Maine, North Carolina Top Senate Races

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

TV Ad Volumes Similar to Past Years

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) May 14, 2020 – A new analysis from the Wesleyan Media Project, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that advertising in U.S. Senate races is heating up.

Maine has the most intense Senate race in the country so far, judging by the number of airings. Between January 1 and May 10, 2020, about 23,000 television ads had aired at a cost of $9.6 million (Table 1). In terms of total dollars spent on advertising, North Carolina tops the list, with just under $11 million in spending on broadcast TV ads. The vast majority of that money either attacked GOP incumbent Thom Tillis or supported one of the Democratic challengers (the bulk of it for Cal Cunningham) in advance of the March 3 party primary in the state. Notably, almost all of the spending in North Carolina preceded the primary, whereas spending in Maine has continued through the end date of this analysis, May 10. Democrats will hold their primary in Maine in July.

A trio of Southern states, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky, has also seen considerable advertising so far. Alabama has a GOP primary run-off scheduled for July 14 featuring former Senator Jeff Sessions, and Georgia has two Senate elections. The Democrats will hold a primary on June 3 in Georgia to determine who will square off against incumbent David Purdue. The other election is a special election to fill Johnny Isakson’s seat (currently held through a gubernatorial appointment by Kelly Loeffler, who is also a candidate). It will be a blanket primary with all candidates facing each other on one ballot in the November election.

Table 1: TV Airings and Spending by Race in U.S. Senate

State	Airings	Pro-Dem	Pro-Rep	Total $	Dem cand ($)	Rep cand ($)	Dem group ($)	Rep group ($)
Maine	22,988	14,798	8,190	9,642,920	1,746,430	2,183,780	3,834,540	1,878,170
North Carolina	18,167	17,383	784	10,954,280	1,122,510	0	9,006,850	327,870
Alabama	14,420	0	13,792	3,701,480	0	2,456,900	0	1,020,670
Kentucky	13,972	9,309	4,663	4,103,050	2,473,260	1,497,040	0	132,750
Georgia	12,587	1,508	11,079	5,543,890	416,870	2,282,870	0	2,844,150
Michigan	10,362	7,252	3,110	4,943,870	865,090	559,280	2,862,770	656,730
Iowa	9,139	8,134	1,005	4,512,180	77,910	0	3,654,410	779,860
Montana	7,013	1,083	5,930	802,740	0	431,060	371,680	0
Arizona	6,356	4,386	1,970	3,240,760	1,496,910	708,640	693,880	341,330
South Carolina	4,103	3,643	460	1,519,260	1,282,540	0	0	236,720
Texas	4,097	3,781	234	3,200,800	382,000	0	2,600,530	163,370
Colorado	1,734	1,169	565	1,013,190	0	0	722,360	290,830
Kansas	1,431	0	1,431	371,680	0	301,880	0	69,800
Louisiana	1,016	0	1,016	484,400	0	0	0	484,400
Oklahoma	631	0	631	171,520	0	171,520	0	0
Massachusetts	185	185	0	75,810	75,810	0	0	0
New Mexico	117	0	117	26,310	0	26,310	0	0
Nebraska	66	63	3	5,160	4,810	350	0	0
Arkansas	39	0	39	2,520	0	2,520	0	0
Tennessee	35	0	35	98,260	0	98,260	0	0
New Hampshire	3	0	3	2,930	0	2,930	0	0
Illinois	2	0	2	4,530	0	4,530	0	0
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between January 1, 2020, and May 10, 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. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

The largest group spender in these Senate races (for ads airing in 2020) is Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC that has spent $6.2 million on advertising in the Senate races in Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Michigan and Montana (Table 2). Another Democratic group, VoteVets, has spent $5.4 million in North Carolina and Texas.

Classifications by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) reveal that several of the top spending groups do not disclose all of their donors. The CRP classifies 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).

Senate Majority PAC and VoteVets partially disclose (meaning they accept some contributions from non-disclosing sources), while One Nation, a Republican 501c that has spent $3 million, and Majority Forward, a 501c that has spent $2.9 million, do not disclose any of their donors. All told, 48 percent of spending by group-sponsored ads in Senate races since the start of the year was from partially disclosing groups. Thirty-nine percent was from non-disclosing groups, and only 13 percent was from fully disclosing super PACs, traditional PACs, or Carey committees (which are hybrids of traditional and super PACs).

Table 2: TV Airings and Spending by Group in U.S. Senate Races

Sponsor	Lean	Type	Disclosing	Est. Spend ($)	Airings	Campaigns
Senate Majority PAC	Democrat	superPAC	p	6,195,350	11,389	CO, IA, ME, MI, MT
VoteVets	Democrat	Carey	p	5,447,210	6,824	NC, TX
One Nation	Republican	501c4	n	3,096,630	2,872	AZ, GA, IA, ME
Majority Forward	Democrat	501c4	n	2,918,440	5,624	AZ, ME, MI
Carolina Blue	Democrat	superPAC	p	2,275,460	3,320	NC
Vote Vets Action Fund	Democrat	501c4	n	1,838,150	3,055	MI, NC
Faith and Power Pac	Democrat	superPAC	p	1,825,100	2,389	NC
Club for Growth	Republican	PAC	y	1,152,170	1,234	GA
Doctor Patient Unity	Republican	501c4	n	881,620	1,413	AZ, GA, LA, TX
Maine Momentum	Democrat	501c4	n	800,260	3,184	ME
1820 Pac	Republican	superPAC	y	723,280	1,022	ME
Iowa Forward	Democrat	501c4	n	660,010	1,191	IA
Taxpayers Protection Alliance	Republican	501c4	n	609,740	1,427	IA, KY, NC
Better Future Michigan	Republican	501c4	n	545,330	1,797	MI
Fighting for Alabama Fund Inc	Republican	superPAC	y	511,830	1,261	AL
Senate Leadership Fund	Republican	superPAC	y	488,460	1,557	GA
America First Policies, Inc.	Republican	501c4	n	464,790	1,262	AL, MI
Club for Growth Action	Republican	superPAC	y	425,270	1,168	AL, KS
NRDC Action Votes	Democrat	PAC	y	410,700	336	MI
Unite for Colorado	Republican	501c4	n	290,830	565	CO
Conservation Colorado & Rocky Mountain Values	Democrat	501c4	n	261,140	359	CO
Security Is Strength Pac	Republican	superPAC	y	236,720	460	SC
Lone Star Forward Org	Democrat	superPAC	y	230,720	599	TX
Advancing AZ	Democrat	501c4	n	179,030	355	AZ
EDF Action Votes	Democrat	superPAC	p	158,670	356	MI
LCV Victory Fund	Democrat	superPAC	p	156,460	347	MI
Protect Our Care	Democrat	501c4	n	150,260	597	MT
Tax March	Democrat	501c4	n	107,460	85	ME
The Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas	Other	501c10	y	54,900	82	TX
The Lincoln Project	Democrat	superPAC	y	50,470	119	AZ
Alaska Wilderness League Action	Democrat	PAC	y	33,280	52	CO
Moveon.Org Political Action	Democrat	Carey	y	28,140	15	CO, ME
Keep Kansas Great Pac	Republican	superPAC	y	23,890	83	KS
Moveon.Org	Democrat	Carey	y	20,710	29	AZ, ME
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between January 1, 2020, and May 10, 2020. In the disclosing column, “y” indicates full disclosure, “p” indicates partial disclosure and “n” indicates no disclosure. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project. Group classification provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Table 3 shows that Democratic Senate candidates have an advantage when it comes to ad spending, with $34 million being spent in support of their campaigns compared to $20 million in support of Republican Senate candidates. A lot of this spending was committed to primary campaigns, though, and so the totals do not allow for an inference on likely spending by each side in the general election. Still, to this point 61 percent of ad spending (and 44 percent of airings) has come from groups, most on the Democratic side and most attacking Republicans or supporting the likely Democratic nominee.

Table 3: Airings and Spending in U.S. Senate Races, 2020

	Candidate (airings)	Candidate ($)	Party (airings)	Party ($)	Group (airings)	Group ($)	Total Airings	Total $
Democratic	31,633	9,944,140	836	497,050	40,225	23,747,020	72,694	34,188,210
Republican	39,566	10,727,870	0	0	15,493	9,226,650	55,059	19,954,520
Other	0	0	0	0	710	278,810	710	278,810
Total	71,199	20,672,010	836	497,050	56,428	33,252,480	128,463	54,421,540
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between January 1, 2020, and May 10, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 4 looks at ad spending during the same time frame in the campaigns of 2014, 2016, and 2018. Races in 2014 most directly compare to this year’s races as the Senate’s six-year terms mean that the same states are holding elections. In 2020, pro-Democratic groups account for 55 percent of all pro-Democratic airings, up slightly from 2014, while the volume of pro-Democratic group ads is up 64 percent from 2014. In fact, pro-Democratic groups have aired more ads this cycle than in any of the other cycles noted in the table. By contrast, pro-GOP groups account for 28 percent of pro-Republican efforts this year, a lower rate than in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 campaigns.

Table 4: Airings and Spending by Sponsor in U.S. Senate Races, 2014-2020

		Candidates	Party/Coord	Groups	Total
2014 Pro-Democratic	Ads aired	23,480	0	24,577	48,057
	Row %	48.9	0.0	51.1
	Est. Cost ($)	7,475,747	0	14,188,039	21,663,786
2014 Pro-Republican	Ads aired	36,962	0	42,133	79,095
	Row %	46.7	0.0	53.3
	Est. Cost ($)	22,901,989	0	24,868,730	47,770,719
2016 Pro-Democratic	Ads aired	25,459	2,083	14,119	41,661
	Row %	61.1	5.0	33.9
	Est. Cost ($)	21,180,330	1,137,670	20,181,190	42,499,190
2016 Pro-Republican	Ads aired	23,821	0	14,935	38,756
	Row %	61.5	0.0	38.5
	Est. Cost ($)	15,159,900	0	19,599,130	34,759,030
2018 Pro-Democratic	Ads aired	26,913	0	13,886	40,799
	Row %	66.0	0.0	34.0
	Est. Cost ($)	7,035,970	0	5,956,250	12,992,220
2018 Pro-Republican	Ads aired	51,451	0	25,678	77,129
	Row %	66.7	0.0	33.3
	Est. Cost ($)	13,077,970	0	10,446,880	23,524,850
2020 Pro-Democratic	Ads aired	31,633	836	40,225	72,694
	Row %	43.5	1.2	55.3
	Est. Cost ($)	9,944,140	497,050	23,747,020	34,188,210
2020 Pro-Republican	Ads aired	39,566	0	15,493	55,059
	Row %	71.9	0.0	28.1
	Est. Cost ($)	10,727,870	0	9,226,650	19,954,520
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between January 1 and May 10 in each year. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

South Carolina, Kentucky Top Digital Spending in Senate

Spending has also heated up on digital advertising in Senate contests. Table 5 shows the top Senate campaign or single candidate super PAC spenders in 2020; all top 15 spenders were candidates. At the top of the list is Democrat Jaime Harrison who has spent over $1.6 million on Facebook and Google advertising. Close behind is Democrat Amy McGrath, who is challenging Mitch McConnell in Kentucky—number three on the list. Incumbent Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has also spent more than $1 million on digital ads on the two platforms.

Table 5: Facebook and Google Spend by Senate Candidate (Top Spenders)

State	Party	Sponsor	Facebook Spend ($)	Google Spend ($)	Total Spend ($)
SC	DEM	Harrison, Jaime	1,319,007	343,000	1,662,007
KY	DEM	McGrath, Amy	851,812	754,400	1,606,212
KY	REP	McConnell, Mitch	1,142,516	322,900	1,465,416
SC	REP	Graham, Lindsey O.	891,978	131,000	1,022,978
AZ	DEM	Kelly, Mark	735,538	190,100	925,638
ME	DEM	Gideon, Sara	687,312	160,900	848,212
CO	DEM	Hickenlooper, John W.	358,347	105,100	463,447
GA	DEM	Warnock, Raphael	354,380	42,000	396,380
NC	DEM	Cunningham, Cal	307,616	0	307,616
AZ	REP	McSally, Martha	147,733	148,400	296,133
MI	DEM	Peters, Gary	255,305	38,700	294,005
GA	REP	Loeffler, Kelly	204,724	55,900	260,624
MT	REP	Daines, Steve	190,190	0	190,190
ME	REP	Collins, Susan M.	112,660	71,300	183,960
KS	DEM	Bollier, Barbara	117,816	60,700	178,516
Numbers include spending between January 2 and May 9 for Facebook and January 5 and May 9 for Google. See “About the Data” section at the end of this report for more information on our methodology.

Table 6 shows spending by candidates and single-candidate super PACs in all Senate races. The top single candidate super PAC on the list is Carolina Blue, which is supporting Cal Cunningham in North Carolina. That group has spent just under $90,000 on Facebook and Google ads since the start of the year.

Table 6: Facebook and Google Spend by Senate Candidate (All)

State	Party	Sponsor	SupportsOpposes	Facebook Spend ($)	Google Spend ($)	Total Spend ($)
AK	IND	Gross, Al Dr.		12,354	2,500	14,854
AK	REP	Sullivan, Dan		15,976	7,300	23,276
AL	REP	Moore, Roy Stewart		5,066	0	5,066
AL	REP	Fighting For Alabama Fund	pro-Byrne	7,406	6,800	14,206
AL	UN	Parrish, Michael		600	0	600
AL	REP	Sessions, Jefferson B		38,498	0	38,498
AL	REP	Byrne, Bradley Roberts		18,379	2,400	20,779
AL	DEM	Jones, Doug		79,487	20,200	99,687
AL	REP	Tuberville, Thomas H		76,204	6,000	82,204
AR	IND	Whitfield, Daniel Allen		1,729	0	1,729
AR	REP	Cotton, Thomas		17,912	11,000	28,912
AZ	REP	Brittain, Craig R		100	0	100
AZ	REP	Mccarthy, Daniel		26,582	0	26,582
AZ	DEM	Kelly, Mark		735,538	190,100	925,638
AZ	REP	Mcsally, Martha		147,733	148,400	296,133
CO	DEM	Spaulding, Stephany Rose		793	0	793
CO	DEM	Underwood, Erik M.		200	0	200
CO	REP	Gardner, Cory		62,994	25,200	88,194
CO	DEM	Hickenlooper, John W.		358,347	105,100	463,447
CO	DEM	Romanoff, Andrew		7,562	300	7,862
DE	DEM	Scarane, Jessica		553	0	553
DE	REP	Witzke, Lauren Elena		199	0	199
DE	DEM	Coons, Christopher A.		38,698	5,900	44,598
GA	DEM	Johnson-Shealey, Tamara		613	0	613
GA	DEM	Tarver, Edward J.		7,762	0	7,762
GA	REP	Perdue, David		21,827	0	21,827
GA	REP	Taylor, Kandiss Sharpe Dr		100	0	100
GA	DEM	Winfield, Richard Dien		146	0	146
GA	REP	Grayson, Derrick E Rev		249	0	249
GA	DEM	Terry, Edward		100	0	100
GA	REP	Johnson, Arthur Wayne		249	0	249
GA	DEM	Lieberman, Matthew		54,357	0	54,357
GA	REP	Loeffler, Kelly		204,724	55,900	260,624
GA	DEM	Ossoff, T. Jonathan		132,331	14,800	147,131
GA	DEM	Riggs Amico, Sarah		2,200	400	2,600
GA	DEM	Tomlinson, Teresa Pike		7,419	3,600	11,019
GA	DEM	Warnock, Raphael		354,380	42,000	396,380
IA	IND	Herzog, Suzanne		100	0	100
IA	REP	Ernst, Joni K		85,826	27,300	113,126
IA	DEM	Greenfield, Theresa		76,532	29,200	105,732
IA	DEM	Mauro, Eddie J		41,151	3,500	44,651
ID	DEM	Jordan, Paulette		3,355	0	3,355
IL	LIB	Malouf, Danny		166	0	166
IL	REP	Tarter, Thomas		28,961	0	28,961
IL	REP	Curran, Mark		5,249	0	5,249
IL	DEM	Durbin, Richard J.		20,658	0	20,658
IL	REP	Hubbard, Peggy		350	0	350
IL	DEM	Durbin, Richard J		0	4,900	4,900
KS	REP	Lindstrom, David Alan		9,034	0	9,034
KS	REP	Wagle, Susan		768	0	768
KS	REP	Laturner, Jake		5,170	0	5,170
KS	REP	Marshall, Roger W		79,204	0	79,204
KS	DEM	Reddi, Usha		1,767	0	1,767
KS	DEM	Bollier, Barbara		117,816	60,700	178,516
KS	REP	Kobach, Kris		3,745	300	4,045
KY	DEM	Rothmuller, Eric		769	0	769
KY	DEM	Save America Fund	pro-McGrath	79,091	0	79,091
KY	DEM	Broihier, Michael George		1,207	0	1,207
KY	REP	Morgan, Clinton Wesley		1,267	0	1,267
KY	REP	Mcconnell, Mitch		1,142,516	322,900	1,465,416
KY	DEM	Mcgrath, Amy		851,812	754,400	1,606,212
LA	DEM	Pierce, Antoine		241	0	241
LA	REP	Cassidy, William M.		5,371	1,400	6,771
MA	REP	O'Connor, Kevin J		1,117	0	1,117
MA	DEM	Pemberton, Steve		292	0	292
MA	DEM	Kennedy, Joseph P Iii		96,168	6,200	102,368
MA	DEM	Liss-Riordan, Shannon Ms.		500	1,900	2,400
MA	DEM	Markey, Edward J. Sen.		14,785	13,100	27,885
ME	DEM	Sweet, Betsy		8,603	0	8,603
ME	UNK	Savage, Lisa Jill		583	0	583
ME	REP	1820 Pac	pro-Collins	7,750	25,100	32,850
ME	DEM	Lajeunesse, Ross		8,323	0	8,323
ME	REP	Collins, Susan M.		112,660	71,300	183,960
ME	DEM	Gideon, Sara		687,312	160,900	848,212
MI	REP	Better Future Michigan Fund	pro-James	35,386	0	35,386
MI	REP	James, John		43,280	19,900	63,180
MI	DEM	Peters, Gary		255,305	38,700	294,005
MN	REP	Barrett, Robert Paul Mr Jr.		4,162	0	4,162
MN	DFL	Overby, Paula Mirare		100	0	100
MN	REP	Lewis, Jason		46,385	3,400	49,785
MN	DEM	Smith, Tina		17,919	3,600	21,519
MS	REP	Hyde-Smith, Cindy		540	0	540
MS	DEM	Espy, Michael		28,924	5,300	34,224
MT	DEM	Mues, John		526	0	526
MT	REP	Daines, Steve		190,190	0	190,190
MT	DEM	Collins, Wilmot James		6,504	0	6,504
MT	DEM	Bullock, Steve		0	94,100	94,100
MT	REP	Daines, Steven		0	33,200	33,200
NC	DEM	Cunningham, Cal		307,616	0	307,616
NC	DEM	Cunningham, Cal; Dscc	coordinated	95,742	0	95,742
NC	DEM	Fuller, Trevor Michael		350	0	350
NC	DEM	Carolina Blue	pro-Cunningham	71,999	17,300	89,299
NC	REP	Faith & Power Pac	anti-Cunningham	25,570	1,600	27,170
NC	REP	Tillis, Thom R. Sen.		4,703	15,600	20,303
NE	DEM	Shelton, Alisha		167	0	167
NE	DEM	Macek, Dennis Frank		2,537	0	2,537
NE	DEM	Janicek, Chris Edward Mr		743	0	743
NE	REP	Sasse, Benjamin E		20,997	18,900	39,897
NH	REP	O'Brien, William Lawrence		792	0	792
NH	REP	Bolduc, Donald C.		985	0	985
NH	REP	Messner, Bryant 'Corky' S.		16,134	1,900	18,034
NH	DEM	Shaheen, Jeanne		4,955	7,700	12,655
NJ	IND	Fernandez, Veronica		170	0	170
NJ	DEM	Booker, Cory A.		11,677	0	11,677
NJ	REP	Mehta, Rikin		1,156	0	1,156
NJ	REP	Meissner, Stuart		500	0	500
NJ	REP	Singh, Hirsh V		7,477	0	7,477
NJ	DEM	Booker, Cory		0	19,000	19,000
NM	REP	Clarkson, Gavin		21,710	0	21,710
NM	REP	Ronchetti, Mark V.		5,096	0	5,096
NM	REP	Sanchez, Louie J		2,845	0	2,845
NM	REP	Rich, Mick		1,809	0	1,809
NM	REP	Martinez, Elisa		3,357	0	3,357
NM	DEM	Lujan, Ben Ray		0	4,400	4,400
NY	DEM	Gillibrand, Kirsten		18,513	0	18,513
OK	REP	Inhofe, James M. Sen.		11,203	0	11,203
OK	DEM	Broyles, Abby		21,161	0	21,161
OK	REP	Stitt, Jj Mr.		1,074	0	1,074
OR	REP	Perkins, Jo Rae		100	0	100
OR	DEM	Merkley, Jeffrey Alan		112,834	0	112,834
RI	REP	Waters, Allen		1,748	0	1,748
SC	REP	Reynolds, Joseph		2,557	0	2,557
SC	REP	Buckner, Dwayne Duke		1,149	0	1,149
SC	REP	Security Is Strength	pro-Graham	9,161	0	9,161
SC	REP	Williams, Lloyd Benton Mr. Iii		200	0	200
SC	REP	Lapierre, Michael James		5,504	0	5,504
SC	REP	Graham, Lindsey O.		891,978	131,000	1,022,978
SC	DEM	Harrison, Jaime		1,319,007	343,000	1,662,007
SD	REP	Rounds, Mike		8,757	0	8,757
SD	DEM	Ahlers, Dan		25	0	25
SD	REP	Borglum, Scyller		328	0	328
TN	REP	Bush, Byron		2,193	0	2,193
TN	REP	Sethi, Dr. Manny		24,249	0	24,249
TN	REP	Gapp, Joshua Dominique Gregory		5,678	0	5,678
TN	REP	Presley, Johnny W		660	0	660
TN	IND	Mcleod, Elizabeth D		247	0	247
TN	REP	Flinn, George S Dr Jr		99,212	0	99,212
TN	REP	Hagerty, Bill		83,456	72,500	155,956
TN	DEM	Mackler, James		520	4,100	4,620
TX	DEM	West, Royce		91,297	0	91,297
TX	REP	Yancey, Mark Spencer		6,634	0	6,634
TX	REP	Stovall, Dwayne		4,910	0	4,910
TX	DEM	Edwards, Amanda		57,817	0	57,817
TX	DEM	Garcia, Anne		62,466	0	62,466
TX	REP	Cornyn, John Sen		47,218	8,100	55,318
TX	DEM	Hegar, Mary Jennings Mj		0	16,100	16,100
TX	DEM	Tzintzun Ramirez, Cristina		51,959	800	52,759
VA	REP	Faulkner, Omari		3,433	0	3,433
VA	REP	Speciale, Thomas A Ii		1,008	0	1,008
VA	REP	Baldwin, Alissa		610	0	610
VA	REP	Gade, Daniel Macarthur Mr.		16,264	800	17,064
VA	DEM	Warner, Mark Robert		4,101	100	4,201
WV	DEM	Swearengin, Paula Jean		22,703	0	22,703
WY	REP	Lummis, Cynthia Marie Mrs.		21,225	0	21,225
WY	REP	Miller, Bryan		121	0	121
WY	REP	Wheeler, Joshua B		630	0	630
WY	DEM	Ben David, Merav		100	0	100
WY	REP	Lummis, Cynthia Marie		0	5,900	5,900
Numbers include spending between January 2 and May 9 for Facebook and January 5 and May 9 for Google. Spenders include 2020 U.S. Senate candidates, leadership PACs, and single-candidate super PACs in support of (or in opposition to) those candidates. Single-candidate super PAC identifications are from the Center for Responsive Politics. See “About the Data” section at the end of this report for more information on our methodology.

Several groups that are not connected with particular candidates who are spending heavily on TV are also spending on digital ads. We took the top groups advertising on broadcast television (since January 1, 2020) in support of or in opposition to Senate candidates, and we looked for any advertising spending by those groups on Facebook or Google. This is not a full list of pro or anti-candidate groups spending on Facebook or Google, nor is all of the spending reported in the table in support or opposition of Senate candidates. The top groups in this category are shown in Table 7. Heading the list is Vote Vets Action Fund, which has spent over $375,000 on ads. The Republican group, America First Policies, has spent about $350,000 on Facebook ads. All told, these digital efforts are much lower than their spending on TV spots in Senate races (see Table 2); the groups listed in Table 7 have spent over $23 million in TV ads, while the total in Table 7 is about $2 million.

Table 7: Digital Spending by Top Non-Candidate Groups Airing Ads on TV in Senate Races

Sponsor	Facebook Spend ($)	Google Spend ($)	FB+Google Spend ($)
Vote Vets Action Fund	225,993	150,400	376,393
America First Policies Inc.	347,117	0	347,117
Senate Majority PAC	289,129	0	289,129
Advancing AZ	229,240	13,800	243,040
Doctor Patient Unity	216,091	0	216,091
Maine Momentum	84,001	66,200	150,201
Iowa Forward	85,366	33,300	118,666
Majority Forward	67,886	28,000	95,886
VoteVets	63,835	10,000	73,835
One Nation	41,979	13,300	55,279
Senate Leadership Fund	15,650	7,600	23,250
Taxpayers Protection Alliance	4,998	0	4,998
Numbers include spending between January 2 and May 9 for Facebook and January 5 and May 9 for Google.

Trump Leads Biden in TV and Digital Spending

Total spending on advertising in the presidential race has passed the $1.2 billion mark. Nearly $750 million of that is from broadcast and national cable while digital advertising spending is nearing $328 million. (An additional $84 million in ads have aired on local cable stations, with nearly $50 million on radio spots.)

We show television advertising in the presidential race over the last month in Table 8. Although Trump and his outside group allies have spent more money (just over $6.1 million in the period between April 6 and May 10 compared to $5.6 million for or on behalf of Biden), pro-Biden airings have been more common (8,267 airings plus an additional ad by Republicans for the Rule of Law compared to 5,933 pro-Trump airings). Biden himself has not sponsored any television advertising during this period on broadcast television or national cable.

Table 8: Television Advertising in the Presidential Race Since April 5

Sponsor		Airings	Est. Cost
AB PAC	anti-Trump	2,305	1,445,830
Be A Hero PAC	anti-Trump	180	171,720
Priorities USA Action	pro-Biden	5,703	3,474,590
The Lincoln Project	pro-Biden	40	36,650
Unite the Country	pro-Biden	39	480,740
Trump, Donald		120	3,262,830
America First Action	anti-Biden	5,811	2,822,860
Great America PAC	pro-Trump	1	15,000
Republicans for the Rule of Law	anti-Trump	1	11,890
Restoration PAC	anti-Biden	1	34,270
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television or national cable between April 6 and May 10, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 9 shows digital spending by the Biden and Trump campaigns, along with spending by their super PACs, since January of 2019 and since early April of 2020. Trump’s campaign has massively outspent Biden’s campaign on digital ads on Facebook and Google since January 2019, $55 million v. $20 million. Biden also lags Trump in spending over the past 6 weeks. While Trump’s campaign has spent $7.7 million on the two platforms, Biden’s campaign has spent $4.7 million. The two candidates’ super PACs, Unite the Country and Great America PAC, have been largely silent on digital since early April.

Table 9: Digital Spending by Trump and Biden

	FB $ (since Jan 2019)	FB $ (since early Apr)	Google $ (since Jan 2019)	Google $ (since early Apr)	FB+Google $ (since Jan 2019)	FB+Google $ (since early Apr)
Biden	13,415,117	3,384,003	6,929,600	1,341,400	20,344,717	4,725,403
Trump	35,263,528	4,556,128	20,230,100	3,103,200	55,493,628	7,659,328
Unite the Country (pro-Biden)	875,442	0	306,100	0	1,181,542	0
Great America PAC (pro-Trump)	106,776	4,503	6,900	0	113,676	4,503
Digital spending figures come from the Facebook ad library reports and the Google Transparency Report. Spending covers the January 6, 2019 or April 5, 2020, to May 9, 2020 period for Facebook and 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.

Little Covid-19 Impact on Ad Volumes

Figure 1 shows the volume of ad airings by week in the 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential races. While 2020 far surpassed the previous two election cycles in ad volume in January, February and March, ad volumes dropped to almost nothing in mid-March. But this drop is consistent with advertising in the previous two cycles, which was also low in late March and April.

“We’re not seeing evidence that Covid-19 is stimulating television advertising in the presidential race to make up for cancelled campaign rallies,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. “But we also don’t have sufficient evidence to suggest that Covid-19 is leading advertising to totally abandon their ad spending. The lack of ad spending in the past six weeks is likely due to the fact that the Democratic nomination race is now settled.”

Figure 1: Presidential Race Ads by Week and Year

Figure 2 speaks to ad volumes in U.S. House races. While advertising levels in 2020 were lower than in 2012 and 2016 for much of March and April, for May they are almost identical to ad volumes in 2012 and surpassed ad volumes in 2016.

Figure 2: U.S. House Race Ads by Week and Year

Figure 3 shows ad airings over time in U.S. Senate races. Before April, ad volumes were higher than in the previous two cycles, but since the start of April, ad volumes are not dramatically different from 2012 and 2016.

Figure 3: U.S. Senate Race Ads by Week and Year

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. Aggregate report entries are provided for each page name and disclaimer combination. 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. 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. To calculate our totals for this report, we used the 1/5/19 report and merged on the 5/9/20 report totals. In each report, Facebook provides the to-date totals for each row, which covers the full archive back to May 2018. For presidential spending we subtracted the 1/5/19 total from the 5/9/20 total to get the spending by page and disclaimer for 1/6/19 through 5/9/20. For senate spending, which we are only reporting from 2020, we subtracted the 1/1/20 total from the 5/9/20 total. Pages can sponsor ads that are funded by different entities. We made the assumption that all spending by federal office-holders running for president this cycle (e.g., Cory Booker) was in support of their presidential campaign up until they date they dropped out of the presidential race (if applicable), even if some spending was reported from their House or Senate page or leadership PAC, especially because many of the leadership PAC spending occurred on the same pages as the campaign spending. Advertisements run by pages known to be associated with presidential candidates are included even in instances where the ads ran without an appropriate disclaimer.

In Table A (click here to download), we list the page names/disclaimer rows from the 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 May. 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 5/12/20, the day on which we pulled the transparency report. Table B (linked to below) reports these discrepancies as they relate to our previous press release. 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, candidates for U.S Senate and affiliated single-candidate super PACs, along with a few key groups that are advertising on TV in the senate race. 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 1/6/19 through 5/9/20 for presidential advertisers and 1/6/20 through 5/9/20 for senate advertisers.

In Table B (click here to download), we list the advertiser name for all entries 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), and Courtney Page-Tan (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.

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.