All political ads running on Google in the US

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Google’s political ads transparency portal, which lists all U.S. election-related ads on its platforms, is prompting scrutiny of how much money is being spent, by whom, and with what impact. Commenters note that Democratic campaigns, especially Harris’s, appear to outspend Republicans on Google while other channels like Facebook and TV may favor different demographics, and that ad prices have risen sharply since prior cycles. The conversation widens into concerns about targeted advertising, “dark money,” and post–Citizens United campaign finance, with some seeing the transparency tools as valuable but insufficient to counter the structural tilt toward wealthy donors and large platforms.

Ad volume and spend patterns

  • Many notice a predominance of Harris/Democratic ads on Google; attributed to that campaign raising and spending more overall.
  • Commenters note past races where higher spending did not guarantee victory (e.g., Clinton 2016, Bloomberg 2020).
  • Consensus: money matters for reach and turnout, but is not strictly decisive given few persuadable voters.

Platforms, demographics, and targeting

  • Google is seen as “internet at large,” but older and more conservative-leaning voters are thought to be more reachable via Facebook, daytime TV, or platform-specific usage (Facebook-only, YouTube-only, etc.).
  • Political ads often aim less at persuasion and more at mobilizing already-aligned voters.
  • Some argue national, untargeted ads are mainly for fundraising to then finance targeted swing‑state efforts.
  • Google allows targeting by age and gender but not race or religion; some see this as a compromise between ad effectiveness and reputational risk.

Rising costs and auction dynamics

  • Comparing 2020 vs 2024, impressions now cost more and reach fewer people.
  • Suggested causes: general inflation, increased competition (including from e‑commerce like Temu), more precise geo‑targeting, post‑COVID ad price rebound, and changes in Google’s auction behavior.
  • Some call it “greed,” others emphasize standard auction dynamics and higher demand.

Regulation and international contrasts

  • Norway bans political TV ads to limit money advantage but not online/poster ads; some find this now arbitrary.
  • European public broadcasters and some countries (e.g., France, Spain, Japan) are cited as offering regulated, equal airtime or reimbursed, capped campaign budgets.
  • In the US, decisions like Citizens United and PAC/Super PAC structures are repeatedly blamed for vast “dark money” and oligarchic dynamics.

Democracy, media, and advertising ethics

  • Many see the ad-driven system as corrupting, favoring wealthy donors, corporations, and media platforms (Google, Meta, TV networks) over voters.
  • Some argue negative and fear-based ads dominate and hollow out substantive debate.
  • Others note lobbying can be both democratic (citizens’ groups) and harmful (corporate regulatory capture).

Transparency tools and opaque organizations

  • Google’s and Meta’s ad libraries are praised but criticized for hiding policy-violating or historical ads and some details.
  • Users dive into specific advertisers (e.g., “Small Town Truth,” “Force Vector Communications”) and uncover small networks of 501(c)(3)s with minimal identifying info.
  • A detailed rabbit hole traces multiple nonprofits sharing a PO box and design style, likely connected to one political consulting ecosystem and leveraging Google’s nonprofit ad‑grant program.
  • This raises concerns about front groups, astroturfing, and how “free” grants may distort ad markets and political messaging.