This October has seen significant financial activity in presidential campaign advertising across battleground states. With large sums invested by both Republican and Democratic campaigns, these ads focus on key political issues aimed at swaying voters’ opinions.
Pro-Harris Ads Dominate Spending
FF PAC, a leading pro-Harris super PAC, has invested over $22 million in the ‘Not Rich as Hell’ ad. This advertisement features a Jacksonville voter expressing dissatisfaction with Trump’s tax policies, accusing him of favouring the wealthy. The ad has substantial airtime in battleground states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
Another FF PAC ad, ‘Fair Share’, follows a similar narrative with a focus on Pennsylvania. The ad criticises Trump’s favourable stance towards the wealthy and emphasises the economic struggles of ordinary Americans. FF PAC dedicated over $20 million to this ad, strategically airing it across key states.
Pro-Trump Ads Push Back Hard
MAGA Inc., a major pro-Trump super PAC, responded assertively with the ‘Next Step’ ad, spending nearly $18 million. This ad critiques Harris’s record on law enforcement, warning voters of potential risks if she were elected. Significant funds were allocated to air this ad in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and several other battlegrounds.
The ‘Insane’ ad, backed by close to $16 million, takes a critical view of Harris’s previous support for taxpayer-funded gender transition surgeries. Trump’s campaign utilised this issue to target Harris, especially spending millions in states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
Spotlight on Tax Policies
FF PAC features heavily again with the ‘Tax Breaks’ ad, showing a Nevada voter condemning the disparity in tax liabilities between billionaires and ordinary Americans. This ad, with spending above $15 million, targets voters mainly in Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Restoration PAC’s ‘That’s called Bidenomics’ ad, backing Trump, also zeroes in on economic themes, criticising Harris for inflationary policies under the ‘Bidenomics’ banner. More than $11 million was invested in this narrative, with its broadcast concentrated in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Trump’s ‘Even High Taxes’ ad, with a $9.5 million budget, appeals to middle-class and lower-income voters by highlighting promised tax cuts. It accuses Harris of aiming to increase taxes, an argument notably present in North Carolina and Georgia.
Harris Campaign Counters Negative Ads
The Harris campaign itself spent heavily on ‘My Life’s Work’, aimed at countering attacks on her character. Spending over $11 million, this ad features Harris personally addressing voters and promoting her long-term dedication to public service. The campaign prioritised this ad’s distribution in states like Pennsylvania and Arizona.
Another offensive by Harris for President is the ‘Unstable’ ad, which challenges Trump’s leadership qualities. Although just outside the top 10, this ad investment exceeded $9 million and features critiques from former Trump administration officials, questioning his capability to lead.
Emerging Themes and Messaging
As campaigns flood the airwaves with ads, recurring themes such as tax policies and personal character have come to the forefront. Harris’s ads tend to focus on economic and welfare issues, whereas Trump’s ads often target social policies and personal governance.
The competitive nature of these ads indicates a strategic effort to influence undecided voters in pivotal states. Both campaigns have clearly defined their narratives, seeking to resonate with distinct voter bases.
The substantial ad spending in October’s presidential campaign highlights the importance placed on swaying public opinion in crucial states. Both campaigns are adopting aggressive strategies to define their opponents and solidify their standings in an increasingly competitive race.
