Gary Peters (DEM, incumbent), Abdul El-Sayed (DEM), Bernadette Smith (REP), Frederick Heurtebise (REP), Genevieve Scott (REP), Haley Stevens (DEM), Joseph Allen Tate (DEM), Mallory McMorrow (DEM), Mike Rogers (REP), Rachel Elizabeth Howard (DEM).
108 ads analyzed, 54 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
108 (Meta 74, YouTube 34) · started running between 2026-07-10 and 2026-09-22
With at least one technique
54 of 108 (50%)
Most common techniques
Loaded Language · 43 adsAppeal to Prejudice · 33 adsName Calling · 30 ads
Meta
34 of 74 (46%) flagged · Loaded Language (25), Appeal to Prejudice (19), Name Calling (15)
YouTube
20 of 34 (59%) flagged · Loaded Language (18), Name Calling (15), Appeal to Prejudice (14)
Reported Meta spend
$143,200–209,435 on all ads, $97,800–138,494 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“billionaire-funded super PACs” — Loaded Language, paid for by Abdul for U.S. 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.
Gary Peters (DEM, incumbent)
Raised
$248K through 2026-06-30individuals $19K · PACs $9,500 · from the candidate's other committees $6,170 · cash on hand $6.5M
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND— $7,352 opposing PetersGIVEGREEN UNITED ACTION— $100 supporting PetersLargest donors: NRDC ACTION FUND INC. $917K (52%); LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS, INC. $840K (48%)
UNITED DEMOCRACY PROJECT ('UDP')— $20.1M opposing El-SayedLargest donors: AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE $30.0M (29%); SINGER, PAUL $2.6M (2%); SABAN, HAIM $2.0M (2%); MANZANITA ACTION FUND $1.6M (2%); ROWAN, MARC $1.5M (1%)SLF PAC— $17.7M opposing El-Sayed
· 6 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%)NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $8.1M opposing El-SayedAMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $2.9M opposing El-SayedLargest 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%)FIGHTING FOR MICHIGAN PAC— $1.9M supporting El-Sayed
· 4 ads on this pageLargest donors: INSTITUTE FOR MIDDLE EAST UNDERSTANDING, INC. $400K (10%); TAYEB, JUKAKU $300K (8%); UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM) 'INT'L UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW $300K (8%); AHMED, MANSOOR $250K (7%); FORWARD BLUE $250K (7%)and 34 more
$11.4M through 2026-07-15individuals $11.1M · PACs $64K · candidate's own money, incl. loans $84 · from the candidate's other committees $17K · cash on hand $1.9M
GLCF, INC.— $10.5M supporting RogersLargest donors: DUNN, TIMOTHY M $5.0M (64%); SINGER, PAUL $500K (6%); TEAM ROGERS $332K (4%); PENSKE, ROGER $250K (3%); PENSKE CORPORATION $250K (3%)AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $9.4M supporting RogersLargest 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— $6.7M opposing Rogers
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors: SMP $4.1M (100%)DEFEND THE VOTE— $4.6M opposing RogersLargest donors: AUGUSTINE, TED $1.1M (73%); DEFEND THE VOTE ACTION FUND $193K (13%); DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT $143K (10%)THE SENTINEL ACTION FUND— $2.6M supporting RogersLargest donors: RESTORATION OF AMERICA PAC $3.0M (18%); LEXINGTON FUND $1.5M (9%); TOWNSEND SIX CORP. $1.2M (8%); RIGHT VOTE INC. $1.0M (6%); SINGER, PAUL $750K (5%)and 18 more
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-182 variantsspend $5,800–6,898230,000–284,998 impressions
Watch and hear for yourself what Abdul El-Sayed says, in his own words:
"I'm DANGEROUS."
“I’m pretty d*** dangerous.”
Believe him.
Abdul El-Sayed... dangerously radical. Unfit for Michigan.
Loaded LanguageName CallingAppeal to Prejudice50.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts. — for example: dangerously radical.
Name Calling: Derogatory labels used to discredit a person or group rather than address their arguments. — for example: dangerously radical and Unfit for Michigan.
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase invokes in-group identity by implying the subject does not belong to or represent the community, exploiting regional identity to exclude — for example: Unfit for Michigan
Paid for by SLF PACfrom 2026-09-162 variantsspend $1,400–1,998134,000–159,998 impressions
Straight from the horse’s mouth, as they say ...
“I hate Mackinac so much.” - Abdul El-Sayed
El-Sayed has made it crystal clear: he hates what makes Michigan special.
Where does his hatred end? Can you risk finding out?
Straight from the horse’s mouth, as they say ...
“I hate Mackinac so much.” - Abdul El-Sayed
El-Sayed has made it crystal clear: he hates what makes Michigan special.
Where does his hatred end? Can you risk finding out?
Loaded LanguageAppeal to PrejudiceExaggeration/HyperboleAppeal to FearRepetitionFalse UrgencyBlack-and-White Fallacy60.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The word 'hates' is an emotionally charged term used to trigger a strong negative reaction toward El-Sayed rather than convey factual information — for example: he hates what makes Michigan special and Where does his hatred end?.
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase 'what makes Michigan special' invokes in-group identity and local pride to frame El-Sayed as an outsider threat to the community — for example: 'what makes Michigan special'
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: Claiming El-Sayed 'hates' an entire state's defining qualities is an extreme overstatement unsupported by evidence — for example: 'he hates what makes Michigan special'
Appeal to Fear: The rhetorical question implies an open-ended, escalating threat from El-Sayed, creating anxiety about unknown future harm — for example: Where does his hatred end? and Can you risk finding out?.
Repetition: The word 'hatred'/'hates' is used across consecutive sentences to reinforce a negative emotional association through repetition — for example: 'hates' in sentence 1 and 'hatred' in sentence 2
False Urgency: The question implies that deliberation or curiosity is itself dangerous, creating artificial pressure to act or decide immediately — for example: 'Can you risk finding out?'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The question implies only two options exist: act against El-Sayed now or suffer the consequences of his unchecked 'hatred', eliminating any middle ground — for example: 'Can you risk finding out?'
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 2026-09-16spend $1,000–1,49950,000–59,999 impressions
Watch and hear for yourself what Abdul El-Sayed says, in his own words:
"I'm DANGEROUS."
“I’m pretty d*** dangerous.”
Believe him.
Abdul El-Sayed... dangerously radical. Unfit for Michigan.
Watch and hear for yourself what Abdul El-Sayed says, in his own words:
"I'm DANGEROUS."
“I’m pretty d*** dangerous.”
Believe him.
Abdul El-Sayed... dangerously radical. Unfit for Michigan.
Watch and hear for yourself what Abdul El-Sayed says, in his own words:
"I'm DANGEROUS."
“I’m pretty d*** dangerous.”
Believe him.
Abdul El-Sayed... dangerously radical. Unfit for Michigan.
Watch and hear for yourself what Abdul El-Sayed says, in his own words:
"I'm DANGEROUS."
“I’m pretty d*** dangerous.”
Believe him.
Abdul El-Sayed... dangerously radical. Unfit for Michigan.
Loaded LanguageName CallingAppeal to PrejudiceBlack-and-White Fallacy50.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts. — for example: dangerously radical.
Name Calling: Derogatory labels used to discredit a person or group rather than address their arguments. — for example: dangerously radical and Unfit for Michigan.
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase invokes in-group identity by implying the subject does not belong to or represent the community, exploiting regional identity to exclude — for example: Unfit for Michigan
Black-and-White Fallacy: The absolute declaration of unfitness presents a binary judgment with no nuance or middle ground, leaving no room for alternative assessments — for example: Unfit for Michigan
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 $1,200–1,798106,000–131,998 impressions
No point in sugarcoating it.
Abdul El-Sayed has proclaimed his hatred for a special part of Michigan.
How can you hate a place you want to be elected to represent?
Abdul El-Sayed. No love for Michigan. All hate.
No point in sugarcoating it.
Abdul El-Sayed has proclaimed his hatred for a special part of Michigan.
How can you hate a place you want to be elected to represent?
Abdul El-Sayed. No love for Michigan. All hate.
Loaded LanguageAppeal to PrejudiceBlack-and-White Fallacy40.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: The word 'hatred' is an emotionally charged term used to trigger a negative reaction toward El-Sayed rather than convey a factual description of his position — for example: 'proclaimed his hatred'
Appeal to Prejudice: The statement implies the subject lacks loyalty or affection for Michigan, exploiting in-group identity to suggest he is an outsider who does not belong — for example: 'No love for Michigan'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The construction implies only two possible states — love or hate — with no nuance or middle ground, forcing a binary judgment on the subject — for example: 'No love for Michigan. All hate.'
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 2026-09-163 variantsspend $1,600–1,897104,000–119,997 impressions
What does Abdul El-Sayed hate about Michigan? He’ll tell you himself...
“I hate Mackinac so much.”
That’s the real Abdul El-Sayed. What else about Michigan does he hate?
Loaded LanguageName CallingAppeal to Prejudice40.0% of sentences flagged
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts. — for example: does he hate.
Name Calling: Derogatory labels used to discredit a person or group rather than address their arguments. — for example: does he hate.
Appeal to Prejudice: The rhetorical question frames the candidate as an outsider who is hostile to Michigan and its people, exploiting in-group loyalty to cast him as 'other' — for example: implying a true Michigander would love the state, not hate it
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
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 MI; or it ran mostly in MI 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