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
Showing the 3 ads paid for by RIGHT FOR ALASKA. Show all 118 ads
Paid for by Right For Alaska PACfrom 2026-08-13 to 2026-08-153 variantsspend $1,300–1,99736,100–42,997 impressions
Alaska families are struggling to make ends meet. So why did Dan Sullivan spend our tax dollars on irreversible sex change surgeries for kids?
Gerald Heikes will protect our kids and our paychecks.
Vote Gerald Heikes by August 18.
Dan Sullivan voted five times to pile on the debt. The biggest increase in history.
Gerald Heikes puts our kids, our values, and our tax dollars first.
Vote Gerald Heikes for US Senate by August 18.
Plain Folks AppealLoaded LanguageAppeal to FearBlack-and-White FallacyCard StackingGlittering GeneralitiesAppeal to Prejudice50.0% of sentences flagged
Plain Folks Appeal: Attempts to convince by presenting the speaker as an ordinary person to gain trust and relatability — for example: struggling to make ends meet.
Loaded Language: The phrase 'irreversible sex change surgeries for kids' uses emotionally charged and provocative language designed to trigger a strong negative reaction rather than convey neutral facts — for example: 'irreversible sex change surgeries for kids'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence implies that taxpayer money is being used to harm children through irreversible medical procedures, creating anxiety and alarm to provoke a strong emotional response — for example: 'irreversible sex change surgeries for kids'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The rhetorical question frames the issue as a binary: either you oppose Dan Sullivan or you support spending tax dollars on these procedures, leaving no room for nuance or context — for example: 'So why did Dan Sullivan spend our tax dollars on irreversible sex change surgeries for kids?'
Card Stacking: The sentence juxtaposes the prior claim about struggling Alaska families with an unverified or misleadingly framed claim about Sullivan's spending, implying a direct causal link while omitting context or counterevidence — for example: 'our tax dollars on irreversible sex change surgeries for kids'
Glittering Generalities: The sentence uses vague, emotionally positive language about protecting children and finances without specifying any concrete policy or action — for example: 'protect our kids and our paychecks'
Appeal to Prejudice: The use of 'our' creates an in-group identity implying shared ownership and values, positioning Heikes as a defender of the community's collective interests — for example: 'our kids and our paychecks'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Right For Alaska PACfrom 2026-08-13 to 2026-08-204 variantsspend $5,600–6,796120,000–139,996 impressions
Alaska families are struggling to make ends meet. So why did Dan Sullivan spend our tax dollars on irreversible sex change surgeries for kids?
Gerald Heikes will protect our kids and our paychecks.
Vote Gerald Heikes by August 18.
DEI programs in Lithuania. A transgender comic book in Peru. Their obsessions, funded with your money.
It's time for a senator who answers to Alaska. Gerald Heikes will end the woke nonsense.
Vote Republican Gerald Heikes for US Senate by August 18.
Appeal to FearLoaded LanguageAppeal to PrejudiceBlack-and-White FallacyName CallingGlittering GeneralitiesScapegoatingFalse Urgency80.0% of sentences flagged
Appeal to Fear: Sets up an emotional premise about economic hardship to prime the audience for outrage in the following sentence — for example: framing families as 'struggling to make ends meet'
Loaded Language: Uses emotionally charged and politically loaded phrasing to provoke a visceral reaction rather than convey neutral facts — for example: 'irreversible sex change surgeries for kids'
Appeal to Prejudice: Invokes 'our tax dollars' to create an in-group identity of taxpayers being wronged by an out-group action, exploiting identity-based resentment — for example: 'our tax dollars'
Black-and-White Fallacy: Implicitly frames the situation as a binary: either families get help or money goes to the described surgeries, ignoring the complexity of budget allocations — for example: juxtaposing struggling families against the alleged spending
Name Calling: Uses a derogatory and politically charged label to discredit Dan Sullivan rather than engage with policy substance — for example: implying he personally funded 'sex change surgeries for kids'
Glittering Generalities: The sentence uses vague, emotionally positive language about protecting children and finances without specifying any concrete policy or action — for example: 'protect our kids and our paychecks'
Scapegoating: An unnamed 'they' is blamed for wasting public funds on culturally objectionable projects, deflecting from complex policy debates — for example: 'Their obsessions, funded with your money'
False Urgency: The phrase 'It's time' creates artificial urgency implying the moment for action is now and cannot wait — for example: 'It's time for a senator who answers to Alaska'
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by Right For Alaska PACfrom 2026-08-04 to 2026-08-194 variantsspend $16,400–18,496800,000–924,996 impressions
Dan Sullivan pocketed hundreds of thousands from corporate trawlers, then sold Alaska's fishermen out.
Skip Southworth will ban those trawlers and put Alaska first.
Vote Skip Southworth by August 18.
Dan Sullivan pocketed hundreds of thousands from corporate trawlers, then sold Alaska's fishermen out.
Skip Southworth will ban those trawlers and put Alaska first.
Vote Skip Southworth by August 18.
Loaded LanguageName CallingScapegoating33.3% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The words 'pocketed' and 'sold out' carry strong negative emotional connotations implying corruption and betrayal rather than neutral descriptions of campaign contributions or policy decisions — for example: 'pocketed hundreds of thousands' and 'sold Alaska's fishermen out'
Name Calling: Dan Sullivan is implicitly labeled as corrupt and a traitor to his constituents through the framing of the sentence, discrediting him without addressing specific policy arguments — for example: 'sold Alaska's fishermen out'
Scapegoating: The sentence implies a simple causal chain where corporate money directly caused harm to Alaskan fishermen, reducing a complex policy issue to a single actor's betrayal — for example: 'pocketed hundreds of thousands from corporate trawlers, then sold Alaska's fishermen out'
Claims checked
“Dan Sullivan pocketed hundreds of thousands from corporate trawlers” Checked as: Dan Sullivan received hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate trawler companies or interests.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
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