Political ads on Meta and Google, 2018-2025
Television is not in this archive: it appears only as national yearly totals on the Money page. Every advertiser with an anti-trans ad is named, candidates and committees included.
Where anti-trans ads ran, beside the bills filed there the same year. This is co-occurrence in a state and a year, not cause: a national buy's dollars are divided evenly across the states it names.
| State | Year | Ads | Spend | Bills filed | Anti-trans bills | Passed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nebraska | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| New Hampshire | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 17 | 6 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| New York | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 43 | 5 | 0 |
| North Carolina | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Ohio | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Oklahoma | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 12 | 12 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 12 | 4 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| South Dakota | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Tennessee | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Texas | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| US | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| Utah | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| Vermont | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| Virginia | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 9 | 6 | 0 |
| Washington | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 9 | 4 | 0 |
| West Virginia | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| Wisconsin | 2004 | 0 | $0 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Alabama | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Arkansas | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| California | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Delaware | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Georgia | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hawaii | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Illinois | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Iowa | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Maine | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Massachusetts | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 10 | 1 | 0 |
| Michigan | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 11 | 5 | 0 |
| Minnesota | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| New Jersey | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| New Mexico | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| New York | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 31 | 2 | 0 |
| North Dakota | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Ohio | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Pennsylvania | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhode Island | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| South Carolina | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| US | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Washington | 2003 | 0 | $0 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
Political ads on Meta and Google, 2018-2025
What ran where, next to what was filed there that year. The join key is state + year, deliberately coarse. This is co-occurrence, not causation: it cannot show that an ad caused a bill or the reverse, because ad targeting and bill filing both respond to the same national cycle. Use it to find the state-years worth reading closely.
Loading…
How the ad side is apportioned. A national buy names every state it could be served in. Counting its full budget in all fifty would multiply the
money by fifty, so spend is divided evenly across the states a creative names, and an ad counts once per state it ran in. That is an
apportionment convention, not a measurement.
Bills are the bills the research corpus holds for the state and year. Anti-LGBTQ counts bills coded anti-LGBTQ; trans-specific counts the subset specifically about trans people; enacted counts those that became law.
Bills are the bills the research corpus holds for the state and year. Anti-LGBTQ counts bills coded anti-LGBTQ; trans-specific counts the subset specifically about trans people; enacted counts those that became law.