Janelle Stelson won. Get what Janelle Stelson 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.
83 ads analyzed · 51 use a rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and appeal to fear.
The words doing the persuading
From the Perry side · Paid for by PATRIOTS FOR PERRY“Janelle Stelson received thousands from a liberal dark money scam and she grabbed even more from her political contributions.”Loaded LanguageSee this ad →
From the Stelson side · Paid for by SENIORS EMPOWERING AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY (SEED-PAC)“…. .What kind of country will we leave them?
Hint: Maybe not the one we have today. With chaos, corruption, and high inflation, our country feels more divided than ever.
We can’t afford to trust the same politicians…”Loaded LanguageSee this ad →
Scott Perry (Republican) and Janelle Stelson (Democrat) are the nominees for Pennsylvania's 10th congressional district in the November 3, 2026 general election. Scott Perry is the incumbent. By their latest FEC reports, Scott Perry's campaign had raised $6.8 million (through October 14, 2026) and Janelle Stelson's campaign $9.2 million (through October 14, 2026). Outside groups have reported $3.2 million for Scott Perry and $7.5 million against; $2.2 million for Janelle Stelson and $9.3 million against. Semblen has analyzed 83 ads in this race; 51 used at least one rhetorical technique, most often loaded language and appeal to fear.
Scott Perry (REP, incumbent), Janelle Stelson (DEM).
3 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 83 ads analyzed, 51 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-10-31.
No early voting (No early in-person voting; in-person mail ballot at county office once ballots are ready.)Source: pa.gov ↗
By mail
Anyone can vote by mail; request a ballot by Tue, Oct 27 (Application must be received by the county.); return it by Tue, Nov 3 (Received by the county election office by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day; postmarks do not count.) (passed)Source: pa.gov ↗Source: pa.gov ↗
Checked October 8, 2026. Rules can change; confirm with the official site before you go.
Something wrong or out of date? Tell us
A person reads every report and fixes errors the same day.
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 2026-10-31. Counts are of distinct ads; the same text run many times is one ad.
Ads analyzed
83 · started running between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-26
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 Janelle Stelson in office
Janelle Stelson won. Get what Janelle Stelson 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
Perry (R)
35
33 of 35 (94%)
Loaded Language (24), Name Calling (24), Appeal to Fear (22)
Perry's campaign
5
4 of 5
Glittering Generalities (2), Loaded Language (2), Appeal to Prejudice (1)
5 groups backing Perry
30
29 of 30 (97%)
Name Calling (23), Appeal to Fear (22), Loaded Language (22)
Stelson (D)
19
1 of 19 (5%)
Appeal to Fear (1), Exaggeration/Hyperbole (1), Glittering Generalities (1)
Stelson's campaign
4
0 of 4
6 groups backing Stelson
15
1 of 15 (7%)
Appeal to Fear (1), Exaggeration/Hyperbole (1), Glittering Generalities (1)
Not placed on a side (12 sponsors)
29
17 of 29 (59%)
Loaded Language (11), Appeal to Fear (5), Glittering Generalities (5)
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.
61% of the 83 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (51 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 51% 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.
illegalin 12 ads· e.g. “illegals”, “illegal aliens”
socialistin 11 ads· e.g. “Socialist Democrat”, “the socialists”
democratin 6 ads· e.g. “Socialist Democrat”, “every Socialist Democrat”
illegal alienin 6 ads· e.g. “illegal aliens”, “illegal alien”
medicaidin 6 ads· e.g. “rob families of Medicaid”, “devastating Medicaid changes”
socialismin 5 ads· e.g. “Big government socialism”, “big government socialism”
border widein 4 ads· e.g. “rip our borders wide open”, “rip those borders wide open”
ripin 4 ads· e.g. “rip our borders wide open”, “rip those borders wide open”
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.
Scott Perry (REP, incumbent)
Raised
$6.8M through 2026-10-14individuals $4.4M · PACs $814K · party $10K · from the candidate's other committees $1.6M · cash on hand $1.0M
Outside spending
$7.5M opposing Perry · $3.2M supporting Perry· latest reported 2026-11-03
Largest outside spenders
HMP— $3.8M opposing PerryLargest donors:
HOUSE MAJORITY FORWARD $93.7M (39%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Reid G Hoffman $8.5M (4%), Greylock Partners, Partner; ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND $5.0M (2%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Fred Eychaner $5.0M (2%), Retired; UNITED ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ISSUES FUND $4.8M (2%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)LCV VICTORY FUND— $1.3M opposing PerryLargest 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 ProducerFREEDOM CAUCUS FUND— $1.2M supporting Perry
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors:
Michael T Rydin $8.8M (76%), Retired, Retired; HOUSE FREEDOM ACTION $350K (3%); KOMADA, ANNA $253K (2%); Steven Cowles $205K (2%), Retired, Retired; Steven W Corbett $200K (2%)EDF ACTION VOTES— $1.0M opposing PerryLargest donors:
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND $10.7M (75%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Susan Z Mandel $2.5M (18%), NOT Employed, NOT Employed; Michael Bills $200K (1%), Bluestem Asset Management, Founder; Barbara Hostetter $100K (1%), Barr Foundation, Chair; Amos Hostetter $100K (1%), Pilot House Associates LLC, ChairmanPROTECT FREEDOM POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE— $813K supporting PerryLargest donors:
Jeff Yass $12.5M (96%), SIG, Managing Director; AMERICAN DREAMS PAC $139K (1%); KIANI FAMILY TRUST $100K (1%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)and 36 more
NO GOING BACK PAC INC.— $5.7M opposing StelsonCLF— $1.9M opposing Stelson
· 4 ads on this pageLargest donors:
AMERICAN ACTION NETWORK $64.3M (25%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); Elon Musk $30.0M (12%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEO; Timothy Mellon $21.0M (8%), Self-Employed, Investments; Miriam Adelson $10.0M (4%), Adelson Drug Clinic, Physician; Paul E Singer $8.0M (3%), EMC, PresidentCFFE PAC— $865K supporting StelsonLargest donors:
PIVOTAL VENTURES $2.0M (56%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); OPPORTUNITY ACTION FUND $750K (21%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS PAC $250K (7%); GREEN ADVOCACY PROJECT $250K (7%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC); CHILDREN'S EQUITY FUND $100K (3%) (an organization: its own funders aren't reported to the FEC)FREEDOM CAUCUS FUND— $717K opposing Stelson
· 2 ads on this pageLargest donors:
Michael T Rydin $8.8M (76%), Retired, Retired; HOUSE FREEDOM ACTION $350K (3%); KOMADA, ANNA $253K (2%); Steven Cowles $205K (2%), Retired, Retired; Steven W Corbett $200K (2%)AMERICA PAC— $330K opposing Stelson
· 9 ads on this pageLargest donors:
Elon Musk $50.3M (100%), Space Exploration Technologies Corp., CEOand 40 more
Paid for by REPUBLICAN FEDERAL COMMITTEE OF PENNSYLVANIAfrom 2026-10-267 variantsspend $0–6935,500–11,993 impressions
Republicans and Democrats agree: members of Congress shouldn’t trade stocks. Scott Perry is a founding backer of the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act. Vote Scott Perry on November 3.
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by REPUBLICAN FEDERAL COMMITTEE OF PENNSYLVANIAfrom 2026-10-268 variantsspend $0–7922,600–9,992 impressions
In 2024, Janelle Stelson ran for this seat registered in Lancaster County, outside the district. She couldn’t vote for herself. Vote Scott Perry on November 3.
no techniques found
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Janelle Stelson won. Get what Janelle Stelson 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 REPUBLICAN FEDERAL COMMITTEE OF PENNSYLVANIAfrom 2026-10-266 variantsspend $0–59432,000–41,994 impressions
Election Day is Tuesday, November 3rd. Janelle Stelson will vote with Hakeem Jeffries to raise your taxes. Scott Perry voted to cut your taxes.
Vote Scott Perry for Congress.
Appeal to Fear: Warns of a financial threat to the audience (higher taxes) if the opponent is elected, to steer the vote. Flagged: “will vote with Hakeem Jeffries to raise your taxes”.
Paid for by Freedom Caucus Fundfrom 2026-10-259 variantsspend $1,400–2,291235,000–282,991 impressions
Janelle Stelson isn't just any Democrat, but a far-left radical who wants to reopen our borders, defund ICE, and give illegals welfare, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and free health care. The choice is clear. Reelect Congressman Scott Perry!
Name Calling: Labels the opponent a 'far-left radical' to discredit her instead of addressing her positions.
Loaded Language: Uses charged terms like 'radical' and 'illegals' to provoke a reaction.
Appeal to Fear: Suggests open borders and a flood of benefits for illegal immigrants as a threat, implying the need to vote against her. Flagged: “wants to reopen our borders, defund ICE”.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: Overstates the opponent's position as giving every benefit to illegal immigrants. Flagged: “give illegals welfare, Section 8 housing, food stamps, and free health care”.
Black-and-White Fallacy: Frames the election as a single obvious choice between two options, excluding nuance. Flagged: “The choice is clear.”.
Paid for by Freedom Caucus Fundfrom 2026-10-219 variantsspend $1,700–2,591222,100–264,991 impressions
Just like every Socialist Democrat, Janelle Stelson and Hakeem Jeffries will vote to rip our borders wide open and flood our country with the same Islamists and Communists burning down France. America can't afford Stelson's open borders. Reelect Congressman Scott Perry!
Name Calling: Labels opponents with the derogatory 'Socialist Democrat' tag instead of addressing their positions.
Appeal to Fear: Paints a vivid threat of borders flooded by dangerous groups bringing destruction like that in France. Flagged: “flood our country with the same Islamists and Communists burning down France”.
Loaded Language: Emotionally charged wording like 'rip our borders wide open', 'flood' and 'burning down' triggers reaction over facts.
Appeal to Prejudice: Targets Islamists in a way that links an immigrant/religious-associated group to destruction and invasion. Flagged: “the same Islamists and Communists burning down France”.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: Claims all Democrats and these candidates would open borders entirely and that France is being burned down. Flagged: “every Socialist Democrat”.
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 PA; or it ran mostly in PA 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.