Trump Spends Big on TV Ads While Biden Holds Back

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Senate Ads Spike; Eight Races See 10,000 Spots since May

(MIDDLETOWN, CT) July 2, 2020 – A new analysis from the Wesleyan Media Project, in partnership with the Center for Responsive Politics, shows that Donald Trump has ramped up his TV ad spending. Through the entire cycle to-date, President Trump has aired just over 55,000 ads on television (on broadcast, national cable and national network stations) at an estimated cost of $52 million. Table 1 shows that 50,000 of those Trump spots have aired since May 11, a time period during which Biden aired only 3,103 ads at a cost of $3.2 million.

“President Trump is lagging in most polls, and his aggressive ad buys in recent weeks seem intended on boosting his numbers,” said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project. 

Outside groups have accounted for 37 percent of airings in the presidential general election since May 11, and the Democratic nominee has been heavily reliant on their support. Eighty-six percent of pro-Biden ad airings have been sponsored by groups compared to just 19 percent of pro-Trump ad airings. Priorities USA, a top pro-Democratic outside group, has aired more than four times as many ads as Biden (13,694 airings), totaling near $7 million. In addition, AB PAC, formerly known as American Bridge 21st Century, has added nearly 4,000 spots to the pro-Biden total. The pro-Biden super PAC, Unite the Country, which bolstered his campaign throughout the primary phase, added another 1,600 ads. On the GOP side, a pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action, has sponsored over 11,000 spots since May 11. All told, pro-Biden advertisers have sponsored about 23,000 ads, but nearly three times as many pro-Trump ads have aired.

Table 1: Airings and Spending in Presidential Race

Sponsor	Party Lean	Grp Type	Airings	Total $
Joe Biden			3,103	3,203,370
AB PAC	Pro-Dem	Super PAC	3,974	3,336,240
Defending Democracy Together	Pro-Dem	501c4	1	13,030
Priorities USA Action	Pro-Dem	Carey PAC	13,694	6,920,490
Republicans For The Rule Of Law	Pro-Dem	501c4	1	12,100
The Lincoln Project	Pro-Dem	Super PAC	514	450,900
Unite The Country	Pro-Dem	Super PAC	1,668	1,428,760
Donald Trump			50,314	31,390,040
America First Action	Pro-Rep	Super PAC	11,499	4,203,890
Committee To Defend The President	Pro-Rep	Carey PAC	131	101,400
Restoration PAC	Pro-Rep	Super PAC	1	44,000
Total			84,900	51,104,220
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between May 11, 2020, and June 28, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project. Group classification provided by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Biden has focused on markets in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Priorities USA, the pro-Biden group, has focused its more numerous ad buys in just four states: Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. AB PAC, another pro-Biden group, has aired ads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Trump has aired ads in all of these states, but has put additional ad buys in Alabama (619 spots in the Mobile market, which reaches into Florida), Georgia (<100 spots), Iowa (about 1,900 spots), Minnesota (631 ads), Nevada (1,300), Ohio (about 2,000 spots), and South Carolina (about 1,000 ads in the Greenville market, which reaches into North Carolina). He also spent over $8.5 million on a national cable buy that started airing May 27 and was on the air through the end date of this analysis, June 28. America First Action, a pro-Trump group, has focused its ads since May 11 on just three states: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Table 2 lists pro-Trump and pro-Biden ad totals (combining candidate and group ads) at the market level between May 11 and June 28. The market with the most ads in this roughly six-week period was Grand Rapids, Michigan, with nearly 6,000 ads (3,480 by or on behalf of Trump and 2,499 by or on behalf of Biden). Trump has had the largest airing advantage in Tampa, Florida, with 2,665 more pro-Trump airings than pro-Biden ones (3,005 pro-Trump compared to 340 pro-Biden), and he has airing advantages in 29 markets that are greater than 500 airings. Biden, by contrast, has ad advantages in only four markets, and they are small by comparison: 59 in Lansing, Michigan, (59 to 0 pro-Trump), 61 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, (61 to 0 pro-Trump), 117 in Detroit, Michigan, (1,436 to 1,319 pro-Trump) and 874 in Flint, Michigan (1,564 to 690 pro-Trump).

Table 2: Airings and Spending by Media Market in Presidential Race

State	Market	Total Airings	Trump Advantage	Pro-Trump	Trump	Trump Group	Pro-Biden	Biden	Biden Group
GA	Albany	11	11	11	11	0	0	0	0
GA	Atlanta	14	14	14	14	0	0	0	0
GA	Augusta	9	9	9	9	0	0	0	0
IA	Cedar Rapids	308	308	308	308	0	0	0	0
NC	Charlotte	2,723	2,559	2,641	2,641	0	82	0	82
OH	Cincinnati	602	602	602	602	0	0	0	0
OH	Cleveland	362	362	362	362	0	0	0	0
OH	Columbus	607	607	607	607	0	0	0	0
OH	Dayton	291	291	291	291	0	0	0	0
IA	Des Moines	1,299	1,299	1,299	1,299	0	0	0	0
MI	Detroit	2,755	-117	1,319	1,319	0	1,436	201	1,235
PA	Erie	1,836	1,370	1,603	617	986	233	0	233
MI	Flint	2,254	-874	690	0	690	1,564	118	1,446
FL	Ft. Myers	1,957	1,957	1,957	1,957	0	0	0	0
MI	Grand Rapids	5,979	981	3,480	2,044	1,436	2,499	0	2,499
WI	Green Bay	4,806	1,426	3,116	1,986	1,130	1,690	172	1,518
NC	Greensboro	1,548	1,548	1,548	1,548	0	0	0	0
NC	Greenville	1,363	1,363	1,363	1,363	0	0	0	0
SC	Greenville	946	946	946	946	0	0	0	0
PA	Harrisburg	4,630	2,162	3,396	2,134	1,262	1,234	0	1,234
FL	Jacksonville	968	562	765	765	0	203	203	0
PA	Johnstown	4,007	339	2,173	1,235	938	1,834	106	1,728
WI	La Crosse	4,124	818	2,471	1,553	918	1,653	187	1,466
MI	Lansing	59	-59	0	0	0	59	0	59
NV	Las Vegas	738	738	738	738	0	0	0	0
GA	Macon	9	9	9	9	0	0	0	0
MI	Marquette	1,019	365	692	384	308	327	60	267
FL	Miami	1,907	1,815	1,861	1,861	0	46	46	0
WI	Milwaukee	3,621	605	2,113	1,568	545	1,508	205	1,303
MN	Minneapolis	631	631	631	631	0	0	0	0
AL	Mobile	619	619	619	619	0	0	0	0
National Cable	National Cable	1,298	1,212	1,255	1,251	4	43	11	32
National Network	National Network	18	18	18	17	1	0	0	0
FL	Orlando	2,790	2,108	2,449	2,449	0	341	341	0
FL	Panama City	1,353	1,353	1,353	1,353	0	0	0	0
PA	Philadelphia	2,220	1,706	1,963	1,963	0	257	257	0
AZ	Phoenix	4,474	2,254	3,364	3,237	127	1,110	311	799
PA	Pittsburgh	3,963	975	2,469	1,405	1,064	1,494	135	1,359
NC	Raleigh	1,478	1,040	1,259	1,259	0	219	177	42
NV	Reno	548	548	548	548	0	0	0	0
GA	Savannah	24	24	24	24	0	0	0	0
IA	Sioux City	331	209	270	270	0	61	0	61
FL	Tampa	3,345	2,665	3,005	3,005	0	340	340	0
MI	Traverse City	3,541	169	1,855	1,135	720	1,686	102	1,584
AZ	Tucson	812	812	812	812	0	0	0	0
OK	Tulsa	61	-61	0	0	0	61	0	61
DC	Washington Dc	3	3	3	3	0	0	0	0
WI	Wausau	1,545	5	775	0	775	770	0	770
PA	Wilkes Barre	4,498	88	2,293	1,566	727	2,205	131	2,074
NC	Wilmington	596	596	596	596	0	0	0	0
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between May 11, 2020, and June 28, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Since the beginning of 2019, presidential candidates and their allies have spent $800 million on broadcast television ads, which have aired 1.2 million times in markets across the country. Heavy advertising from candidates Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer earlier in the cycle bolstered these numbers.

Trump Leading Biden in Digital Spending by Smaller Margin

The Trump campaign is also outspending Biden on Facebook and Google advertising, though the difference between the two candidates is smaller online than it is on TV. Table 3 shows digital spending by the Biden and Trump campaigns and their super PACs since January 2019 and since May 9, 2020. Since January 2019, Trump has spent nearly twice as much on digital advertising as Biden. However, in the period since May 10 (just after Bernie Sanders dropped from the race), the gap between the two has narrowed, with Biden spending nearly $18 million and Trump just over $23 million. Spending by the two candidates’ super PACs online has been minimal in the general election phase so far.

“Whereas Biden has generally been slow to ramp up advertising on television, he clearly sees digital ads as in important part of his early general election strategy,” said Erika Franklin Fowler, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.

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

	Facebook (since Jan 2019)	Facebook (since May 9)	Google (since Jan 2019)	Google (since May 9)	FB+Google (since Jan 2019)	FB+Google (since May 9)
Biden	24,105,917	10,690,800	13,959,800	7,030,200	38,065,717	17,721,000
Trump	49,274,344	14,010,816	29,633,800	9,320,400	78,908,144	23,331,216
Unite the Country (pro-Biden)	876,655	1,213	297,400	-	1,174,055	1,213
Great America PAC (pro-Trump)	130,460	23,684	7,600	-	138,060	23,684
Digital spending figures come from the Facebook ad library reports and the Google Transparency Report. Spending covers the January 6, 2019 or May 10, 2020, to June 27, 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 along with the specific page names and disclaimers that are counted.

Total spending in the presidential race on Facebook and Google from January 6, 2019, through June 27, 2020, is nearly $370 million ($218,031,792 on Facebook and $151,673,800 on Google).

Kentucky, Iowa, Maine Top TV Ad Spending in Senate

Senate spending on ads has totaled nearly $60 million since May 11. Ad volume in the May to June period is far higher than the comparable period in the elections of 2014, 2016, and 2018. We discuss volume trends more below, but the 172,000 ads that aired since May 10 this cycle represents 57 percent higher volume than in 2014; 153 percent greater volume than in 2016; and 91 percent more than in 2018.

The Democrats hold a big advantage in spending, with candidate, party, and allied group spending totaling $36 million to the GOP’s $23 million. In ads aired, pro-Democratic sponsors have aired 103,000 spots compared to 69,000 for pro-Republican sponsors. See the party and sponsor totals in Table 4. These totals include spending for party primary campaigns and for early general election-related ads.

Table 4: Airings and Spending in U.S. Senate Races, 2020

	Candidate (Airings)	Candidate Spend ($)	Party (Airings)	Party Spend ($)	Group (Airings)	Group Spend ($)	Total Airings	Total Spend ($)
Democratic	70,228	18,443,790	2,587	871,350	30,371	16,706,120	103,186	36,021,260
Republican	51,217	12,523,740	9,855	6,681,700	7,692	4,503,710	68,764	23,709,150
Other	20	12,560	0	0	0	0	20	12,560
Total	121,465	30,980,090	12,442	7,553,050	38,063	21,209,830	171,970	59,742,970
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between May 11, 2020, and June 28, 2020. Party totals include independent and coordinate expenditures. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

Table 5 shows Senate spending by state, including any ads aired in party primaries. Indeed, June was a heavy primary month given that many states delayed early spring primaries because of the coronavirus outbreak.  Primaries were held in Kentucky, Georgia, Iowa, Montana, South Carolina, Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The Democratic primaries in Kentucky and Colorado were generally seen as competitive. In Kentucky, Democrat Amy McGrath aired four times as many ads as competitor Charles Booker. And in Colorado, former Governor John Hickenlooper squared off against Andrew Romanoff, with Hickenlooper airing about three times as many ads as his opponent.

In Iowa, the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has sponsored over 2,300 spots to bolster incumbent Joni Ernst, who has not yet aired a broadcast TV spot. She also got help from the group One Nation, with 559 spots in the last 6 weeks. All the other ads have been pro-Democratic ones, with three Democrats vying for the party nomination and three groups—Senate Majority PAC, Women Vote, and The Lincoln Project—either wading into the Democratic primary or attacking Ernst.

In Maine, Democrat Sara Gideon is vying to be the party’s nominee to run against Republican Susan Collins. The Democratic primary in the state is July 14, but Gideon is already running a general election-type campaign, attacking Collins. Gideon is also getting support from a number of outside groups, including Senate Majority PAC and End Citizens United. Collins is on the air too, with support from three other groups in the last six weeks—the 1820 PAC, One Nation, the Chamber of Commerce—as well as the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.  

Notable, also, are the ad totals in Arizona, which Democrats see as a possible pick-up. Mark Kelly’s campaign on the Democratic side has aired the most ads, with additional help from Advancing AZ, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Victory Fund, and Majority Forward.  Republican incumbent Martha McSally is fighting to keep the seat she was appointed to, and she has aired nearly as many ads as Kelly, with additional help from two outside groups and the GOP’s Senate campaign committee.

Finally, in Montana incumbent Republican Steve Daines faces a tough challenge in current Governor (and former presidential candidate) Steve Bullock.  Both Daines and Bullock easily won their parties’ primaries in early June.  Daines has aired three times as many television ads as Bullock since May 11, but the Democrat has received help from four groups, including Majority Forward and the Senate Majority PAC.

Table 5: Airings and Spending by Race in U.S. Senate

State	Airings	Pro-Dem Airings	Pro-GOP Airings	Total Spend ($)	Dem Cand Spend ($)	Rep Cand Spend ($)	Dem Group Spend ($)	Rep Group Spend ($)
KY	25,460	20,000	5,460	5,967,810	4,503,380	1,091,310	373,120	0
IA	21,015	18,129	2,886	6,279,750	1,679,830	0	3,190,130	252,650
ME	17,865	10,410	7,455	8,366,710	1,287,830	634,340	2,908,730	1,783,710
AZ	17,349	8,916	8,433	7,604,930	1,689,230	1,559,670	2,126,440	1,203,810
GA	14,823	8,172	6,651	3,916,770	2,149,870	1,685,140	81,760	0
MT	13,439	6,100	7,339	2,450,630	225,880	517,440	1,439,190	268,120
CO	12,343	9,364	2,979	6,820,350	2,206,120	715,090	2,913,300	277,750
MI	10,643	4,821	5,822	6,778,510	98,890	1,692,270	1,841,260	236,150
TN	7,968	14	7,954	1,608,430	2,920	1,605,510	0	0
KS	7,743	1,158	6,585	1,518,510	225,640	1,120,400	0	172,470
SC	7,278	6,158	1,120	2,693,570	2,454,090	239,480	0	0
NC	6,688	4,183	2,505	3,331,490	459,260	1,040,040	1,832,190	0
AL	3,526	2,095	1,431	814,370	302,400	202,920	0	309,050
MA	3,454	3,454	0	1,106,630	1,106,630	0	0	0
SD	971	101	870	45,950	7,860	38,090	0	0
NM	687	0	687	179,940	0	179,940	0	0
OK	556	95	461	167,620	43,250	124,370	0	0
NH	92	0	92	70,220	0	70,220	0	0
NE	38	16	22	7,220	710	6,510	0	0
IL	20	0	0	12,560	0	0	0	0
AR	12	0	12	1,000	0	1,000	0	0
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between May 11, 2020, and June 28, 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.

Table 6 shows ad spenders in Senate races by state. Since May 10 Amy McGrath in Kentucky has aired the most ads, followed by Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, who won the Democratic primary and will square off against Joni Ernst. The state of Georgia has two Senate races this cycle, and number three on the list was Jon Ossoff, who won the Democratic primary on June 9 and will square off against incumbent David Perdue.

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

Sponsor	State	Party Lean	Airings	Spend ($)
McGrath, Amy	KY	Dem	15,049	3,611,090
Greenfield, Theresa	IA	Dem	7,849	1,317,200
Ossoff, Jon	GA	Dem	6,841	1,253,670
Daines, Steve	MT	Rep	6,677	517,440
Loeffler, Kelly	GA	Rep	6,651	1,685,140
Harrison, Jaime	SC	Dem	6,158	2,454,090
McConnell, Mitch	KY	Rep	5,460	1,091,310
Gideon, Sara	ME	Dem	5,284	1,287,830
Kelly, Mark	AZ	Dem	4,583	1,689,230
Hickenlooper, John	CO	Dem	4,466	1,603,280
McSally, Martha	AZ	Rep	4,441	1,559,670
Hagerty, Bill	TN	Rep	4,193	765,340
Booker, Charles	KY	Dem	3,812	749,560
Women Vote	IA	Dem	3,745	1,697,140
Kennedy, Joe	MA	Dem	3,454	1,106,630
Senate Majority Pac	IA	Dem	3,406	1,422,020
James, John	MI	Rep	3,365	1,692,270
Hamilton, Bob	KS	Rep	3,277	739,840
Sethi, Manny	TN	Rep	3,000	638,080
Majority Forward	AZ	Dem	2,936	1,459,120
Collins, Susan	ME	Rep	2,849	634,340
Peters, Gary & Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee	MI	Dem	2,587	871,350
Majority Forward	MT	Dem	2,569	931,500
Tillis, Thom	NC	Rep	2,505	1,040,040
Senate Majority Pac	ME	Dem	2,482	1,385,890
Senate Majority Pac	CO	Dem	2,467	1,969,360
End Citizens United	ME	Dem	2,377	1,349,650
National Republican Senatorial Committee (Nrsc)	IA	Rep	2,327	1,157,140
National Republican Senatorial Committee (Nrsc)	MI	Rep	2,304	2,038,590
Marshall, Roger	KS	Rep	2,185	345,470
National Republican Senatorial Committee (Nrsc)	ME	Rep	2,161	1,752,100
Bullock, Steve	MT	Dem	2,103	225,880
Jones, Doug	AL	Dem	2,095	302,400
National Republican Senatorial Committee (Nrsc)	AZ	Rep	2,014	1,025,780
Nrdc Action Fund	NC	Dem	1,729	721,700
One Nation	AZ	Rep	1,663	961,370
Gardner, Cory	CO	Rep	1,654	715,090
Mauro, Eddie	IA	Dem	1,541	211,010
Majority Forward	NC	Dem	1,492	1,067,880
Franken, Michael	IA	Dem	1,475	151,620
Romanoff, Andrew	CO	Dem	1,326	602,840
1820 Pac	ME	Rep	1,294	782,520
Senate Majority Pac	MI	Dem	1,186	1,079,030
Bollier, Barbara	KS	Dem	1,158	225,640
Let'S Turn Colorado Blue	CO	Dem	1,080	910,010
National Republican Senatorial Committee (Nrsc)	CO	Rep	1,049	708,090
Graham, Lindsey	SC	Rep	1,042	230,750
Advancing Az	AZ	Dem	892	429,730
Club For Growth Action	KS	Rep	884	172,470
Afscme	MI	Dem	876	693,830
Senate Majority Pac	MT	Dem	875	303,870
Rounds, Mike	SD	Rep	870	38,090
Cunningham, Cal	NC	Dem	869	459,260
Flinn, George	TN	Rep	758	200,370
Club For Growth Action	AL	Rep	735	309,050
Tuberville, Tommy	AL	Rep	696	202,920
Tomlinson, Teresa	GA	Dem	695	365,170
One Nation	MT	Rep	662	268,120
Broihier, Mike	KY	Dem	630	142,730
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce	ME	Rep	581	393,680
Ronchetti, Mark	NM	Rep	579	142,880
One Nation	ME	Rep	570	607,510
One Nation	IA	Rep	559	252,650
Riggs-Amico, Sarah	GA	Dem	545	531,030
Lcv Victory Fund	AZ	Dem	505	237,590
Inhofe, James	OK	Rep	461	124,370
Montana Federation Of Public Employees	MT	Dem	420	145,150
Ditch Fund	KY	Dem	337	156,700
Taxpayers Protection Alliance	AZ	Rep	315	242,440
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce	CO	Rep	276	277,750
Tax March	ME	Dem	245	160,580
The Lincoln Project	KY	Dem	167	169,100
Better Future Mi Fund	MI	Rep	153	236,150
Wagle, Susan	KS	Rep	149	21,700
The Lincoln Project	MT	Dem	133	58,670
The Lincoln Project	IA	Dem	113	70,970
Martinez, Elisa	NM	Rep	108	37,060
Ahlers, Dan	SD	Dem	101	7,860
Broyles, Abby	OK	Dem	95	43,250
The Lincoln Project	NC	Dem	93	42,610
Messner, Corky	NH	Rep	92	70,220
Undivided Purpose	GA	Dem	91	81,760
Kobach, Kris	KS	Rep	90	13,390
Lapierre, Michael	SC	Rep	78	8,730
Peters, Gary	MI	Dem	69	98,890
Edf Action Votes	MI	Dem	45	16,190
Lcv Victory Fund	MI	Dem	36	18,540
Colorados Working Families Org	CO	Dem	25	33,930
Maine Momentum	ME	Dem	22	12,610
Nrdc Action Votes	MI	Dem	22	33,670
Sasse, Ben	NE	Rep	22	6,510
Wilson, Willie	IL	Other	20	12,560
Shelton, Alisha	NE	Dem	16	710
Pickrell, Mark	TN	Dem	14	2,920
Cotton, Tom	AR	Rep	12	1,000
Let America Vote Pac	KY	Dem	5	47,320
Bush, Byron	TN	Rep	3	1,720
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between May 11, 2020, and June 28, 2020. CITE SOURCE OF DATA AS: Kantar/CMAG with analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project.

The top group advertiser in in the table is Women Vote, which has waded into the Iowa Senate race. We combine group spending in Senate races and show those totals in Table 7. Senate Majority PAC tops the list with over 10,000 ads in five Senate races, followed by Majority Forward with 7,000 ads in three states. Seven of the top 10 groups are airing ads in favor of Democrats.

Disclosure 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). Of the group spending in Senate races between May 11 and June 28, 33 percent of the ads aired came from fully disclosing groups; non-disclosing groups sponsored 38 percent; and 29 percent were sponsored by partial disclosing groups. (Almost all of that latter total are from Senate Majority PAC.)

“Secrecy remains the order of the day for politically-active nonprofits, super PACs, and other political groups hoping to shape voter sentiment while shielding their own funding sources from view,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Table 7: Airings and Spending by Group in U.S. Senate Races

Sponsor	Pty Lean	Type	Disclose	Total Spend ($)	Airings	Races
Senate Majority PAC	Dem	SuperPAC	P	6,160,170	10,416	CO, IA, ME, MI, MT
Majority Forward	Dem	501c4	N	3,458,500	6,997	AZ, MT, NC
Women Vote	Dem	SuperPAC	Y	1,697,140	3,745	IA
One Nation	Rep	501c4	N	2,089,650	3,454	AZ, IA, ME, MT
End Citizens United	Dem	PAC	Y	1,349,650	2,377	ME
NRDC Action Fund	Dem	501c4	N	721,700	1,729	NC
Club For Growth Action	Rep	SuperPAC	Y	481,520	1,619	AL, KS
1820 PAC	Rep	SuperPAC	Y	782,520	1,294	ME
Let's Turn Colorado Blue	Dem	SuperPAC	Y	910,010	1,080	CO
Advancing AZ	Dem	501c4	N	429,730	892	AZ
AFSCME	Dem	501c5	Y	693,830	876	MI
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce	Rep	501c4	N	671,430	857	CO, ME
LCV Victory Fund	Dem	SuperPAC	P	256,130	541	AZ, MI
The Lincoln Project	Dem	SuperPAC	Y	341,350	506	IA, KY, MT, NC
Montana Federation Of Public Employees	Dem	501c5	Y	145,150	420	MT
Ditch Fund	Dem	Carey	Y	156,700	337	KY
Taxpayers Protection Alliance	Rep	501c4	N	242,440	315	AZ
Tax March	Dem	501c4	N	160,580	245	ME
Better Future MI Fund	Rep	SuperPAC	Y	236,150	153	MI
Undivided Purpose	Dem	SuperPAC	Y	81,760	91	GA
EDF Action Votes	Dem	SuperPAC	P	16,190	45	MI
Colorados Working Families Org	Dem	SuperPAC	Y	33,930	25	CO
Maine Momentum	Dem	501c4	N	12,610	22	ME
NRDC Action Votes	Dem	PAC	Y	33,670	22	MI
Let America Vote PAC	Dem	PAC	Y	47,320	5	KY
Numbers include ads aired on broadcast television between May 11, 2020, and June 28, 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.

All told, cycle-to-date outside groups have aired 41 percent of all ads in Senate races. This compares to 29 percent of ads relevant to House races and just 7 percent of ads in the presidential race.

Harrison and Kentucky Dem Contenders Spend Big on Digital

Three senate candidates have spent more than a million dollars on Facebook and Google advertising between May 10 and June 27, 2020 (see Table 8). South Carolina Democratic candidate Jaime Harrison leads the pack with over $1.7 million ($1.4 million of which was on Facebook) followed by the two Democratic contenders in Kentucky, Amy McGrath (nearly $1.4 million) and Charles Booker (nearly $1.1 million). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ranks fourth overall during the same time period at just over $800,000.

“Booker in Kentucky saw a late surge in interest in his campaign, and he almost won the primary,” said Travis Ridout, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project.  “He lagged far behind McGrath in TV spots but was very competitive on the digital side.” 

Table 8: Facebook and Google Spending by Senate Candidates

State	Party	Sponsor		Fb (since May 9)	Google (since May 9)	Fb + Google (since May 9)
AK	IND	Gross, Al Dr.		2,110	1,600	3,710
AK	REP	Sullivan, Dan		7,137	628,400	635,537
AL	DEM	Jones, Doug		41,091	2,800	43,891
AL	REP	Sessions, Jefferson B		917	0	917
AL	REP	Tuberville, Thomas H		38,566	1,300	39,866
AR	REP	Cotton, Thomas		12,927	1,800	14,727
AR	IND	Whitfield, Daniel Allen		243	0	243
AZ	DEM	Kelly, Mark		576,577	234,900	811,477
AZ	REP	McCarthy, Daniel		2286	0	2,286
AZ	REP	McSally, Martha		227,106	138,500	365,606
CA	DEM	Harris, Kamala D		0	6,100	6,100
CO	REP	Gardner, Cory		62,438	13,200	75,638
CO	DEM	Hickenlooper, John W.		241,580	197,600	439,180
CO	DEM	Romanoff, Andrew		17,234	0	17,234
DE	DEM	Coons, Christopher A.		15,694	3,100	18,794
DE	DEM	Scarane, Jessica		446	0	446
DE	REP	Witzke, Lauren Elena		81	0	81
GA	REP	Collins, Douglas Allen		69,338	0	69,338
GA	DEM	Dejesus, Marckeith		49	0	49
GA	REP	Grayson, Derrick E Rev		104	0	104
GA	REP	Johnson, Arthur Wayne		1,026	0	1,026
GA	DEM	Johnson-Shealey, Tamara		295	0	295
GA	DEM	Lieberman, Matthew		22,274	0	22,274
GA	REP	Loeffler, Kelly		76,288	30,500	106,788
GA	DEM	Ossoff, T. Jonathan		286,736	25,200	31,1936
GA	REP	Perdue, David		23,088	0	23,088
GA	DEM	Riggs Amico, Sarah		307	0	307
GA	DEM	Tarver, Edward J.		3,958	0	3,958
GA	DEM	Tomlinson, Teresa Pike		1,870	900	2,770
GA	DEM	Warnock, Raphael		281,090	17,300	298,390
GA	DEM	Winfield, Richard Dien		40	0	40
IA	REP	Ernst, Joni K		163,189	6,800	169,989
IA	DEM	Franken, Michael		32,178	0	32,178
IA	DEM	Greenfield, Theresa		69,785	150,300	220,085
IA	DEM	Mauro, Eddie J		26,498	10,700	37,198
IL	REP	Curran, Mark		3,522	0	3,522
IL	DEM	Durbin, Richard J		1,353	1,500	2,853
IL	LIB	Malouf, Danny		478	0	478
KS	DEM	Bollier, Barbara		33,214	50,600	83,814
KS	REP	Kobach, Kris		250	0	250
KS	REP	Laturner, Jake		8,208	0	8,208
KS	REP	Lindstrom, David Alan		14,397	0	14,397
KS	REP	Marshall, Roger W		15,461	0	15,461
KS	DEM	Reddi, Usha		50	0	50
KY	DEM	Booker, Charles		964,253	116,100	1,080,353
KY	DEM	Broihier, Michael George		35,974	0	35,974
KY	REP	McConnell, Mitch		446,265	385,400	831,665
KY	DEM	McGrath, Amy		619,133	764,200	1,383,333
KY	DEM	Rothmuller, Eric		800	0	800
KY	DEM	Save America Fund	pro-McGrath	45,925	0	45,925
LA	DEM	Pierce, Antoine		422	0	422
MA	DEM	Kennedy, Joseph P Iii		17,312	6,400	23,712
MA	DEM	Markey, Edward J. Sen.		18,076	14,200	32,276
MA	REP	O'Connor, Kevin J		75	0	75
ME	REP	1820 Pac	pro-Collins	7,650	11,400	19,050
ME	REP	Collins, Susan M.		126,957	11,700	138,657
ME	DEM	Gideon, Sara		313,152	122,300	435,452
ME	UNK	Savage, Lisa Jill		20	0	20
ME	DEM	Sweet, Betsy		6,063	0	6,063
MI	REP	Better Future Michigan Fund	pro-James	28,013	0	28,013
MI	REP	James, John		36,640	14,500	51,140
MI	DEM	Peters, Gary		68,515	32,100	100,615
MN	REP	Barrett, Robert Paul Mr Jr.		2,102	0	2,102
MN	REP	Lewis, Jason		68,136	2,800	70,936
MN	DEM	Smith, Tina		13,727	1,000	14,727
MS	DEM	Espy, Michael		13,287	5,100	18,387
MT	DEM	Bullock, Steve		128,698	0	128,698
MT	REP	Daines, Steve		504,985	264,500	769,485
MT	DEM	Mues, John		5,668	0	5,668
NC	DEM	Cunningham, Cal		84,709	0	84,709
NC	REP	Smith, Sandy		2,557	0	2,557
NC	REP	Tillis, Thom R. Sen.		9,744	66,800	76,544
NE	DEM	Janicek, Chris Edward Mr		3,312	0	3,312
NE	DEM	Macek, Dennis Frank		233	0	233
NE	REP	Sasse, Benjamin E		2,742	2,300	5,042
NE	DEM	Shelton, Alisha		21	0	21
NH	REP	Bolduc, Donald C.		1,355	0	1,355
NH	REP	Messner, Bryant 'Corky' S.		10,819	2,900	13,719
NH	DEM	Shaheen, Jeanne		1,331	3,100	4,431
NJ	DEM	Booker, Cory		33,346	1,500	34,846
NJ	IND	Burke, Daniel C. Mr.		100	0	100
NJ	IND	Fernandez, Veronica		1,130	0	1,130
NJ	DEM	Hamm, Lawrence Mr.		3,228	0	3,228
NJ	REP	Mehta, Rikin		1,518	0	1,518
NJ	REP	Singh, Hirsh V		8,203	0	8,203
NM	REP	Clarkson, Gavin		131	0	131
NM	DEM	Lujan, Ben Ray		8,732	0	8,732
NM	REP	Martinez, Elisa		5,000	0	5,000
NM	REP	Ronchetti, Mark V.		3,601	0	3601
NY	DEM	Gillibrand, Kirsten		18,555	0	18,555
OK	DEM	Britt, Elysabeth		327	0	327
OK	DEM	Broyles, Abby		45,194	0	45,194
OK	REP	Inhofe, James M. Sen.		4,542	0	4542
OK	REP	Stitt, Jj Mr.		605	0	605
OR	DEM	Merkley, Jeffrey Alan		33,854	0	33,854
RI	REP	Waters, Allen		569	0	569
SC	REP	Buckner, Dwayne Duke		256	0	256
SC	REP	Graham, Lindsey O.		475,062	116,600	591,662
SC	DEM	Harrison, Jaime		1,428,481	325,700	1,754,181
SC	REP	Lapierre, Michael James		13,407	0	13,407
SC	REP	Reynolds, Joseph		5,280	0	5,280
SD	DEM	Ahlers, Dan		330	0	330
SD	REP	Borglum, Scyller		1,433	0	1,433
SD	REP	Rounds, Mike		5,520	0	5,520
TN	REP	Bush, Byron		20	0	20
TN	REP	Cope, Roy Dale		263	0	263
TN	REP	Flinn, George S Dr Jr		6,344	0	6344
TN	REP	Hagerty, Bill		30,808	15,600	46,408
TN	IND	Hill, Garland Dean Ii		100	0	100
TN	DEM	Mackler, James		0	2,200	2,200
TN	IND	McLeod, Elizabeth D		64	0	64
TN	REP	Sethi, Dr. Manny		16,850	0	16,850
TX	REP	Castro, John Anthony		600	0	600
TX	REP	Cornyn, John Sen		129,652	38,300	167,952
TX	DEM	Hegar, Mary Jennings Mj		22,095	13,700	35,795
TX	REP	Stovall, Dwayne		100	0	100
TX	DEM	West, Royce		10,086	0	10,086
VA	REP	Baldwin, Alissa		1,279	0	1,279
VA	REP	Gade, Daniel Macarthur Mr.		5,810	600	6,410
VA	REP	Speciale, Thomas A Ii		1,727	0	1,727
VA	DEM	Warner, Mark Robert		26,547	200	26,747
WV	DEM	Swearengin, Paula Jean		22,474	0	22,474
WV	REP	Whitt, Larry Allen Ii		1,900	0	1,900
WY	DEM	Ben David, Merav		332	0	332
WY	REP	Lummis, Cynthia Marie		9,919	3,100	13,019
WY	REP	Miller, Bryan		29	0	29
WY	REP	Wheeler, Joshua B		255	0	255
Numbers include spending between May 10, 2020 and June 27, 2020 for Facebook and 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. Classifications of Senate candidates from the Wesleyan Media Project with help from the Center for Responsive Politics. See “About the Data” section at the end of this report for more information on our methodology.

Deep Dive: Quantifying Mentions of Presidential and Senatorial Candidates on Facebook

The Wesleyan Media Project’s student-driven Delta Lab has been tracking references to presidential and senatorial candidates on Facebook advertising, and Table 9 provides a deep dive into the 188 unique page names that have spent approximately $25,000 or more on ads that explicitly mentioned any of the 2020 presidential or senatorial candidates between May 10 and June 27, 2020. Mentions are defined by keyword matches of candidate names within each ad’s associated page name, funding entity and/or creative body text (video and audio data are currently excluded). Candidate pages are included in these tables (and can be filtered in or out via the last column), but self-references by known candidate pages are excluded in the mention counts and mention spending estimates.

As shown in Table 9, there are 18 page names that have spent $500,000 or more on ads referencing candidates for president or U.S. Senate, only 11 of which are known candidate pages. Facebook pages Senate Democrats (DSCC), Stop Republicans and the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) have all spent more than a million dollars on ads referencing presidential and senatorial candidates.

Table 9: Facebook Pages Mentioning Candidates for President & Senate in 2020

Click here to view the table in a new tab (with larger text)

Facebook page names spending approximately $25,000 or more on advertising that mentions 2020 presidential or senatorial candidates (excluding candidate self-references) between May 10 and June 27, 2020. This interactive table is part of an ongoing, work-in-progress project from WMP’s student-driven Delta Lab.
Data table by Conner Sexton ’20 and Kevin McMorrow ’20

Table 10 presents the same set of pages from Table 9 but aggregates the proportion of and spending on ads mentioning candidates by the major party affiliation of the candidate mention. The columns “Democrats” and “Republicans” contain the proportion of ads mentioning candidates from the respective parties out of the total number of ads mentioning a candidate at all. The last two columns contain the approximate spend on ads that mention Democratic candidates or Republican candidates. For example, Trump’s campaign has spent nearly $1 million dollars on advertising on Mike Pence’s Facebook page and another half million on the Team Trump Facebook page on advertising that mentions Joe Biden. Excluding self-references to Trump (the Team Trump page would include a match to Trump by definition), Biden was the only candidate mentioned in those ads, and therefore 100% of the advertising is of Democratic candidates.

As shown in Table 10, excluding candidate pages, the top spenders on ads mentioning Republican candidates are Senate Democrats (the DSCC page), Stop Republicans, and The Lincoln Project.

Table 10: Dynamic Dive into Facebook Pages Spending By Party

Click here to view the table in a new tab (with larger text)

Facebook page names spending approximately $25,000 or more on advertising that mentions 2020 presidential or senatorial candidates (excluding candidate self-references) between May 10 and June 27, 2020. This interactive table is part of an ongoing, work-in-progress project from WMP’s student-driven Delta Lab.
Data table by Conner Sexton ’20 and Kevin McMorrow ’20

Aggregating across all pages known to be associated with the two presidential campaigns themselves (Table 11), and among ads where Trump mentions Biden or any 2020 senatorial candidates, over a quarter of these ads explicitly mention Biden in some way. In contrast, in advertising by the Biden campaign (aggregating over three unique page IDs) that references Trump or any 2020 senatorial candidates, 72 percent of them mention Donald Trump.

Table 11: Presidential Campaign Mentions

Click here to view the table in a new tab (with larger text)

Data in this table are aggregated across all the Facebook pages names known to be associated with each of the presidential campaigns between May 10 and June 27, 2020. This interactive table is part of an ongoing, work-in-progress project from WMP’s student-driven Delta Lab.
Data table by Conner Sexton ’20 and Kevin McMorrow ’20

U.S. Senate and U.S. House Ad Volumes Way Up Over Prior Cycles

We show ad volume totals by week in the next three figures, one each for the presidential, Senate, and House context. Figure 1 speaks to the presidential race. The early 2020 spike in presidential ads is largely the efforts of Mike Bloomberg, before ad volumes dropped to near 0 for most weeks of April. Since the start of May, ad totals have accelerated but at a lower rate than the comparable period in 2016.

Figure 1: Presidential Race Ads by Week and Year

Senate totals by week are shown in Figure 2, and the historic volumes this cycle are apparent, most especially in the period we look at in this release. Ad totals in Senate races are far higher in 2020 than in the previous two presidential cycles.

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

Finally, the totals for House races are shown in Figure 3.  Here, too, totals exceed the 2012 and 2016 campaigns, but there were roughly similar ad totals in those years in the comparable period between mid-March and early June.  In the last few weeks, however, ad volumes in House races have accelerated to far more than in 2012 and 2016.

Figure 3: U.S. House 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. 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 on spending between May 10, 2020 and June 27, 2020 are calculated by subtracting the reported cumulative spending (as reported by Facebook as the total spent since May 2018) for the June 27, 2020 report and subtracting off the cumulative spending reported for May 9, 2020.

In Tables 9, 10, and 11, the Total Spend and Total Ads figures may differ from the totals reported elsewhere in this report because our Delta Lab team sums up the daily aggregate reports by page name rather than using the calculation described above to subtract the cumulative files, and there are known discrepancies between the two reporting forms. For more, see the following Delta Lab post. The columns Approximate Spend on Mentions and Number of Ads Mentioning candidates are calculated for each entity by averaging the bounds of ads that mention candidates and averaging the bounds of all ads from that entity, then dividing the two to get the proportion of spend (or ads) that mention candidates. We then multiply that proportion by Facebook’s totals from the daily reports to arrive at the Approximate Spend on Mentions and the Number of Ads Mentioning candidates.

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 June 27, 2020 total to get the spending by page and disclaimer for January 6, 2019 through June 27, 2020.

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 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 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 6/30/20, 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, 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 1/6/19 through 6/27/20 or 5/10/20 through 6/27/20.

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 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.