more challenging than looking at totals from the last couple of months. In early January 2019, Facebook did not include page IDs (a unique identifier) for each entry in the aggregate report. Because pages can have the same name, a unique identifier for each page would be required to definitively identify an aggregate report entry, which Facebook does not provide going backward. Therefore, we did our best to associate each entry in the January 5, 2019, report with a page ID, which we had access to through the library API. There may be some slippage if two pages associated with candidates had identical names and disclaimers, but we believe these instances are rare for the set of ads covered in this report. For cycle-to-date spending, we subtracted the January 5, 2019 total from the September 4, 2020 total to get the spending by page and disclaimer for January 6, 2019 through September 4, 2020. We also report spending from April 9, 2020 through September 4, 2020 and August 9, 2020 through September 4, 2020. We rely on a Delta Lab monitoring tool to identify and avoid using days on which Facebook has a problem with the aggregated spending report.

In Table A (click here to download), we list the page names/disclaimer rows from the Facebook aggregate reports that we identified for this report. It is possible that we missed some spending from a Facebook page affiliated with a candidate running for office. This is exacerbated by the absence of EIN or FEC identifiers in the Facebook reports.

For Google ads, we downloaded the weekly reports from the platform’s Transparency Report. As a matter of practice with all of the platform data, we try to replicate our prior spending figures when we are calculating numbers for a new release. In that process, we discovered discrepancies between the data we downloaded in November and the information available in the December download for the same dates, which persists in September. Based on conversations with Google, we believe the discrepancies are partially but not exclusively due to the addition of advertisers targeting state-level races. We are working on a process to report these discrepancies, but the totals reflected in this release are current as of 9/8/20, the day on which we pulled the transparency report. Google only includes spending in federal and state races and only includes weekly totals but lists the sponsor’s EIN or FEC committee ID. We searched the list of advertisers for presidential candidates and affiliated leadership PACs and joint-fund-raising committees, and candidates for U.S Senate and affiliated single-candidate super PACs. We made the same assumption as with the Facebook data about any spending from House and Senate campaign committees by declared presidential candidates. Google spending is from the following time periods: April 12, 2020 through September 5, 2020; August 9, 2020 through September 5, 2020; and January 6, 2019 through September 5, 2020.

In Table B (click here to download), we list the advertiser name for all entities used in this report to calculate Google spending totals.

About This Report

The Wesleyan Media Project (WMP) provides real-time tracking and analysis of political advertising in an effort to increase transparency in elections. Housed in Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center (QAC) – part of the Allbritton Center for the Study of Public Life – the Wesleyan Media Project is the successor to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, which disbanded in 2009. It is directed by Erika Franklin Fowler, associate professor of government at Wesleyan University, Michael M. Franz, professor of government at Bowdoin College and Travis N. Ridout, professor of political science at Washington State University. WMP personnel include Laura Baum (Project Manager), Colleen Bogucki (Project Coordinator), Pavel Oleinikov (Associate Director, QAC), Markus Neumann (Post-Doctoral Fellow), and Jielu Yao (Post-Doctoral Fellow).

The Wesleyan Media Project’s digital advertising tracking is supported by the contributions of students in Delta Lab, an interdisciplinary research collaborative focusing on computationally-driven and innovative analyses and visualizations of media messaging. We especially thank Spencer Dean ’21, Kevin McMorrow ‘20, and Roshaan Siddiqui ‘22 for their contributions to this report.

The Wesleyan Media Project is supported by Wesleyan University, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Democracy Fund. WMP is partnering again this year with the Center for Responsive Politics, to provide added information on outside group disclosure.

Periodic releases of data will be posted on the project’s website and dispersed via Twitter @wesmediaproject. To be added to our email update list, click here.

For more information contact: Lauren Rubenstein, lrubenstein@wesleyan.edu, (860) 685-3813 or (203) 644-7144

About Wesleyan University Wesleyan University, in Middletown, Conn., is known for the excellence of its academic and co-curricular programs. With more than 2,900 undergraduates and 200 graduate students, Wesleyan is dedicated to providing a liberal arts education characterized by boldness, rigor and practical idealism. For more, visit wesleyan.edu.

About the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Knight Foundation is a national foundation with strong local roots. We invest in journalism, in the arts, and in the success of cities where brothers John S. and James L. Knight once published newspapers. Our goal is to foster informed and engaged communities, which we believe are essential for a healthy democracy.

About Democracy Fund Created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar, Democracy Fund is a foundation helping to ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Democracy Fund has invested more than $125 million in support of a healthy, resilient, and diverse democracy with a particular focus on modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square.