Dan Sullivan (REP, incumbent), Daniel Sullivan (REP), Mary Peltola (DEM).
118 ads analyzed, 77 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing.
Findings
As of 2026-09-23. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
118 (Meta 112, YouTube 6) · started running between 2026-07-20 and 2026-09-22
With at least one technique
77 of 118 (65%)
Most common techniques
Loaded Language · 52 adsAppeal to Prejudice · 51 adsName Calling · 37 ads
Meta
72 of 112 (64%) flagged · Appeal to Prejudice (47), Loaded Language (47), False Urgency (36)
YouTube
5 of 6 flagged · Loaded Language (5), Appeal to Prejudice (4), Appeal to Fear (3)
Reported Meta spend
$596,300–750,190 on all ads, $319,900–402,888 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“multi-million-dollar payout” — Loaded Language, paid for by North Star
· the flagged ad with the highest reported spend that shows the most common technique
Money in this race
From FEC filings for 2025–26. Outside spending is money a group spends on its own about a candidate — TV and online ads, mail, canvassing. It is not a donation to the campaign, and the candidate does not control it. Supporting means it was spent to help that candidate win; Opposing means it was spent to defeat them, usually on attack ads. Groups report it within 24 or 48 hours as the election nears. Raised is the campaign's own fundraising, as of its latest quarterly report. Largest donors come from each outside spender's own FEC receipts, with each donor's share of its itemized receipts; donors under $100,000 are not named.
Dan Sullivan (REP, incumbent)
Raised
$9.1M through 2026-07-29individuals $4.1M · PACs $1.9M · party $62K · from the candidate's other committees $2.8M · cash on hand $7.3M
NORTH STAR— $3.9M opposing Sullivan
· 2 ads on this pageAMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $2.2M supporting Sullivan
· 4 ads on this pageLargest donors: KOCH INC $30.0M (33%); STAND TOGETHER INC. $20.0M (22%); WALTON, JIM C. $7.0M (8%); WALTON, S ROBSON $7.0M (8%); STAND TOGETHER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC $6.5M (7%)WINSENATE— $1.5M opposing SullivanLargest donors: SMP $4.1M (100%)RIGHT FOR ALASKA— $1.1M opposing Sullivan
· 3 ads on this pageLargest donors: HARRIS, WILLIAM $100K (100%)AB PAC— $1.0M opposing SullivanLargest donors: AB FOUNDATION $10.6M (27%); SIMON, DEBORAH $5.0M (13%); DEMOCRACY MATTERS $4.3M (11%); DEMOCRACY PAC $4.0M (10%); PEELER, DAVID RANDOLPH $1.0M (3%)and 9 more
SLF PAC— $6.8M opposing Peltola
· 18 ads on this pageLargest donors: ONE NATION $70.7M (28%); ADELSON, MIRIAM $30.0M (12%); SCHWARZMAN, STEPHEN A. $17.0M (7%); SINGER, PAUL ELLIOTT $14.5M (6%); MUSK, ELON $10.0M (4%)LAST FRONTIER PAC— $6.2M opposing Peltola
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors: GRIFFIN, KENNETH C. $2.5M (36%); RESTORATION OF AMERICA PAC $2.0M (28%); SINGER, PAUL ELLIOTT $500K (7%); CONOCOPHILLIPS ANS MARKETING COMPANY $500K (7%); CHEVRON CORPORATION $200K (3%)FORWARD ALASKA— $1.3M supporting Peltola
· 1 ad on this pageAMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $1.1M opposing Peltola
· 4 ads on this pageLargest donors: KOCH INC $30.0M (33%); STAND TOGETHER INC. $20.0M (22%); WALTON, JIM C. $7.0M (8%); WALTON, S ROBSON $7.0M (8%); STAND TOGETHER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC $6.5M (7%)NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $948K opposing Peltolaand 14 more
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-17spend $1,000–1,499175,000–199,999 impressions
🚨 REPORT: Alaskans are asking - who is Mary Peltola, really? After leaving Congress, Peltola joined a lobbying firm with an enormous $340,000 salary. Her campaign is reportedly backed by liberal dark money groups.
Read more below.
🚨 REPORT: Alaskans are asking - who is Mary Peltola, really? After leaving Congress, Peltola joined a lobbying firm with an enormous $340,000 salary. Her campaign is reportedly backed by liberal dark money groups.
Read more below.
Bandwagon AppealLoaded LanguageConspiracy AppealAppeal to PrejudiceName Calling75.0% of sentences flagged
Bandwagon Appeal: Implies a broad collective of Alaskans are questioning Peltola's identity/legitimacy, creating the impression of widespread doubt — for example: 'Alaskans are asking'
Loaded Language: The emoji '🚨' and the phrasing 'really?' are emotionally charged signals designed to trigger suspicion and alarm rather than convey neutral information — for example: 🚨 REPORT, who is Mary Peltola, really? and enormous $340,000 salary.
Conspiracy Appeal: References 'dark money groups' to imply hidden, shadowy financial backing orchestrating her campaign, a classic conspiracy framing — for example: 'liberal dark money groups'
Appeal to Prejudice: Invoking 'Alaskans are asking' frames the question as coming from the in-group of local residents, implying Peltola is an outsider or unknown quantity to her own constituents
Name Calling: The label 'liberal' is used as a derogatory identifier to prime negative associations rather than as a neutral political descriptor in this context
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-17spend $2,500–2,999400,000–449,999 impressions
📰 JUST IN: New reports show how close Mary Peltola became with Washington D.C. insiders after leaving Congress. After her term was over, Mary Peltola was straight to securing a job with a lucrative D.C. based lobbying firm, paying her $340,000.
Read more:
📰 JUST IN: New reports show how close Mary Peltola became with Washington D.C. insiders after leaving Congress. After her term was over, Mary Peltola was straight to securing a job with a lucrative D.C. based lobbying firm, paying her $340,000.
Read more:
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-16 to 2026-09-222 variantsspend $2,200–2,798325,000–399,998 impressions
Mary Peltola sounds like Alaska, but she doesn’t stand up for Alaska.
She toes a different line in Washington, D.C. – including taking a $340,000 salary from a lobbying firm.
Mary Peltola sold Alaska out. 🚫
Mary Peltola sounds like Alaska, but she doesn’t stand up for Alaska.
She toes a different line in Washington, D.C. – including taking a $340,000 salary from a lobbying firm.
Mary Peltola sold Alaska out. 🚫
Appeal to Prejudice25.0% of sentences flagged
Appeal to Prejudice: The sentence implies that Peltola, despite appearing to represent Alaska, fails to embody the values or interests of 'real' Alaskans, invoking an in-group/out-group identity framing — for example: implying she is not a true representative of her people.
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-162 variantsspend $3,700–4,298385,000–439,998 impressions
If you’re wondering who Mary Peltola really is...
Peltola is bankrolled by a billionaire-funded liberal dark money group. She took a $340,000 salary from a D.C. lobbying firm job as soon as she left Congress.
💰Peltola sold Alaska out for Washington liberals. She cannot be trusted.
Loaded LanguageName CallingAppeal to Prejudice33.3% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The phrase 'sold Alaska out' uses emotionally charged language implying betrayal, designed to trigger outrage rather than convey factual information — for example: sold Alaska out and She cannot be trusted.
Name Calling: The label 'Washington liberals' is used as a derogatory tag to discredit Peltola by association rather than addressing her actual policy positions — for example: 'Washington liberals'
Appeal to Prejudice: The sentence exploits in-group/out-group identity by framing Peltola as serving outsiders ('Washington liberals') rather than Alaskans, implying a betrayal of local identity — for example: 'sold Alaska out for Washington liberals'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-162 variantsspend $1,800–2,398250,000–309,998 impressions
Mary Peltola may show her face, but she won’t speak up for Alaskans.
When she gets in a room with the liberal donors bankrolling her campaign, we know she's not thinking about the people of Alaska.
💰Mary had her chance and sold Alaskans out.
Mary Peltola may show her face, but she won’t speak up for Alaskans.
When she gets in a room with the liberal donors bankrolling her campaign, we know she's not thinking about the people of Alaska.
💰Mary had her chance and sold Alaskans out.
Loaded LanguageAppeal to PrejudiceName CallingConspiracy AppealBlack-and-White Fallacy100.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The phrase 'show her face' carries a dismissive, contemptuous connotation implying superficiality or cowardice, rather than neutral description of her presence — for example: 'show her face'
Appeal to Prejudice: The contrast between Peltola's implied inaction and 'Alaskans' invokes in-group identity, implying she is failing 'her own people' and does not truly represent them — for example: 'speak up for Alaskans'
Name Calling: 'Liberal donors' is used as a derogatory label to discredit the candidate by association with a negatively framed group rather than addressing policy arguments — for example: liberal donors
Conspiracy Appeal: The sentence implies a hidden, sinister relationship between the candidate and wealthy donors, suggesting she secretly serves their interests rather than her constituents — for example: When she gets in a room with the liberal donors
Black-and-White Fallacy: The sentence presents a binary: she is either serving liberal donors or the people of Alaska, with no possibility of overlap or nuance — for example: 'we know she's not thinking about the people of Alaska'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-16 to 2026-09-212 variantsspend $900–1,098125,000–154,998 impressions
Mary Peltola may show her face, but she won’t speak up for Alaskans.
Every time she gets in a room with the liberal donors bankrolling her campaign, we know she's not thinking about the people of Alaska. She will follow the liberals’ orders in Washington D.C.
💰Mary had her chance and sold Alaskans out.
Loaded LanguageAppeal to PrejudiceConspiracy AppealName CallingBlack-and-White Fallacy100.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The phrase 'show her face' carries a dismissive, contemptuous connotation implying superficiality or cowardice, rather than neutral description of her presence — for example: 'show her face'
Appeal to Prejudice: The contrast between Peltola's implied inaction and 'speaking up for Alaskans' invokes in-group identity, implying she is not truly representing 'her people' — for example: 'speak up for Alaskans'
Conspiracy Appeal: The framing implies a hidden arrangement where donors secretly control the candidate's thinking and actions — for example: 'Every time she gets in a room with the liberal donors'
Name Calling: 'Liberals' is used as a derogatory label to discredit the candidate by association rather than addressing her actual policy positions — for example: 'the liberals' orders'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The sentence implies she will either serve 'liberals in Washington D.C.' or the people of Alaska, with no middle ground or independent judgment possible — for example: 'She will follow the liberals' orders in Washington D.C.'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-162 variantsspend $4,000–4,998550,000–649,998 impressions
Who is Mary Peltola, really?
❌ She sides with D.C. liberals
❌ Paid $340,000 salary by a D.C. lobbying firm
❌ Bankrolled by dark liberal money funded by billionaires.
Mary Peltola had her chance, and she sided with D.C. insiders over Alaskans. She cannot be trusted.
Loaded LanguageConspiracy AppealAppeal to PrejudiceName CallingScapegoating100.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts.
Conspiracy Appeal: Hidden plots, secret coordination, or shadowy actors invoked to explain away evidence.
Appeal to Prejudice: Framing the subject as aligned with 'D.C. liberals' invokes in-group/out-group identity to discredit her — for example: siding with D.C. liberals implies betrayal of local constituents
Name Calling: The label 'liberals' is used as a derogatory tag to discredit the subject rather than address her positions — for example: 'liberals' as a pejorative label
Scapegoating: Billionaires and liberal donors are blamed as the corrupting force behind the subject's actions, reducing a complex political situation to a single villainous group — for example: 'funded by billionaires'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-162 variantsspend $600–79885,000–99,998 impressions
If you’re wondering who Mary Peltola really is...
Peltola is bankrolled by a billionaire-funded liberal dark money group. She took a $340,000 salary from a D.C. lobbying firm as soon as she left Congress.
💰Peltola sold Alaska out for Washington liberals. She cannot be trusted.
If you’re wondering who Mary Peltola really is...
Peltola is bankrolled by a billionaire-funded liberal dark money group. She took a $340,000 salary from a D.C. lobbying firm as soon as she left Congress.
💰Peltola sold Alaska out for Washington liberals. She cannot be trusted.
Loaded LanguageName CallingAppeal to PrejudiceScapegoating33.3% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The phrase 'sold Alaska out' uses emotionally charged language implying betrayal, designed to trigger outrage rather than convey factual information — for example: sold Alaska out and She cannot be trusted.
Name Calling: The label 'Washington liberals' is used as a derogatory tag to discredit by association rather than address any specific policy or argument — for example: 'Washington liberals'
Appeal to Prejudice: The sentence exploits in-group/out-group identity by framing Peltola as serving outsiders ('Washington liberals') rather than Alaskans, implying a betrayal of local identity — for example: 'sold Alaska out for Washington liberals'
Scapegoating: Blames Peltola for Alaska's problems by framing her as a tool of outside liberal forces, deflecting from complex policy debates — for example: 'sold Alaska out for Washington liberals'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-09-09
Who is Mary Peltola really? [music] The answer is I don't know. >> She'll show her face, but she won't speak up for Alaska. >> They dressed her up, threw her out on a stream somewhere, make her look like an Alaskan. >> Mary Peltola sounds like Alaska, but toes a different line in Washington, D.C. >> Every time Mary Peltola gets in a room with her people, she's not with our people. Mary had her chance and she sold Alaskans out. >> SLF PAC [music] is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Loaded LanguageConspiracy AppealName CallingBlack-and-White FallacyAppeal to PrejudiceScapegoating75.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The word 'really' implies hidden or deceptive identity, casting suspicion without evidence — for example: Who is Mary Peltola really?, she won't speak up for Alaska and toes a different line in Washington, D.C..
Conspiracy Appeal: The phrase 'they dressed her up' implies shadowy actors orchestrating a deceptive image of Peltola — for example: 'They dressed her up, threw her out on a stream somewhere'
Name Calling: The sentence implies Peltola is a manufactured fake rather than a genuine Alaskan, functioning as a derogatory label — for example: 'make her look like an Alaskan'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The sentence implies Peltola either represents Alaska or Washington D.C. interests, with no middle ground or nuance — for example: 'sounds like Alaska, but toes a different line in Washington, D.C.'
Appeal to Prejudice: The contrast between 'her people' and 'our people' explicitly invokes in-group/out-group identity to cast Peltola as an outsider — for example: 'she's not with our people'
Scapegoating: Peltola is blamed as the singular cause of harm to Alaskans without specifying what complex policy failures or circumstances may be involved — for example: 'she sold Alaskans out'
Claims checked
No checkable factual claims in this ad.
Watch on YouTube ↗Transcript above is auto-generated; the analysis is of the spoken words.
MARY PELTOLA BETRAYED VETERANS
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-09-02
I was in the service for over 14 [music] years. >> Spent 3 years in the army, became an officer, and went all the way from private to full bird colonel. >> I am a veteran [music] and I know that Mary Peltola does not care about us. Mary Peltola has voted against VA medical care. >> She voted against a pay raise for our troops. >> It really bothers me that she's not taking care of veterans. >> I think her record speaks for itself. [music] I cannot support Mary under any circumstances. >> SLF PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
no techniques found
Claims checked
“Mary Peltola has voted against VA medical care.” Checked as: Mary Peltola voted against VA medical care.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“She voted against a pay raise for our troops.” Checked as: Mary Peltola voted against a pay raise for troops.No authoritative evidence foundinsufficient_tier
Verdict right?
Watch on YouTube ↗Transcript above is auto-generated; the analysis is of the spoken words.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-08-24 to 2026-09-05spend $1,500–1,999200,000–249,999 impressions
“My dad is a legally blind veteran. The very things that he fought for, Mary Peltola voted to take away from him.” – Jaime, Wasilla, AK
Alaska’s veterans rely on VA benefits, and they need to be taken care of properly. Mary Peltola voted against them.
🚫 We don’t need her in office 🚫
Appeal to Prejudice20.0% of sentences flagged
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase 'we' invokes an in-group identity implying a collective consensus that excludes the unnamed 'her', framing the rejection as a shared community value — for example: We don't need her
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:15from 2026-08-14
Mary Peltola camouflages who she really is. Mary says she stands with our veterans, but that's not how she voted. Mary voted against funding VA medical care. She voted against the pay raise for our troops. She says one thing and does something else.
Loaded LanguageName CallingCard StackingAppeal to PrejudiceRepetition100.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The word 'camouflages' is emotionally charged, implying deliberate deception and hidden identity rather than a neutral description — for example: camouflages who she really is.
Name Calling: Derogatory labels used to discredit a person or group rather than address their arguments.
Card Stacking: Presents a single vote as evidence of opposition to VA medical care without context about the broader bill, amendments, or alternative votes — for example: Mary voted against funding VA medical care and She voted against the pay raise for our troops.
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase 'our troops' invokes in-group identity and patriotic loyalty to frame the vote as a betrayal of a shared community — for example: 'our troops'
Repetition: The accusation of hypocrisy — saying one thing and doing another — is repeated across sentences 1, 2, and 5 to reinforce the impression of deliberate deception — for example: 'She says one thing and does something else'
Claims checked
“Mary voted against funding VA medical care.” No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“She voted against the pay raise for our troops.” Checked as: Mary Peltola voted against a pay raise for troops.No authoritative evidence foundinsufficient_tier
Verdict right?
Watch on YouTube ↗Transcript above is auto-generated; the analysis is of the spoken words.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-08-12 to 2026-09-06spend $500–59980,000–89,999 impressions
Mary Peltola says she stands with our veterans, but that’s not how she voted.
PELTOLA VOTED AGAINST:
❌ Funding VA medical care
❌ A pay raise for our troops
She says one thing, and does something else. Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola.
Mary Peltola says she stands with our veterans, but that’s not how she voted.
PELTOLA VOTED AGAINST:
❌ Funding VA medical care
❌ A pay raise for our troops
She says one thing, and does something else. Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola.
Loaded LanguageAppeal to PrejudiceName Calling50.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The phrase implies hypocrisy and dishonesty without providing evidence, using implication to emotionally charge the statement — for example: 'says one thing, and does something else'
Appeal to Prejudice: Invokes the in-group identity of Alaskans to frame distrust of Peltola as a shared regional or community value — for example: 'Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola'
Name Calling: Directly labels Mary Peltola as untrustworthy without substantive argument or evidence to support the claim — for example: 'cannot trust Mary Peltola'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-08-12 to 2026-09-102 variantsspend $1,100–1,698190,000–219,998 impressions
⚠️ Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola.
Mary Peltola camouflages her record, saying she stands with veterans, but then votes AGAINST funding VA medical care and AGAINST a pay raise for our troops.
Mary Peltola promises Alaska one thing, and then does something else.
⚠️ Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola.
Mary Peltola camouflages her record, saying she stands with veterans, but then votes AGAINST funding VA medical care and AGAINST a pay raise for our troops.
Mary Peltola promises Alaska one thing, and then does something else.
Name CallingAppeal to PrejudiceLoaded LanguageCard Stacking66.7% of sentences flagged
Name Calling: The sentence uses a derogatory trust-undermining label directed at a named individual without providing any substantive argument or evidence — for example: 'Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola'
Appeal to Prejudice: The sentence invokes a regional in-group identity ('Alaskans') to frame the claim as a collective judgment by 'real' Alaskans against a specific individual — for example: 'Alaskans cannot trust Mary Peltola'
Loaded Language: The word 'camouflages' is emotionally charged, implying deliberate deception and concealment rather than a neutral description of her record — for example: 'camouflages her record'
Card Stacking: The sentence presents only the votes against certain measures without providing context such as reasons for the votes, what the bills contained, or any votes she may have cast in favor of veterans — for example: 'votes AGAINST funding VA medical care and AGAINST a pay raise for our troops'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-08-12 to 2026-09-102 variantsspend $1,700–2,298245,000–299,998 impressions
Alaska hunters use camouflage. The military uses camouflage. So does Mary Peltola.
She claims to stand with veterans, but voted against funding VA medical care.
She claims to stand with troops, but voted against giving them a pay raise.
Alaskans can’t trust Peltola.
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-08-12 to 2026-09-104 variantsspend $16,000–18,1961,775,000–2,009,996 impressions
Alaska hunters use camouflage. The military uses camouflage. So does Mary Peltola.
✖️ She claims to stand with veterans, but voted against funding VA medical care.
✖️ She claims to stand with troops, but voted against giving them a pay raise.
Alaskans can’t trust Peltola.
no techniques found
Claims checked
“She claims to stand with veterans, but voted against funding VA medical care.” Checked as: Mary Peltola voted against funding VA medical care.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“She claims to stand with troops, but voted against giving them a pay raise.” Checked as: A person (identified as "she") claims to stand with troops and voted against giving them a pay raise.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-08-12 to 2026-09-103 variantsspend $14,000–15,9971,750,000–1,999,997 impressions
Mary Peltola says one thing... and does something else.
Peltola claims to stand with our veterans, but that’s NOT how she voted.
⚠️ She voted against funding VA medical care.
⚠️ She voted against giving troops a pay raise.
Alaskans can’t trust Peltola.
Appeal to PrejudiceLoaded Language16.7% of sentences flagged
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase 'our veterans' invokes in-group identity to frame Peltola as betraying a cherished community — for example: our veterans
Loaded Language: The emphatic capitalization of 'NOT' is designed to trigger an emotional reaction of betrayal and distrust rather than convey neutral factual information — for example: NOT how she voted
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-08-06
In Alaska, [music] camouflage has a purpose. Hunters use camouflage, the military uses camouflage, so does Mary Peltola. She camouflages who she really is. Mary says she stands with our veterans, but that's not how she voted. Mary Peltola voted against funding VA medical care. She voted against a pay raise for our troops. [music] She says one thing and does something else. I do not trust Mary Peltola, and neither [music] should you. >> SLF PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
TransferLoaded LanguageConspiracy AppealAppeal to PrejudiceCard StackingBandwagon AppealAppeal to Fear77.8% of sentences flagged
Transfer: By associating Peltola with hunters and military through the camouflage metaphor, the sentence borrows the negative connotation of deception while implying she is unlike these respected groups — for example: equating her with deceptive camouflage rather than legitimate uses
Loaded Language: The word 'camouflages' is used metaphorically to imply deliberate deception and hidden identity, triggering distrust — for example: camouflages who she really is and says one thing and does something else.
Conspiracy Appeal: The phrase implies Peltola has a hidden true identity she is concealing from voters, suggesting a secret agenda — for example: 'who she really is'
Appeal to Prejudice: Invoking 'our veterans' appeals to in-group identity and patriotic sentiment to frame Peltola as betraying a cherished group — for example: our veterans and our troops.
Card Stacking: Presents a single voting record claim without context — such as whether the vote was against a specific bill for other reasons — to create a one-sided negative impression — for example: voted against funding VA medical care and voted against a pay raise for our troops.
Bandwagon Appeal: Telling the audience 'neither should you' trust Peltola pressures conformity by implying the speaker's distrust is a position others should adopt — for example: 'neither should you'
Appeal to Fear: The direct address urging the audience not to trust Peltola creates anxiety about the consequences of doing so — for example: 'I do not trust Mary Peltola, and neither should you'
Claims checked
“Mary Peltola voted against funding VA medical care.” No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“She voted against a pay raise for our troops.” Checked as: Mary Peltola voted against a pay raise for troops.No authoritative evidence foundinsufficient_tier
Verdict right?
Watch on YouTube ↗Transcript above is auto-generated; the analysis is of the spoken words.
What this page is
An ad is on this page because its own "Paid for by" line is a campaign in this race; or it comes from a national Senate group and ran mostly in AK; or it ran mostly in AK and names a candidate — unless its sponsor is a campaign for some other office. Ads from outside groups appear alongside the campaigns' own.
Campaigns run one text as many separate ads. Identical text from the same sponsor is one card here, marked with its number of variants.
A technique is a specific manipulative move in the wording, found by our model and explained in one line. It is not a claim that the ad is false.
Claims are checked when a reader asks: press "Check this ad's claims" on a card. The check runs once and its result is shown to everyone afterwards. The ten ads with the most money behind them in each race are checked ahead of time.
Claim verdicts say what the cited sources say. A verdict that an ad is wrong or misleading is shown only when it cites an established fact-checker or an institutional record — Congress, a federal agency, a court — and its confidence is not low; a weaker one is not shown at all. Each verdict shows what it rests on and how confident it is. If we got one wrong, press Disagree: a verdict that readers dispute and no one defends comes down.
Video ads come from the campaigns' own YouTube channels; the transcript is analyzed. Meta ads are analyzed on their text; their video and images are not, yet.
Get notified as this improves — new detection models, the browser
extension, and outlet scorecards. Occasional email, no spam.
Semblen LLC · 5900 Balcones Drive STE 100, Austin, TX 78731 · unsubscribe any time