Those tweets were not labeled as “political” and therefore do not display the usual data such as money spent and impressions earned. Steyer’s Need to Impeach, for example, does not show up on Twitter’s list, despite being registered with the FEC and promoting political tweets through election season. Though it provides useful data about federal candidates, Twitter’s list is not exhaustive or comprehensive just yet. Twitter defines “political campaigning” as ads purchased by political committees and candidates registered with the FEC or ads using express advocacy language about a clearly identified candidate for federal office.
#Bob hugin platform archive#
While Facebook’s archive shows more than 100,000 pages taking out political ads, Twitter has identified just 92 pages as having run “political” promoted tweets. Conservative dark money group One Nation spent more than $1.7 million on Google advertising and $823,139 on Facebook but just $12,700 on Twitter. The liberal Majority Forward, this cycle’s leading dark money spender, shelled out $864,023 on Facebook and $ 430,800 on Google compared to $13,700 on Twitter. Non-disclosing groups make up just $56,655 of spending by political and partially disclosing groups make up $13,747. The bulk of reported spending on Twitter is made up by disclosing groups and candidates, totaling more than $2.5 million. Though “Millionaire Claire” is one rare example on Twitter, the phenomenon became very common on Facebook, where SLF rolled out “ The Joe You Don’t Know ,” “ Mexico Joe ” and the less-snappy “ Heidi Heitkamp’s Game of Hypocrisy. Super PACs and “dark money” seemed to favor Facebook for political advertising, with many setting up separate pages dedicated to attacking candidates. With a significantly larger user base, Google and Facebook always rake in more from political advertisers.
Trump has spent more than $8 million on Facebook since the website started tracking political tweets in May and another $1.8 million on Google. Facebook and Google, platforms on which Trump has not yet organically accrued the same devout following, are a different story. Notably absent from the list of political accounts is Donald Trump, whose handle did not promote any tweets.
Using its eponymous Twitter page, SLF spent another $54,200 promoting tweets attacking Democratic Senate candidates Claire McCaskill and Jacky Rosen. Pages like “ Millionaire Claire ,” bankrolled by Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), took on a life of their own with $69,300 in spending on promoted tweets.
Gillibrand similarly promoted tweets regarding various issues, spending at least $35,400 on a tweet urging Twitter users to sign a petition opposing Kavanaugh and generating 2.9 million impressions. While O’Rourke spent most of his Twitter cash in October and November with a focus on his race, Harris did the opposite, instead targeting her promoted tweets almost entirely on petitions to oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation and to protect special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation after the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. O’Rourke splurged on a handful of ads, spending at least $57,100 and generating 4.1 million impressions on a promoted tweet urging supporters to chip in after news of new spending from a pro-Ted Cruz super PAC. But even with all that cash on hand, O’Rourke used Twitter to raise even more money for his record-breaking Senate campaign in Texas. Equipped with more money than anyone else, it’s not surprising O’Rourke was the top spender overall.
0 kommentar(er)
