Iowa Senate 2026: the ads, and who's paying for them
Joni Ernst (REP, incumbent), Ashley Hinson (REP), Jackie Norris (DEM), James Scholten (DEM), Jim Carlin (REP), Josh Turek (DEM), Nathan Sage (DEM), Thomas Raymond Laehn (LIB).
157 ads analyzed, 73 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. 1 ad from other advertisers shown separately below.
corruptionin 6 ads· e.g. “corruption scandal”, “Ashley Hinson's corruption”
dark moneyin 6 ads· e.g. “dark money”, “MAGA dark money machine”
Follow this race
A weekly email when new Iowa Senate ads come in: how many used manipulation techniques, the words doing the work, and who paid. Nothing in weeks with no new ads. One-click unsubscribe.
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. People are shown with the employer and occupation they reported. A donor that is itself a political committee is shown with its own largest donors. Companies and nonprofits don't report their funders to the FEC, so the trail ends there, and the page says so.
Joni Ernst (REP, incumbent)
Raised
$2.0M through 2026-06-30individuals $997K · PACs $637K · from the candidate's other committees $363K · cash on hand $1.9M
Outside spending
$15K opposing Ernst· latest reported 2025-07-07
Largest outside spenders
INDIVISIBLE ACTION— $15K opposing ErnstLargest donors:
Wayne Jordan $250K (6%); Hilary Perkins $106K (2%), NOT Employed, NOT Employed; MOVEMENT VOTER PAC $100K (2%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); LONG RIDGE ACTION FUND $100K (2%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)
WINSENATE— $9.7M opposing Hinson
· 11 ads on this pageLargest donors:
SMP $4.1M (100%) (its largest donors: MAJORITY FORWARD $61.0M, an organization; Fred Eychaner $9.0M; DEMOCRACY PAC $9.0M)AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $5.3M supporting Hinson
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors:
KOCH INC $30.0M (33%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); STAND TOGETHER INC. $20.0M (22%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Jim C Walton $7.0M (8%), Self-Employed, Philanthropist; S Robson Walton $7.0M (8%), Retired, Retired; STAND TOGETHER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC $6.5M (7%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)AB PAC— $4.1M opposing Hinson
· 1 ad on this pageLargest donors:
AB FOUNDATION $13.0M (30%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); DEMOCRACY MATTERS $5.6M (13%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Deborah Simon $5.0M (11%), Retired; DEMOCRACY PAC $4.0M (9%); Lynn S Stern $1.0M (2%), Self Employed, PhotographerFIGHT ON IOWA— $2.3M supporting HinsonLargest donors:
Kenneth Griffin $1.5M (83%), Citadel Investment Group LLC, CEO; A PUBLIC VOICE INC. $115K (6%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); William Duhamel $100K (6%), Route ONE Inventment CO LP, Investment ManagementLCV VICTORY FUND— $1.6M opposing HinsonLargest donors:
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC. $18.0M (81%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Amos Hostetter $600K (3%), Pilot House Associates LLC, Chairman; DEMOCRACY PAC $500K (2%); Giovanna Randall $375K (2%), Randall Apparel, Designer; Eric Laufer $375K (2%), Laufer Wind Group, Film Producerand 7 more
SLF PAC— $17.9M opposing Turek
· 15 ads on this pageLargest donors:
ONE NATION $70.7M (28%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Miriam Adelson $30.0M (12%), Adelson Drug Clinic, Physician; Stephen A Schwarzman $17.0M (7%), Blackstone, Chairman & CEO; Paul Elliott Singer $14.5M (6%), EMC, President; Elon Musk $10.0M (4%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEOVOTEVETS— $9.8M supporting TurekLargest donors:
Deborah J Simon $1.1M (8%), NOT Employed; VOTEVETS ACTION FUND $1.0M (7%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); AB PAC $800K (6%); THE BENCH $650K (5%); Joshua Bekenstein $625K (5%), Bain Capital, CO-ChairmanWIN IT BACK PAC— $3.8M opposing TurekLargest donors:
CLUB FOR GROWTH ACTION $4.5M (40%); Jeff Yass $4.5M (39%), SIG, Managing Director; SCHOOL FREEDOM FUND $1.9M (17%); William H Roj $300K (3%), Retired; Ricky Sandler $100K (1%), Eminence CapitalFIGHT ON IOWA— $2.4M opposing TurekLargest donors:
Kenneth Griffin $1.5M (83%), Citadel Investment Group LLC, CEO; A PUBLIC VOICE INC. $115K (6%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); William Duhamel $100K (6%), Route ONE Inventment CO LP, Investment ManagementAMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $1.8M opposing Turek
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors:
KOCH INC $30.0M (33%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); STAND TOGETHER INC. $20.0M (22%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Jim C Walton $7.0M (8%), Self-Employed, Philanthropist; S Robson Walton $7.0M (8%), Retired, Retired; STAND TOGETHER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INC $6.5M (7%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)and 17 more
Bundled through PACs
$43K through 2 PACs · FEC bulk data of 2026-09-27JSTREETPAC— $41K from 57 giftsLobbyist/registrant PACPAC FOR GOOD— $2,500 from 1 gift
64 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
A NEW DIRECTION PAC $1,000
ABLE DEMS PAC $3,500
ADVANCING DEMOCRACY AND MOBILIZATION PAC $10K
ALL FOR OUR COUNTRY LEADERSHIP PAC $10K
ALSOPAC $5,000
AMERICA WORKS FEDERAL PAC $5,000
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR JUSTICE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AAJ PAC) $5,000
AMERICAN MOBILIZATION PAC $5,000
BEYOND THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS PAC $1,000
BLUE HEN FEDERAL PAC $10K
BLUE WAVE PROJECT $10K
CARROLL COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE $450
COMMON GROUND PAC $10K
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA - COPE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS COMMITTEE $5,000
DEFEND THE DREAM $5,000
DEFEND THE VOTE $5,000
FIGHT PAC $7,000
FOLLOW THE NORTH STAR FUND $5,000
FORWARD TOGETHER PAC $10K
GRANITE VALUES PAC $10K
HAWAII PAC $5,000
HEALTH JOBS JUSTICE $5,000
HOOPS PAC $5,000
I GOT YOUR BACK PAC $10K
IMPACT $10K
IN OUR HANDS $5,000
IN THIS TOGETHER PAC $5,000
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
JENNIFER KONFRST FOR CONGRESS $2,000
JUNTOS PAC $10K
KEVIN TECHAU FOR CONGRESS $4,000
LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS ACTION FUND $50
LEGPAC $10K
LIFTOFF PAC $5,000
LOBO PAC $10K
M-PAC $5,000
MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS $5,000
MAPLE PAC $5,000
MELTON FOR IOWA $402
MITTEN PAC $10K
MODERATE DEMOCRATS PAC $10K
MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE $500
Loaded Language: The words 'corruption' and 'poisoning' are emotionally charged terms designed to trigger a strong negative reaction rather than convey factual information — for example: 'corruption is poisoning our water'
Name Calling: Ashley Hinson is labeled as corrupt without evidence or argument, using a derogatory characterization to discredit her rather than address any specific policy or action — for example: 'Ashley Hinson's corruption'
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: The claim that one politician's corruption is literally poisoning water and making an entire state sick is an extreme overstatement beyond what evidence could plausibly support — for example: 'poisoning our water and making Iowa sick'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence invokes fear about contaminated water and widespread illness to provoke an emotional response against the named individual — for example: 'poisoning our water and making Iowa sick'
Loaded Language
Name Calling
Exaggeration/Hyperbole
Appeal to Fear
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Loaded Language: The words 'corruption' and 'poisoning' are emotionally charged terms designed to trigger a strong negative reaction rather than convey factual information — for example: 'corruption is poisoning our water'
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: The claim that one politician's corruption is literally poisoning water and making an entire state sick is an extreme overstatement beyond what evidence could reasonably support — for example: 'making Iowa sick'
Scapegoating: A single individual, Ashley Hinson, is blamed for a broad public health problem affecting an entire state, reducing a complex issue to one person's fault — for example: 'Ashley Hinson's corruption is poisoning our water'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence invokes a visceral threat to public health — contaminated water and widespread illness — to provoke anxiety and a strong emotional response against the named individual — for example: 'poisoning our water and making Iowa sick'
Name Calling: Labeling Ashley Hinson with 'corruption' functions as a derogatory label to discredit her without presenting substantive evidence or argument — for example: 'Ashley Hinson's corruption'
Loaded Language
Exaggeration/Hyperbole
Scapegoating
Appeal to Fear
Name Calling
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words are used to trigger a reaction rather than convey neutral facts — for example: 'soars', 'corporate polluters'
Card Stacking: The sentence selectively juxtaposes a rising cancer rate, voting record, and campaign donations to imply a causal chain without establishing one, omitting any context about the nature of the votes or the donations — for example: 'repeatedly voted to loosen clean water rules while taking $300,000 from corporate polluters'
Appeal to Fear: The opening clause about soaring cancer rates is designed to create anxiety and prime the reader to view the subsequent political claims as an existential threat — for example: 'As Iowa's cancer rate soars'
Scapegoating: The sentence implies that one politician's votes, driven by corporate money, are responsible for Iowa's cancer crisis, reducing a complex public health issue to a single actor — for example: 'Ashley Hinson repeatedly voted to loosen clean water rules while taking $300,000 from corporate polluters'
Loaded Language
Card Stacking
Appeal to Fear
Scapegoating
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Loaded Language: The phrase 'polluting our water' uses emotionally charged language to frame corporate donors as actively harmful, triggering a visceral reaction rather than conveying neutral facts — for example: 'corporations polluting our water'
Card Stacking: The sentence juxtaposes a financial figure with a voting record to imply a corrupt quid pro quo, omitting any context about the nature of the donations, the content of the legislation, or other factors influencing the vote — for example: 'took over $300,000 from corporations polluting our water — and voted to roll back clean water rules'
Appeal to Prejudice: The use of 'our water' invokes an in-group identity, framing the issue as a betrayal of the community by an outsider serving corporate interests — for example: 'our water'
Loaded Language
Card Stacking
Appeal to Prejudice
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by WINSENATEfrom 2026-09-083 variantsspend $25,000–30,9971,850,000–999,998 impressions
Ashley Hinson took over $300,000 from corporations polluting our water — and voted to roll back clean water rules.
Ashley Hinson took over $300,000 from corporations polluting our water — and voted to roll back clean water rules.
Loaded Language: The phrase 'polluting our water' uses emotionally charged language to frame corporate donors as actively harmful, triggering a visceral reaction rather than conveying neutral facts — for example: 'corporations polluting our water'
Card Stacking: The sentence juxtaposes a financial figure with a voting record to imply a corrupt quid pro quo, omitting any context about the nature of the donations, the content of the legislation, or other factors influencing the vote — for example: 'took over $300,000 from corporations polluting our water — and voted to roll back clean water rules'
Appeal to Fear: The framing implies a direct threat to public water safety by linking corporate money to weakened environmental protections, creating anxiety about contaminated water — for example: 'polluting our water' combined with 'roll back clean water rules'
Appeal to Prejudice: The use of 'our water' invokes an in-group identity, framing the issue as a betrayal of the community by an elected official acting on behalf of outside corporate interests — for example: 'our water'
Loaded Language
Card Stacking
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Prejudice
Claims checked
“Ashley Hinson took over $300,000 from corporations polluting our water” Checked as: Ashley Hinson received more than $300,000 in campaign contributions from corporations that pollute water.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“voted to roll back clean water rules” Checked as: A vote was cast to roll back clean water rulesNo authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
Paid for by WINSENATEfrom 2026-09-083 variantsspend $13,500–19,0971,580,000–689,998 impressions
As Iowa’s cancer rate soars, Ashley Hinson repeatedly voted to loosen clean water rules while taking $300,000 from corporate polluters.
As Iowa’s cancer rate soars, Ashley Hinson repeatedly voted to loosen clean water rules while taking $300,000 from corporate polluters.
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged terms are used to trigger a negative reaction toward the subject — for example: 'corporate polluters'
Card Stacking: The sentence juxtaposes Iowa's rising cancer rate with Hinson's votes and donations to imply direct causation, while omitting any context about the complexity of cancer causes, the nature of the legislation, or whether the donations influenced the votes — for example: 'cancer rate soars... voted to loosen clean water rules... taking $300,000 from corporate polluters'
Appeal to Fear: The framing links loosened water regulations to soaring cancer rates to create anxiety about public health consequences — for example: 'Iowa's cancer rate soars'
Name Calling: The label 'corporate polluters' is used to discredit the donors and by association Hinson, rather than identifying them neutrally — for example: 'corporate polluters'
Scapegoating: Ashley Hinson and 'corporate polluters' are singled out as responsible for Iowa's rising cancer rate, a complex public health issue with many contributing factors — for example: 'Ashley Hinson repeatedly voted to loosen clean water rules while taking $300,000 from corporate polluters'
Loaded Language
Card Stacking
Appeal to Fear
Name Calling
Scapegoating
Claims checked
“Ashley Hinson repeatedly voted to loosen clean water rules” No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“taking $300,000 from corporate polluters” Checked as: A person or entity took $300,000 from corporate pollutersNo authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“Iowa’s cancer rate soars” Checked as: Iowa's cancer rate is soaring (i.e., Iowa has a notably high or rapidly increasing cancer rate)No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
Paid for by WINSENATEfrom 2026-09-02 to 2026-09-10spend $10,000–14,9991,000,000+ impressions
We’re paying more than ever for groceries, health care and child care. Ashley Hinson should be helping. Instead, she’s missing votes and cashing her taxpayer-funded paycheck.
We’re paying more than ever for groceries, health care and child care. Ashley Hinson should be helping. Instead, she’s missing votes and cashing her taxpayer-funded paycheck.
Appeal to Fear: The sentence invokes economic anxiety about rising costs to create concern and prime the audience for a political attack — for example: 'paying more than ever for groceries, health care and child care'
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts. — for example: cashing her taxpayer-funded paycheck.
Appeal to Fear
Loaded Language
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by WINSENATEfrom 2026-09-02 to 2026-09-10spend $15,000–19,9991,000,000+ impressions
Ashley Hinson has missed nearly 200 votes in Congress.
But she didn’t miss the chance to grow her net worth by up to 10 times while in office.
She shows up for herself, not Iowa.
Ashley Hinson has missed nearly 200 votes in Congress.
But she didn’t miss the chance to grow her net worth by up to 10 times while in office.
She shows up for herself, not Iowa.
no techniques found
Claims checked
“Ashley Hinson has missed nearly 200 votes in Congress.” No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“she didn’t miss the chance to grow her net worth by up to 10 times while in office.” Checked as: Ashley Hinson's net worth grew by up to 10 times while she was in office.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
Paid posts that ran in IA and name a candidate, from advertisers that aren't part of this race: news-style pages, campaigns for other offices, and others. They're shown here for completeness and not counted with the ads above. We show the same technique analysis; their claims are not checked.
The American Independent Foundation: news-style page
Official office video · The American Independent Foundationfrom 2026-09-102 variantsspend $12,500–17,9981,400,000–449,999 impressions
Hinson opposes bipartisan bills to cut costs
Rep. Ashley Hinson voted against legislation to lower costs for Iowans, including bipartisan bills
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 IA; or it ran mostly in IA 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