Jon Ossoff (DEM, incumbent), Buddy Carter (REP), John King (REP), Jonathan McColumn (REP), Mike Collins (REP).
64 ads analyzed, 32 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
64 (Meta 57, YouTube 7) · started running between 2025-12-24 and 2026-09-22
28 of 57 (49%) flagged · Loaded Language (19), False Urgency (16), Name Calling (16)
YouTube
4 of 7 flagged · Card Stacking (4), Loaded Language (4), Name Calling (4)
Reported Meta spend
$344,600–438,336 on all ads, $207,100–255,427 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“MAGA extremist opponent” — Loaded Language, paid for by JON OSSOFF FOR SENATE
· 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.
Jon Ossoff (DEM, incumbent)
Raised
$77.3M through 2026-06-30individuals $67.8M · PACs $920K · party $11K · from the candidate's other committees $7.9M · cash on hand $42.6M
$7.3M through 2026-06-30individuals $1.9M · PACs $1.1M · candidate's own money, incl. loans $3.5M · from the candidate's other committees $635K · cash on hand $60K
Outside spending
$489K opposing Carter· latest reported 2026-05-13
Largest outside spenders
WIN IT BACK PAC— $489K opposing CarterLargest donors: CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION $4.5M (40%); YASS, JEFF MR. $4.5M (39%); SCHOOL FREEDOM FUND $1.9M (17%); ROJ, WILLIAM H. MR. $300K (3%); SANDLER, RICKY $100K (1%)
$7.4M through 2026-06-30individuals $4.4M · PACs $496K · candidate's own money, incl. loans $65K · from the candidate's other committees $2.4M · cash on hand $2.1M
THE GEORGIA WAY— $3.3M opposing CollinsGEORGIA VALUES— $845K opposing CollinsLargest donors: GEORGIANS FIRST LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE $800K (100%)NEW ENGAGEMENT PAC— $493K opposing CollinsLargest donors: WORKING FOR WORKING AMERICANS - FEDERAL $300K (15%); PAJCIC, STEPHEN III $263K (13%); SIMON, DEBORAH J. $250K (12%); LOCAL JOBS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND $250K (12%); CHAMBERS, JAMES COX $150K (7%)FELLOWSHIP PAC— $350K supporting CollinsLargest donors: CANTOR FITZGERALD $10.0M (91%); ANCHOR LABS INC $1.0M (9%)NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $334K supporting Collinsand 8 more
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-09-15
Do I still have it? Absolutely. Does it cost more every year? Yep. But it doesn't hold a candle to Jon Ossoff. Turns out [music] that boy spends more on hair and makeup than any DC politician, including women. >> [music] >> I know what I'm trying to cover up. Ossoff, he's hiding something else. Like voting to raise taxes on retirees making under 75,000. >> [music] >> Jon Ossoff talks pretty. His actions, ugly. >> SLF PAC is responsible [music] for the content of this advertising.
Loaded LanguageName CallingExaggeration/HyperboleConspiracy AppealAppeal to FearCard StackingBlack-and-White Fallacy70.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts. — for example: talks pretty and ugly.
Name Calling: Derogatory labels used to discredit a person or group rather than address their arguments. — for example: that boy.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: The claim that Ossoff spends more on hair and makeup than any DC politician, including women, is an extreme superlative presented without evidence — for example: 'more on hair and makeup than any DC politician, including women'
Conspiracy Appeal: Suggests secret plots or hidden information to create distrust in institutions — for example: cover up and he's hiding something else.
Appeal to Fear: Invoking the threat of raised taxes on retirees with modest incomes is designed to trigger anxiety among a vulnerable demographic — for example: 'voting to raise taxes on retirees making under 75,000'
Card Stacking: This presents a single vote selectively as evidence of Ossoff 'hiding something,' omitting any context about the broader legislation or Ossoff's overall record — for example: 'voting to raise taxes on retirees making under 75,000'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The stark binary contrast between 'talks pretty' and 'actions, ugly' presents Ossoff as entirely deceptive with no nuance or middle ground — for example: 'Jon Ossoff talks pretty. His actions, ugly.'
Claims checked
“voting to raise taxes on retirees making under 75,000” Checked as: Someone voted to raise taxes on retirees making under $75,000No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“that boy spends more on hair and makeup than any DC politician, including women” Checked as: Jon Ossoff spends more on hair and makeup than any DC politician, including women.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
Watch on YouTube ↗Transcript above is auto-generated; the analysis is of the spoken words.
Jon Ossoff: Spending Thousands on Hair & Makeup While Raising Taxes on Georgia
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-09-04
Get this. Senator Jon Ossoff spends more money than any Washington politician on hair and makeup. I know what [music] you're thinking. Yes, even more than the ladies. Thousands on hair and makeup. What a phony. The dude voted to raise taxes by two grand and to tax overtime, too. Ossoff needs to put down the mascara and join the real world. >> [music] >> Pretty boy has an ugly record. SLF PAC is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Exaggeration/HyperboleCard StackingAppeal to PrejudiceRepetitionLoaded LanguageName Calling75.0% of sentences flagged
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: The claim that Ossoff spends more than 'any Washington politician' on hair and makeup is an extreme superlative that is almost certainly unverified — for example: 'more money than any Washington politician on hair and makeup'
Card Stacking: An extraordinary unverified claim about personal grooming spending is presented as fact without sourcing, framing Ossoff negatively through selective and unsubstantiated information — for example: spends more money than any Washington politician on hair and makeup and voted to raise taxes by two grand and to tax overtime, too.
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase implies that spending on grooming is unmasculine and inappropriate for a male politician by comparing him unfavorably to women, exploiting gender-based in-group/out-group bias — for example: even more than the ladies and join the real world.
Repetition: The phrase 'hair and makeup' is repeated from sentence 1 to reinforce the negative image of Ossoff through familiarity — for example: 'Thousands on hair and makeup'
Loaded Language: The casual dismissive term 'dude' is used to demean and belittle a sitting senator rather than engage with his record substantively — for example: The dude and ugly record.
Name Calling: Telling Ossoff to 'put down the mascara' is a derogatory label implying he is effeminate and out of touch, used to discredit rather than address his policies — for example: put down the mascara and Pretty boy.
Claims checked
“The dude voted to raise taxes by two grand” Checked as: A specific person voted to raise taxes by $2,000.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“Senator Jon Ossoff spends more money than any Washington politician on hair and makeup.” No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“to tax overtime, too” Checked as: A plan or proposal exists to tax overtime payNo authoritative evidence found
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 GA; or it ran mostly in GA 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