Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Record $6.9 billion in political ad spending projected

election spending
Ravitaliy/Getty Images

It's always the case that as campaign season heats up, the sight of political advertisements increases ever more rapidly. But this year may be different, and not in a relaxing way. A new report projects that spending on 2020 political ads will reach $6.9 billion by Election Day, shattering the previous records.

The figure is an astonishing 63 percent more than what was spent ($4.2 billion) to promote all the candidates and causes in the last presidential election year, the digital marketing research firm eMarketer said in a study out Wednesday.

The booming business of campaign advertising is just the latest reflection of how the influence of money on politics has seen unbridled growth — especially in the decade since the Supreme Court largely deregulated the world of campaign finance, allowing donors to start spending billions in often unlimited and undisclosed amounts to pay for all the ads.


Most of the money is still spent on television, even though social media is now getting most of the attention because so much of that salesmanship is sullied by disinformation.

While there are requirements for disclosing who's behind TV, radio and print advertising, sponsored political content online remains largely unregulated. And attempts by Congress and the Federal Election Commission to require much more digital ad transparency are highly unlikely to succeed before November.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

This eMarketer study, its first, takes into account all projected ad spending by presidential, congressional, state and local candidates as well as political action committee ad buys and lobbying activities. Ads about legislative or regulatory issues with calls to action related to voting or contacting elected officials are also included.

Needless to say, having two billionaires spending lavishly on running for president has done much to cause the spike. While Tom Steyer has spent a $178 million so far, Mike Bloomberg has been in the Democratic contest for much less time and has already poured more than $300 million into advertising on radio, TV and online. He has signaled his total investment in himself could top $2 billion if necessary, and he's promised to spend generously (albeit probably not quite so generously) to promote whomever the party nominates against President Trump if he's not the one.

The company attributes this huge increase in ad spending to the "highly partisan political environment" that is "driving more Americans to donate money to their preferred candidates than in past election seasons, which in turn is funneling more money into advertising."

As far as what medium is most popular for political ads, television remains the top choice. This year spending on TV election ads will top $4.5 billion — almost double the total for 2016. While politics is only a slice of the overall television ad market, TV ads account for two-thirds of all sponsored election content.

The cash flowing into online ads is much lower, but not insignificant. For 2020, spending on digital ads has exploded to $1.34 billion — a 204 percent increase from four years ago. Facebook and Google are the top two platforms for political advertising, accounting for more than three-quarters of the online market.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less