Virginia House District 2 2026: the ads, and who's paying for them
Jen Kiggans (REP, incumbent), Elaine Luria (DEM).
7 others filed with the FEC; any ads they ran are below. 104 ads analyzed, 52 with at least one technique in the copy.
Newest first. The paid-for-by line is the advertiser's own filing. Updated 2026-09-30. 1 ad from other advertisers shown separately below.
$109,200–160,451 on all ads, $74,700–102,736 on flagged ads · Meta reports ranges; these are the sums of their ends
Example
“His health care hikes” — Loaded Language, paid for by HMP
· the flagged ad with the highest reported spend that shows the most common technique
Embed this race on your site
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.
Decide what counts
Not everyone would call every technique manipulation. Untick the ones you'd call ordinary persuasion and the count updates.
50% of the 104 ads here use at least one of the techniques ticked below (52 ads).
Leaving out the softer ones (loaded language, glittering generalities, slogans, exaggeration, repetition): 44% 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.
liberal opponentin 4 ads· e.g. “my liberal opponent”, “liberal opponent”
buyin 3 ads· e.g. “trying to buy a seat they can't defend on merit”, “buy this seat from under us”
campaignin 3 ads· e.g. “Nancy Pelosi and Abigail Spanberger bankrolling her campaign”, “throw the kitchen sink at me to silence our campaign”
health carein 3 ads· e.g. “deadly health care cuts”, “flatline your health care”
politicianin 3 ads· e.g. “politicians who enrich themselves”, “Politicians get rich”
seatin 3 ads· e.g. “trying to buy a seat they can't defend on merit”, “buy this seat from under us”
Follow this race
A weekly email when new Virginia House District 2 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.
$4.7M through 2026-07-15individuals $3.4M · PACs $405K · party $221 · candidate's own money, incl. loans $8,010 · from the candidate's other committees $867K · cash on hand $3.6M
Paid for by America PACfrom 2026-09-15spend $4,500–4,99960,000–69,999 impressions
We fired Elaine Luria once. She'll rubber-stamp the far left agenda again. Confirm you're ready to VOTE!
We fired Elaine Luria once. She'll rubber-stamp the far left agenda again. Confirm you're ready to VOTE!
Loaded Language: The word 'fired' is used in a politically charged way to frame a democratic election loss as a punitive dismissal, implying voters acted as enforcers — for example: fired and rubber-stamp.
Name Calling: The label 'far left' is a derogatory political label used to discredit Luria rather than address her actual policy positions — for example: 'far left agenda'
False Urgency: The imperative 'Confirm you're ready to VOTE!' with capitalized emphasis creates artificial urgency to prompt immediate action without deliberation — for example: 'Confirm you're ready to VOTE!'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence implies a dire consequence — that Luria will blindly advance an extreme agenda — to create anxiety and motivate action — for example: rubber-stamp the far left agenda again
Loaded Language
Name Calling
False Urgency
Appeal to Fear
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by America PACfrom 2026-09-15spend $4,000–4,49950,000–59,999 impressions
Elaine Luria will rubber stamp their plan to abolish your private health insurance. Commit to VOTE against Luria!
A massive tax increase. Your health plan gone. That's Elaine Luria's future. Commit to VOTE her down!
Loaded Language: The phrase 'rubber stamp' is a derogatory, emotionally charged term implying blind compliance and lack of independent judgment — for example: 'rubber stamp their plan'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence warns that the subject will 'abolish your private health insurance,' invoking fear of losing personal healthcare coverage to pressure the reader — for example: 'abolish your private health insurance'
Card Stacking: The claim that Luria 'will' abolish private health insurance is presented as certain fact without evidence or nuance, omitting any counterargument or qualification — for example: 'will rubber stamp their plan to abolish your private health insurance'
False Urgency: The imperative 'Commit to VOTE' with capitalization creates artificial urgency and pressure to act immediately without deliberation — for example: 'Commit to VOTE against Luria!'
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: Uses the word 'massive' as an extreme overstatement without evidence to amplify fear — for example: 'A massive tax increase.'
Name Calling: Associates Elaine Luria's name directly with harmful outcomes as a discrediting label rather than a substantive argument — for example: 'That's Elaine Luria's future.'
Loaded Language
Appeal to Fear
Card Stacking
False Urgency
Exaggeration/Hyperbole
Name Calling
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by America PACfrom 2026-09-152 variantsspend $2,800–3,39829,000–34,998 impressions
There’s a reason we fired Elaine Luria. She rubber-stamped the far left agenda. We must defeat her. Commit to VOTE!
There’s a reason we fired Elaine Luria. She rubber-stamped the far left agenda. We must defeat her. Commit to VOTE!
The stakes are higher. Socialists want to defund police and raise our taxes. Pledge to VOTE and stop them!
Appeal to Prejudice: The use of 'we' implies an in-group that collectively acted against Luria, framing the audience as part of a unified group with shared enemies — for example: 'we fired Elaine Luria'
Name Calling: Labels Luria as aligned with the 'far left' to discredit her without addressing specific policy positions — for example: 'far left agenda'
Loaded Language: 'Rubber-stamped' is a derogatory, emotionally charged term implying blind, uncritical compliance — for example: 'rubber-stamped the far left agenda'
False Urgency: 'We must defeat her' creates an imperative tone implying urgent necessity to act against Luria — for example: We must defeat her and Commit to VOTE!.
Bandwagon Appeal: The call to 'Commit to VOTE!' implies collective participation and pressures the reader to conform to the group's political action — for example: 'Commit to VOTE!'
Appeal to Fear: The phrase implies escalating danger without specifying what the stakes are, creating vague anxiety to prime the reader for the fear-based claims that follow — for example: The stakes are higher and want to defund police and raise our taxes.
Card Stacking: The sentence presents a one-sided characterization of opponents' goals without acknowledging nuance, counterarguments, or the actual range of policy positions held — for example: 'Socialists want to defund police and raise our taxes'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The framing presents only two options: pledge to vote and stop 'them', or implicitly allow 'them' to succeed, eliminating any middle ground or alternative responses — for example: 'Pledge to VOTE and stop them!'
Appeal to Prejudice
Name Calling
Loaded Language
False Urgency
Bandwagon Appeal
Appeal to Fear
Card Stacking
Black-and-White Fallacy
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid for by America PACfrom 2026-09-152 variantsspend $1,200–1,79818,000–23,998 impressions
Elaine Luria will rubber stamp their plan to abolish your private health insurance. Commit to VOTE against Luria!
Elaine Luria will rubber stamp their plan to abolish your private health insurance. Commit to VOTE against Luria!
Stop socialism in its tracks. Elaine Luria will flatline your health care. Make sure you're ready to VOTE NO!
Loaded Language: The phrase 'rubber stamp' is a derogatory, emotionally charged term implying blind compliance and lack of independent judgment — for example: 'rubber stamp their plan'
Appeal to Fear: The sentence warns that the subject will 'abolish your private health insurance,' invoking fear of losing personal healthcare coverage to pressure the reader — for example: 'abolish your private health insurance'
Card Stacking: The sentence presents the claim that Luria will abolish private health insurance as a certainty without evidence or nuance, omitting any counterarguments or qualifications — for example: 'will rubber stamp their plan to abolish your private health insurance'
False Urgency: The imperative 'Commit to VOTE' with capitalization creates artificial urgency and pressure to act immediately against the named individual — for example: 'Commit to VOTE against Luria!'
Black-and-White Fallacy: The sentence frames the only acceptable response as voting against Luria, presenting no alternative positions or nuanced considerations — for example: 'Commit to VOTE against Luria!'
Exaggeration/Hyperbole: The claim that Luria will 'abolish' private health insurance is an extreme overstatement that presents a complex policy debate as a certainty of total elimination — for example: 'abolish your private health insurance'
Name Calling: The word 'socialism' is used as a derogatory label to discredit a political position without engaging with its substance — for example: 'Stop socialism in its tracks'
Loaded Language
Appeal to Fear
Card Stacking
False Urgency
Black-and-White Fallacy
Exaggeration/Hyperbole
Name Calling
Looks up the ad's factual claims in fact-checkers, primary sources and wire reporting. Takes up to a minute.
Paid posts that ran in VA 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.
WALKINSHAW FOR CONGRESS: campaign for another office
Official office video · WALKINSHAW FOR CONGRESSfrom 2026-08-11 to 2026-08-222 variantsspend $300–4986,100–7,998 impressions
We can flip three House seats in Virginia and I'm excited to do just that! Chip in to support Shannon Taylor, Elaine Luria, and Tom Perriello.
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 VA; or it ran mostly in VA 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