All political ads running on Google in the US

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

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.