Fred Wellman won. Get what Fred Wellman says in office by email, analyzed for rhetorical techniques, once sworn in. And an email if the result changes: a recount or a call reversed. One-click unsubscribe.
Confirming also makes your free Semblen account, with a 14-day Pro trial. No card.
41 ads analyzed · 19 use a rhetorical technique, most often glittering generalities and loaded language.
The words doing the persuading
From the Wagner side · Paid for by Office of Congresswoman Ann Wagner“…Ann Wagner is working to help you. From lowering taxes to expanding healthcare access, I'm committed to keeping more money in your pockets.”Glittering GeneralitiesSee this ad →
From the Wellman side · Paid for by WELLMAN FOR MISSOURI“Missouri needs a fighter, and with your help, we could send one to Congress.
I’m Fred Wellman, and as the…”Glittering GeneralitiesSee this ad →
Ann Wagner (Republican) and Fred Wellman (Democrat) are the nominees for Missouri's 2nd congressional district in the November 3, 2026 general election. Ann Wagner is the incumbent. By their latest FEC reports, Ann Wagner's campaign had raised $4.2 million (through October 14, 2026) and Fred Wellman's campaign $2.2 million (through October 14, 2026). Outside groups have reported $18,000 for Ann Wagner and $155,000 against; $232,000 for Fred Wellman and $220,000 against. Semblen has analyzed 41 ads in this race; 19 used at least one rhetorical technique, most often glittering generalities and loaded language.
Ann Wagner (REP, incumbent), Fred Wellman (DEM).
5 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 41 ads analyzed, 19 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-11-03.
Also on every Missouri ballot: 5 statewide ballot measures →The ballot wording and the official arguments, read for rhetorical techniques.
Got a political text?
Paste a campaign text message you’ve received. Semblen marks the persuasion techniques in its wording and lists the factual claims it makes. Take your name out first: what you paste is analyzed and kept like any text.
Findings
As of 2026-11-03. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
41 · started running between 2026-06-26 and 2026-10-26
$29,400–58,741 on all ads, $20,700–35,278 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“I'm committed to keeping more money in your pockets” — Glittering Generalities, paid for by Office of Congresswoman Ann Wagner
· the flagged ad with the highest reported spend that shows the most common technique
A small box with these findings and the newest ads, updated as new ads are analyzed. Free for newsrooms, blogs and campaigns alike; it links back here.
Follow Fred Wellman in office
Fred Wellman won. Get what Fred Wellman says in office by email, analyzed for rhetorical techniques, once sworn in. And an email if the result changes: a recount or a call reversed. One-click unsubscribe.
Confirming also makes your free Semblen account, with a 14-day Pro trial. No card.
Each side is the campaign plus the groups backing it. How a group is placed is explained below the table.
Side
Ads
With at least one technique
Most common
Wagner (R)
16
8 of 16 (50%)
Glittering Generalities (6), Loaded Language (4), Name Calling (3)
Wagner's campaign
11
8 of 11 (73%)
Glittering Generalities (6), Loaded Language (4), Name Calling (3)
1 group backing Wagner
5
0 of 5
Wellman (D)
12
6 of 12 (50%)
Glittering Generalities (2), Loaded Language (2), Name Calling (2)
Wellman's campaign
11
6 of 11 (55%)
Glittering Generalities (2), Loaded Language (2), Name Calling (2)
1 group backing Wellman
1
0 of 1
Not placed on a side (8 sponsors)
13
5 of 13 (38%)
Loaded Language (4), Glittering Generalities (3), Name Calling (2)
Read this before comparing the sides. Ads that attack an opponent use these techniques far more often than ads that introduce a candidate, whoever runs them, so the side running more attack ads shows a higher share. A technique is about wording, not about whether an ad is true. These are online ads only (Meta and YouTube), not television.
How a group is placed: by its own filings with the Federal Election Commission. A group is with a candidate when it reported spending to support that candidate, or to oppose the other one in the general election. The parties' own committees are with their nominee. Spending against a candidate in a primary places a group nowhere, and neither does our reading of its ads: a group with no such filing is listed as not placed. The sponsor table gives the reason for each.
Decide what counts
Not everyone would call every technique a problem. Untick the ones you'd call ordinary persuasion and the count updates.
46% of the 41 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (19 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 22% of ads.
Semblen is free to read and has no ads. If this page was useful, you can support it.
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. 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.
Ann Wagner (REP, incumbent)
Raised
$4.2M through 2026-10-14individuals $2.4M · PACs $1.4M · from the candidate's other committees $217K · cash on hand $1.6M
VOTEVETS— $155K opposing Wagner
· 1 ad on this pageLargest donors:
GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS PAC $6.9M (20%); GLOBAL IMPACT SOCIAL WELFARE FUND $3.0M (9%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); BETTER WORLD CIVIC TRUST $1.6M (5%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); DEMOCRACY MATTERS $1.4M (4%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Joshua Bekenstein $1.2M (3%), Bain Capital, InvestorWFW ACTION FUND INC— $18K supporting WagnerLargest donors:
Paul E Singer $250K (32%), CO-CEO CO-CIO President, Elliott Investment Management L.p.; GOP WINNING WOMEN 2026 $139K (18%) (its largest donors: BUSCEMA, JOHN $771K; Elizabeth Stern $246K, Retired; Richard W Colburn $236K, Payroll & Insurance Group); Cliff Asness $125K (16%), AQR Capital, Finance; Laurel Asness $125K (16%), Homemaker, HomemakerHEARTLAND WINS— $75 opposing Wagner
PROTECT OUR FAMILY VALUES ACTION— $220K opposing WellmanVOTEVETS— $169K supporting Wellman
· 1 ad on this pageLargest donors:
GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS PAC $6.9M (20%); GLOBAL IMPACT SOCIAL WELFARE FUND $3.0M (9%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); BETTER WORLD CIVIC TRUST $1.6M (5%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); DEMOCRACY MATTERS $1.4M (4%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Joshua Bekenstein $1.2M (3%), Bain Capital, InvestorAB PAC— $59K supporting WellmanLargest 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, PhotographerFIELD TEAM 6, INC.— $2,540 supporting WellmanLargest donors:
FIELD TEAM 6 FEC $1.1M (55%); Charles Maggelet $250K (13%), NOT-Employed, NOT-EmployedBATTLEGROUND ALLIANCE PAC— $2,000 supporting WellmanLargest donors:
SEIU COPE $500K (49%); AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E $250K (25%); BATTLEGROUND ALLIANCE ACTION FUND $167K (16%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)
Bundled through PACs
$10K through 1 PAC · FEC bulk data of 2026-11-01JSTREETPAC— $10K from 17 giftsLobbyist/registrant PAC
21 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
AMERICAN DEFENSE AND MILITARY PAC $1,000
BLUE MOMENTUM PAC $2,000
CALL TO SERVE $1,000
CLEAN PAC $1,000
COWEN FOR CONGRESS $2,000
CROSSPARTISAN PAC I $2,500
DEFEAT EXTREMISTS $2,000
ELECTRICAL WORKERS VOLUNTARY, POL, EDU & LEG FUND IBEW LOCAL UNION NO 1 $5,000
ENGINEERS POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EPEC)/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS $2,500
IN OUR HANDS $1,000
LINCOLN COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CLUB $250
PATRIOT PAC $2,500
POPULATION CONNECTION ACTION FUND PAC $500
SERVICE FIRST PAC $2,000
SHEET METAL AIR RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE $10K
SPIKE PAC $1,000
ST. FRANCOIS CO. DEMOCRATS $500
THE CENTER FOR FREETHOUGHT EQUALITY PAC $500
UAW - V - CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM) 'INT'L UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA UAW $5,000
Paid for by Show Me Forwardfrom 2026-10-26spend $0–99100–999 impressions
Ann Wagner is backed by donors who push savings for themselves at the expense of everyday Missourians. It's time for change—in MO and D.C. #StandUpMO #Vote4Change
Loaded Language: Frames donors as self-serving and harming ordinary people through emotionally charged accusation. Flagged: “push savings for themselves at the expense of everyday Missourians”.
False Urgency: Suggests the moment demands immediate change without substantive reasoning. Flagged: “It's time for change”.
Fred Wellman won. Get what Fred Wellman says in office by email, analyzed for rhetorical techniques, once sworn in. And an email if the result changes: a recount or a call reversed. One-click unsubscribe.
Confirming also makes your free Semblen account, with a 14-day Pro trial. No card.
Paid for by Ann Wagner for Congressfrom 2026-10-23spend $0–992,000–2,999 impressions
Throughout my time in office, I've always put Missourians first, and I'll keep doing just that.
No-excuse absentee voting is underway! Get out and make your voice heard!
Glittering Generalities: Vague, positive self-praise about always putting Missourians first, with no specific actions or substance. Flagged: “I've always put Missourians first”.
Paid for by CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUNDfrom 2026-10-22spend $1,500–1,99970,000–79,999 impressions
Meet Fred Wellman. A flaming liberal. And he’ll tell you himself.
Flamin’ Liberal Fred wants to increase taxes on working families by nearly $5,000.
And what will he do with your money? Taxpayer-funded trans surgeries.
Name Calling: Labels a person with a derogatory-sounding ideological tag ('flaming liberal') to discredit him rather than address his views.
Loaded Language: The intensifier 'flaming' adds an emotionally charged, pejorative tone to the political label.
Appeal to Fear: Warns of a large tax increase on working families to provoke financial anxiety without supporting detail. Flagged: “increase taxes on working families by nearly $5,000”.
Appeal to Prejudice: Frames spending on trans people's healthcare as a misuse of 'your money', playing on resentment toward a gender-identity group. Flagged: “Taxpayer-funded trans surgeries.”.
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 MO; or it ran mostly in MO 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 rhetorical 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. Running a check and seeing its verdicts are part of Semblen Pro, because each check costs money to run; anyone can see which claims an ad makes. 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.