New Hampshire Senate 2026: the ads, and who's paying for them
Jeanne Shaheen (DEM, incumbent), Chris Pappas (DEM), Dan Innis (REP), Jared Sullivan (DEM), John Sununu (REP), Karishma Manzur (DEM), Scott Brown (REP).
92 ads analyzed, 51 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing.
44 of 82 (54%) flagged · Loaded Language (27), Appeal to Prejudice (26), Glittering Generalities (22)
YouTube
7 of 10 (70%) flagged · Appeal to Prejudice (6), Loaded Language (5), Name Calling (5)
Reported Meta spend
$151,800–214,403 on all ads, $118,200–151,751 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“sold us out in New Hampshire” — Appeal to Prejudice, paid for by WINSENATE
· the flagged ad with the highest reported spend that shows the most common technique
How New Hampshire compares
55% of the ads here use at least one manipulation technique, 7th highest of 13 Senate races.
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 53% of ads.
The words doing the work
The words that show up most in phrases our model flagged as loaded language or name calling in this race's ads, by number of ads.
pharmain 5 ads· e.g. “Big Pharma”, “Big Pharma raised your bills”
agendain 4 ads· e.g. “Trump's extreme agenda”, “rubber stamp for Trump's reckless agenda”
corporatein 4 ads· e.g. “answers to corporate money”, “corporate greed”
liberalin 4 ads· e.g. “Liberal Chris Pappas”, “in the pocket of his liberal donors”
MAGAin 4 ads· e.g. “Trump's MAGA Inc”, “his MAGA allies”
trump'in 4 ads· e.g. “Trump's extreme agenda”, “rubber stamp for Trump's reckless agenda”
convicted criminalin 3 ads· e.g. “convicted criminals”, “Amnesty for millions—even convicted criminals”
criminal illegalin 3 ads· e.g. “criminal illegals”
Follow this race
A weekly email when new New Hampshire 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.
Jeanne Shaheen (DEM, incumbent)
Raised
$173K through 2026-06-30individuals $101K · PACs $55K · cash on hand $872K
Outside spending
none reported
Bundled through PACs
none reported · FEC bulk data of 2026-09-27
20 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
AEROVIRONMENT, INC. PAC $2,500
AMERICAN PISTACHIO GROWERS PISTACHIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $3,000
AMERICAN PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2,500
AMERICAN SENIORS HOUSING ASSOCIATION (SENIORS HOUSING PAC) $2,500
ASTRANIS SPACE TECHNOLOGIES PAC $500
CACI INTERNATIONAL INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $3,300
DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $7,500
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GDC PAC) $1,000
HEALTHCARE DISTRIBUTION ALLIANCE PAC $1,000
LANTHEUS HOLDINGS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $2,500
MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PAC $3,000
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $3,000
NOVOCURE INC. PAC (A.K.A. NOVOCURE PAC) $2,500
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ PC PAC $500
OPTION CARE HEALTH, INC. PAC $2,000
PFIZER INC. PAC $5,000
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5,000
SLF PAC— $4.5M opposing Pappas
· 2 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., CEONO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $4.4M opposing PappasAMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY ACTION, INC. (AFP ACTION) DBA CVA ACTION AND DBA LIBRE ACTION— $2.9M opposing Pappas
· 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)AMERICA PAC— $557K opposing Pappas
· 1 ad on this pageLargest donors:
Elon Musk $20.1M (>99%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEOTHE SENTINEL ACTION FUND— $488K opposing Pappas
· 3 ads on this pageLargest donors:
RESTORATION OF AMERICA PAC $3.0M (18%); LEXINGTON FUND $1.5M (9%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); TOWNSEND SIX CORP. $1.2M (8%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); RIGHT VOTE INC. $1.0M (6%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Paul Singer $750K (5%), Elliott Management Corp., Principaland 8 more
WINSENATE— $6.2M opposing Sununu
· 2 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— $4.4M supporting Sununu
· 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)NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $923K supporting SununuAMERICA PAC— $217K supporting Sununu
· 1 ad on this pageLargest donors:
Elon Musk $20.1M (>99%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEOSTRONG AS GRANITE PAC— $131K opposing SununuLargest donors:
James Davis $500K (75%), NEW Balance, Chairmanand 3 more
Bundled through PACs
none reported · FEC bulk data of 2026-09-27
67 PACs gave directly — alphabetical; the legal limit is $5,000 per election
ALABAMA FIRST PAC $10K
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY PAC $5,000
AMERICAN EXCELLENCE PAC $10K
AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMM $2,500
ARKANSAS FOR LEADERSHIP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (ARKPAC) $10K
BADLANDS PAC $5,000
BEST AT BRINGING ENTREPRENEURIAL RESULTS NEVER IMAGINED OR E $10K
BIG SKY OPPORTUNITY PAC $5,000
BLUEGRASS COMMITTEE $1,000
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (BS $5,000
BUILDING UP DEMOCRACY'S DREAM $5,000
CAMPAIGN FOR WORKING FAMILIES $3,000
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PAC (US $5,000
CITIZENS UNITED $5,000
COMMON SENSE FOR AMERICA PAC $10K
COMMON VALUES PAC $10K
CONSERVATIVES HARVESTING SUCCESS PAC $5,000
CONTINUING AMERICA'S STRENGTH AND SECURITY PAC $5,000
DENALI LEADERSHIP PAC $5,000
DIRIGO PAC $10K
ENERGY MARKETERS OF AMERICA SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE PAC (EM $2,500
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXXONMOB $2,500
FREE STATE PAC $10K
FREEDOM FUND $10K
FRELINGHUYSEN FOR CONGRESS $4,000
FUND FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE $5,000
GW PAC $2,500
HIGGINBOTHAM INSURANCE AGENCY INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITT $2,000
JOBS FREEDOM AND SECURITY PAC $10K
JOBS OPPORTUNITIES AND EDUCATION PAC (JOE-PAC) $5,000
JOBS OPPORTUNITY NOW POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $10K
KOCH INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (KOCHPAC) $5,000
LEADERSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE NATIONAL KEYS PAC $10K
LETS GET TO WORK PAC $5,000
LPL FINANCIAL LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (LPL PAC) $5,000
MAKING A RESPONSIBLE STAND FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN AMERICA PAC $5,000
MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION $5,000
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION INC. POLITICAL ACTION C $2,500
NEBRASKA SANDHILLS PAC $10K
OORAH! POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $10K
PANCAKE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $7,000
PENNSYLVANIA HONOR $10K
PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION PAC $5,000
QSR LEADERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE INC $7,000
RELY ON YOUR BELIEFS FUND $2,500
REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FUND $10K
RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM WORK PAC (RFWPAC) $10K
RUTH WARD FOR SENATE $500
SENATE EAGLE PAC $10K
SEND IN THE SEAL PAC $5,000
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (SWAPAC) $5,000
SPECIALTY EQUIPMENT MARKET ASSOCIATION & PERFORMANCE RACING $5,000
STEER PAC $10K
TAX CUTS & JOBS PAC $2,500
THE COUNCIL OF INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS POLITICAL ACTION C $10K
THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $10K
THE HAWKEYE PAC $5,000
THE PETER NORBECK LEADERSHIP PAC $10K
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (T- $2,500
THOROUGHBRED PAC $2,500
TOMORROW IS MEANINGFUL PAC $10K
TRUE NORTH PAC $10K
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (VER $2,500
WESTERN ALLIANCE BANCORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE ( $2,500
WHOLESALE & SPECIALTY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (WSIA) PAC $5,000
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-09-19
In Washington, you can find Chris Pappas here, in the pocket of DC lobbyists, in the pocket of the Amazon lobbyist he dated while voting on their bills. You can also find him here, in the pocket of his liberal donors in exchange for big tax breaks for their mansions in New York and Massachusetts. Chris Pappas, he really fits in in Washington.
SLF PAC is responsible for the content of this message.
Loaded Language: The phrase 'in the pocket of' is emotionally charged, implying corruption and undue influence — for example: in the pocket of DC lobbyists, in the pocket of the Amazon lobbyist and in the pocket of his liberal donors.
Repetition: The phrase 'in the pocket of' is repeated three times within the sentence to reinforce the impression of corruption through familiarity — for example: in the pocket of DC lobbyists, in the pocket of the Amazon lobbyist and in the pocket of his liberal donors.
Name Calling: Pappas is implicitly labeled as corrupt and beholden to special interests without substantive argument — for example: in the pocket of DC lobbyists and Chris Pappas, he really fits in in Washington.
Appeal to Prejudice: Labeling donors as 'liberal' and associating them with out-of-state mansions exploits in-group/out-group identity to suggest Pappas serves wealthy coastal elites rather than local constituents — for example: 'liberal donors in exchange for big tax breaks for their mansions in New York and Massachusetts'
Loaded Language
Repetition
Name Calling
Appeal to Prejudice
Claims checked
“in the pocket of the Amazon lobbyist he dated while voting on their bills” Checked as: Chris Pappas was romantically involved with an Amazon lobbyist while voting on bills affecting Amazon.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
“in the pocket of his liberal donors in exchange for big tax breaks for their mansions in New York and Massachusetts” Checked as: Chris Pappas is controlled by liberal donors in exchange for supporting tax breaks for their mansions in New York and Massachusetts.No authoritative evidence found
Verdict right?
Watch on YouTube ↗Transcript above is auto-generated; the analysis is of the spoken words.
CHRIS PAPPAS LIED TO VOTERS
Paid for by Senate Leadership Fundvideo · 0:30from 2026-09-09
Chris Pappas looked voters in the eye and lied. You've been dating a corporate lobbyist who actually was lobbying on behalf of Amazon at time when you then went on to cast votes on Amazon's behalf on bills they lobbied you on. Yes, it is, Congressman.
Absolutely is. That's not true. It was true.
Pappas dated an Amazon lobbyist, voted on bills that Amazon lobbied on, then lied about it. Chris Pappas, lying, corrupt, out for himself, not you. SLF PAC is responsible for the content of this message.
Loaded Language: The phrase 'looked voters in the eye and lied' uses emotionally charged language to paint the subject as deliberately deceptive and morally corrupt — for example: looked voters in the eye and lied and corporate lobbyist.
Card Stacking: The sentence presents a sequence of facts and implications as if they self-evidently prove corrupt intent, omitting any context such as whether the votes were consistent with prior positions or whether any conflict of interest was disclosed — for example: 'cast votes on Amazon's behalf on bills they lobbied you on'
Name Calling: Derogatory labels are applied directly to Pappas to discredit him rather than address any argument — for example: lying, corrupt, out for himself.
Appeal to Prejudice: The phrase 'not you' invokes an in-group/out-group contrast, implying Pappas serves himself rather than the audience, exploiting voter identity — for example: 'out for himself, not you'
Repetition: The accusation of dishonesty is repeated across sentences 1 and 2 with 'lied' and then 'lying' to reinforce the label through familiarity — for example: 'lied about it' and 'lying'
Loaded Language
Card Stacking
Name Calling
Appeal to Prejudice
Repetition
Claims checked
“Pappas dated an Amazon lobbyist, voted on bills that Amazon lobbied on, then lied about it.” Checked as: Pappas dated an Amazon lobbyist, voted on bills that Amazon lobbied on, and lied about it.No 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 NH; or it ran mostly in NH 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