Latest stories

Prosecutors, public defender running in primary for Office 67 of the Superior Court of Los Angeles county

Three candidates—Fernanda Maria Barreto, Ryan Dibble, and Elizabeth Lashley-Haynes—are running in the nonpartisan primary for Office 67 of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The top two vote-getters will advance to the November general election. While the race is officially nonpartisan, meaning candidates will appear on the ballot without party labels, all three candidates have been endorsed by at least one organization affiliated with the Democratic Party.

The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial board wrote, “For many years, the most successful judicial candidates were prosecutors, presumably because voters believed that they would … deal more harshly with criminal defendants,” but added that “[t]his year there are several deputy public defenders running, an interesting development that’s part of the broader movement for criminal justice reform.”

In the primary for Office 67, Barreto and Dibble both have prosecutorial experience, working as deputy district attorneys in Los Angeles County. Lashley-Haynes is a deputy public defender in the county’s public defender office. All three candidates have highlighted their respective backgrounds.

Barreto said she “has worked tirelessly … to protect particularly vulnerable populations by handling complex felony cases including murder, rape, and domestic violence,” adding that she “has taken great pride in helping victims of crimes … while also building a reputation as being a fair prosecutor.”

Dibble highlighted his experience with roles in the Major Narcotics and Hardcore Gang Divisions, saying he “worked on cases to help some of the most vulnerable members of our community for whom violence and its consequences are so devastating.”

Lashley-Haynes said, “LA County courts have been dominated by those whose principal legal experiences have involved prosecuting offenders,” saying that her experience as a public defender “provides the kind of … perspective to begin to make Los Angeles the leader in criminal justice reform.”

All three candidates have received and promoted endorsements from individuals and organizations. The Los Angeles Times, the Burbank Police Officers’ Association, and 21 superior court judges in the county endorsed Barretto. The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, and 38 superior court judges in the county endorsed Dibble. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party, the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, and four superior court judges in the county endorsed Lashley-Haynes.

Judges on the Superior Court of Los Angeles County conduct all original trials in the county, except in cases where appellate level courts have original jurisdiction. According to the court’s website, “Cases range from simple traffic infractions to murders; landlord/tenant disputes to multi-million dollar lawsuits; guardianships to involuntary commitments.”



Facebook was paid $2.68 million from Texas campaign accounts

In Texas, state-level candidates and PACs have spent $2.68 million from their campaign accounts on services from Facebook in the 2022 election cycle so far. Facebook received 0.59 percent of all reported expenditures. 

According to reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission between Jan. 1, 2021, and [most recent date], here are the top candidates and PACs that have spent campaign funds with Facebook.

Top 10 Texas campaigns spending money with Facebook

Of the $2,675,276 spent with Facebook, 83.11 percent came from these 10 campaign accounts.

Top Campaign Expenditures with Facebook (1/1/2021 – 2/19/2022)

RankTotal Paid to FacebookNameAccount Type
1.$1,101,595.06Donald HuffinesCandidate PAC
2.$359,631.61Eva GuzmanCandidate PAC
3.$300,000.00Evan YoungCandidate PAC
4.$210,117.29Save Austin Now PACNon-candidate PAC
5.$76,931.37Boot Texas RepublicansNon-candidate PAC
6.$43,268.17Tan Parker IVCandidate PAC
7.$42,365.71Raul Reyes Jr.Candidate PAC
8.$39,530.99Matt RostamiCandidate PAC
9.$25,220.15Charter Schools Now PACNon-candidate PAC
10.$24,654.75Texas Organizing Project Political Action CommitteeNon-candidate PAC

Campaign expenditures with Facebook in 12 states

Here is how spending with Facebook in Texas compares to 12 other states with data available from Transparency USA for the most recent election cycle:

Comparison of total campaign finance expenditures with Facebook, by state

RankStateTotal Paid to FacebookReporting Period
1California$5,290,7451/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2Virginia$4,486,8631/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3Texas$2,675,2761/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4Michigan$194,1801/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5Minnesota$166,0721/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6Arizona123,1541/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7Pennsylvania$106,5131/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8Wisconsin$101,9781/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9North Carolina$78,9601/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10Florida$38,5421/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11Indiana$29,5341/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12Ohio$19,9241/1/2021 – 4/13/2022
*Virginia’s two-year election cycles end in an odd-numbered year. The first available reports for Virginia’s 2023 election cycle are due Jul. 17, 2022.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active Texas PACs submitted to the Texas Ethics Commission. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

Report NameReport Due Date
2022 Jan Semiannual1/18/2022
2022 Pre-Primary (30 Days)1/31/2022
2022 Pre-Primary (8 Days)2/22/2022
2022 Primary Runoff5/16/2022
2022 Jul Semiannual7/15/2022
2022 Pre-General (30 Days)10/11/2022
2022 Pre-General (8 Days)10/31/2022
2022 Semiannual Data1/17/2023

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.



Facebook was paid $78,960 from North Carolina campaign accounts; other states reported millions

In North Carolina, state-level candidates and PACs have spent $78,960 from their campaign accounts on services from Facebook in the 2022 election cycle so far. Facebook received 0.18 percent of all reported expenditures. 

According to reports filed with the North Carolina State Board of Elections between Jan. 1, 2021, and Apr. 30, 2022, here are the top candidates and PACs that have spent campaign funds with Facebook.

Top 10 North Carolina campaigns spending money with Facebook

Of the $78,960 spent with Facebook, 48.5 percent came from these 10 campaign accounts.

Top Campaign Expenditures with Facebook (1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022)

RankTotal Paid to FacebookNameAccount Type
1.$9,954.00Carolina FederationNon-candidate PAC
2.$7,077.14Jim PerryCandidate PAC
3.$4,000.00ColorofchangeNon-candidate PAC
4.$3,200.00Durham for AllNon-candidate PAC
5.$2,900.80Angie SpillmanCandidate PAC
6.$2,734.06George McClellanCandidate PAC
7.$2,213.94Chad HawkinsCandidate PAC
8.$2,105.89Harper PetersonCandidate PAC
9.$2,074.56Graig R MeyerCandidate PAC
10.$2,035.00Beth StockwellCandidate PAC

Campaign expenditures with Facebook in 12 states

Here is how spending with Facebook in North Carolina compares to 12 other states with data available from Transparency USA for the most recent election cycle:

Comparison of total campaign finance expenditures with Facebook, by state

RankStateTotal Paid to FacebookReporting Period
1California$5,290,7451/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2Virginia$4,486,8631/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3Texas$2,675,2761/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4Michigan$194,1801/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5Minnesota$166,0721/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6Arizona123,1541/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7Pennsylvania$106,5131/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8Wisconsin$101,9781/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9North Carolina$78,9601/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10Florida$38,5421/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11Indiana$29,5341/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12Ohio$19,9241/1/2021 – 4/13/2022
*Virginia’s two-year election cycles end in an odd-numbered year. The first available reports for Virginia’s 2023 election cycle are due Jul. 17, 2022.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active North Carolina PACs submitted to the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

Report NameReport Due Date
2022 Semiannual1/28/2022
2022 Q1 Plus5/10/2022
2022 Semiannual (only candidates not on 2022 ballot)7/29/2022
2022 Q3 Plus10/31/2022
2022 Q41/11/2023
2022 Year End Semiannual (only candidates not on 2022 ballot)1/27/2023

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.



Federal Register weekly update: 1,446 pages added

The Federal Register is a daily journal of federal government activity that includes presidential documents, proposed and final rules, and public notices. It is a common measure of an administration’s regulatory activity, accounting for both regulatory and deregulatory actions.

From May 16 through May 20, the Federal Register grew by 1,446 pages for a year-to-date total of 31,092 pages.

The Federal Register hit an all-time high of 95,894 pages in 2016.

This week’s Federal Register featured the following 507 documents:

  • 411 notices
  • Seven presidential documents
  • 28 proposed rules
  • 61 final rules

Five proposed rules, including an amendment to Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) standards for commercial water heating equipment from the Energy Department, and three final rules, including an increase to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) travel promotion fee from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection were deemed significant under E.O. 12866—defined by the potential to have large impacts on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. Significant actions may also conflict with presidential priorities or other agency rules. The Biden administration has issued 77 significant proposed rules, 94 significant final rules, and one significant notice as of May 20.

Ballotpedia maintains page counts and other information about the Federal Register as part of its Administrative State Project. The project is a neutral, nonpartisan encyclopedic resource that defines and analyzes the administrative state, including its philosophical origins, legal and judicial precedents, and scholarly examinations of its consequences. The project also monitors and reports on measures of federal government activity.

Additional reading:



Initiative to increase medical malpractice lawsuit caps in California withdrawn after legislative compromise reached

On May 19, the sponsors of an initiative to increase California’s cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits withdrew the ballot measure from the 2022 ballot after reaching a legislative compromise with legislators.

 In 1975, the cap was set at $250,000. The ballot initiative would have required an annual adjustment of the cap based on inflation. The ballot initiative would have also allowed judges and juries to award damages above the cap for catastrophic injuries, defined as death, permanent physical impairment, permanent disfigurement, permanent disability, or permanent loss of consortium.

The initiative had qualified for the ballot in July 2020 after filing 910,667 signatures, of which 688,142 were valid.

On April 27, 2022, the sponsors of the initiative announced that a legislative compromise was going to be introduced that would raise the legal cap on pain and suffering awards to $350,000 beginning Jan. 1, 2023. The proposed law would also increase the cap over 10 years to a maximum of $750,000. The cap for cases involving a patient’s death would increase to $500,000 beginning Jan. 1, 2023, and increase up to $1 million over 10 years. Following the decade increase, the cap would be adjusted by 2% annually. Assembly Bill 35 was amended on April 27 to include the changes. On May 5, the state Senate passed AB 35 in a vote of 37-1 with two absent. On May 12, the state Assembly passed the bill in a vote of 66-0 with 12 absent. The bill is awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) signature.

Nick Rowley, one of the sponsors of the initiative, said, “After nearly 50 years of inaction on a law that capped the value of human life and losing my own son to medical negligence, I wrote and funded the Fairness for Injured Patients Act to effectuate much-needed change. I never envisioned a legislative compromise, but I’m very proud that our work has led us to this point. When this becomes law, we will have changed history for the better.”

In California, the proponents of a ballot initiative can withdraw their proposal after signatures are verified, as long as the proposal is withdrawn at least 131 days before the general election. For the 2022 general election, the deadline is June 30. This process was adopted in 2014 with the enactment of Senate Bill 1253 (SB 1253). Since the adoption of the law, the proponents of seven citizen-initiated ballot measures have withdrawn their proposals after qualifying for the ballot.

Additional reading:



No June CA statewide ballot measures—first time since 1964

Welcome to the Monday, May 23, Brew. 

By: Samuel Wonacott

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. For the first time since 1964, there’s no statewide initiative on California’s primary ballot
  2. Georgia’s May 24 primary elections 
  3. Alabama’s May 24 primary elections

For the first time since 1964, there’s no statewide initiative on California’s primary ballot

The June 7 California primary ballot won’t feature any state ballot measures for the first time since 1964. This year’s lack of measures follows a decline in primary ballot initiatives—last year, one proposition was on the primary ballot. Based on decades, the average has declined over time, with an average of 11 on primary ballots in the 1970s and 1980s, 10 in the 1990s, seven in the 2000s, and three in the 2010s. 

One contributing factor to the decline could be Senate Bill 202, which lawmakers approved in 2011. SB 202 required citizen-initiated ballot measures be placed on November general election ballots. Since SB 202’s passage, only legislatively referred ballot measures can appear on primary ballots. The state legislature did not place any such measures on the June primary ballot. 

However, there are a number of local measures to be decided on primary day—90 to be exact. We cover all local ballot measures in California.

There are currently four citizen-initiated measures that qualified for the statewide ballot in November and several more are expected to file signatures ahead of the June 30 signature verification deadline. Legislators also have until June 30 to refer measures to the November ballot. Since 2010, there have been an average of 10 measures decided at the general election—nine citizen-initiated measures and two legislative referrals.

Keep reading

Georgia’s May 24 primary elections 

On Tuesday, Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia will hold this month’s final statewide primaries (Texas will also decide runoff elections). Last Friday, we previewed Arkansas’ upcoming elections. Today, let’s look at what voters in Alabama and Georgia will see when they go to the polls.

As a reminder, if you have primaries coming up, use Ballotpedia’s Sample Ballot Lookup to see what’s on your ballot and bring your choices to the polls with our My Vote app!

First up, the Peach State. 

Congressional elections

Georgia voters will pick nominees for one U.S. Senate seat and all 14 of the state’s U.S. House districts. Incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock (D), who won in a special election in 2021 by two percentage points, is running against Tamara Johnson-Shealey (D) in the Democratic primary. Six candidates are running in the Republican primary, including Gary Black, Kelvin King, Latham Saddler, and Herschel Walker, who have led in fundraising and media attention. Former President Donald Trump (R) endorsed Walker. Three independent race forecasters consider the general election a Toss-up.

Georgia’s U.S. House delegation is currently split between six Democrats and eight Republicans. Eighty-two candidates, including 31 Democrats and 51 Republicans, filed to run for the 14 districts—the most since 2012, when 44 candidates filed. There are eight incumbents in contested primaries this year, the most since 2012.

Five incumbents are not facing any primary challengers.

State elections

Georgia has a full slate of state executive offices up for election, including governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and more

The Democratic gubernatorial primary features Stacey Abrams, the only candidate who filed to run. Abrams, a former state representative, ran for governor in 2018 and lost to current incumbent Brian Kemp (R) 50.2%-48.8%. Kemp, David Perdue, and three other candidates are running in the Republican primary. Trump endorsed Perdue in the election.  

In the state legislature, all 56 Senate seats and all 180 House seats are up for election. Republicans have a 34-22 Senate majority. In the House, Republicans have a 103-76 majority. 

This year, there are 104 contested state legislative primaries—51 Democratic primaries and 53 for Republicans. For Democrats, this is up from 49 in 2020, a 4% increase. For Republicans, that number increased 71%, from 31 in 2020 to 53 in 2022. This is also the state’s first cycle since 2016 with more Republican Republican than Democratic primaries.

In Georgia, primary candidates must get a majority of the vote to win. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the total vote, the two candidates with the most votes advance to a June 21 runoff election. Georgia is one of 10 states that conduct runoff elections as part of their party nomination process. 

Click below to learn more about Georgia’s primaries. 

Keep reading 

Alabama’s May 24 primary elections

Now that we’ve looked at Georgia’s primary elections, let’s jump next door and look at Alabama’s upcoming elections. 

Congressional elections

Alabama voters will decide who will replace Sen. Richard Shelby (R). Shelby first took office in 1987 and announced in 2021 that he would retire. Three candidates are running in the Democratic primaryWill Boyd, Brandaun Dean, and Lanny Jackson. Six candidates are running in the Republican primary, including  Katie Britt, Mo Brooks, and Michael Durant, who have led in polling and endorsements. Trump initially endorsed Brooks but later rescinded his endorsement. 

Alabama is also holding elections for its seven congressional districts. Republicans currently hold six of those districts. There are three contested Democratic primaries and two contested Republican primaries. Five incumbents—four Republicans and one Democrat—aren’t facing any primary challengers.

 State elections

Alabama is holding elections for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and more. 

Incumbent Gov. Kay Ivey, Lynda Blanchard, and Tim James, and six other candidates, are running in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Six candidates are running in the Democratic primary. Three independent race forecasters consider the general election Solid Republican.

Thirty-five state Senate districts and 105 House districts are up for election. Republicans control the Senate 27-8 and the House 73-28 (with four current vacancies). In the 140 districts holding elections, 17.9% were left open, meaning no incumbent filed to run in them. This was a decrease from the 37 open districts in 2018 but more than the 20 in 2014. 

Like in Georgia, Alabama primary candidates must get a majority of the vote to win. Candidates that do not receive more than 50% of the vote will advance to a June 21 runoff election. 

Click below to read more about Alabama’s upcoming elections. 

Keep reading



Facebook was paid $101,978 from Wisconsin campaign accounts; other states reported millions

In Wisconsin, state-level candidates and PACs have spent $101,978 from their campaign accounts on services from Facebook in the 2022 election cycle so far. Facebook received 0.29 percent of all reported expenditures. 

According to reports filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission between Jan. 1, 2021, and Mar. 21, 2022, here are the top candidates and PACs that have spent campaign funds with Facebook.

Top 10 Wisconsin campaigns spending money with Facebook

Of the $101,978 spent with Facebook, 87.47 percent came from these 10 campaign accounts.

Top Campaign Expenditures with Facebook (1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022)

RankTotal Paid to FacebookNameAccount Type
1.$37,500.00Demand Justice PACNon-candidate PAC
2.$18,500.00Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin Political FundNon-candidate PAC
3.$12,485.95Jonathan WichmannCandidate PAC
4.$8,506.52Waukesha County Democratic PartyNon-candidate PAC
5.$2,482.93Karl JaegerCandidate PAC
6.$2,360.42Francesca HongCandidate PAC
7.$2,153.57David VarnamCandidate PAC
8.$1,869.89Wisconsin Conservation Voters Independent Expenditure CommitteeNon-candidate PAC
9.$1,736.77Mark SchefflerCandidate PAC
10.$1,600.00Wisconsin Muslim Civic Alliance IncNon-candidate PAC

Campaign expenditures with Facebook in 12 states

Here is how spending with Facebook in Wisconsin compares to 12 other states with data available from Transparency USA for the most recent election cycle:

Comparison of total campaign finance expenditures with Facebook, by state

RankStateTotal Paid to FacebookReporting Period
1California$5,290,7451/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2Virginia$4,486,8631/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3Texas$2,675,2761/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4Michigan$194,1801/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5Minnesota$166,0721/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6Arizona123,1541/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7Pennsylvania$106,5131/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8Wisconsin$101,9781/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9North Carolina$78,9601/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10Florida$38,5421/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11Indiana$29,5341/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12Ohio$19,9241/1/2021 – 4/13/2022
*Virginia’s two-year election cycles end in an odd-numbered year. The first available reports for Virginia’s 2023 election cycle are due Jul. 17, 2022.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active Wisconsin PACs submitted to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

Report NameReport Due Date
2022 Jan Semiannual1/18/2022
2022 Spring Pre-Primary2/7/2022
2022 Spring Pre-Election3/28/2022
2022 Jul Semiannual7/15/2022
2022 Fall Pre-Primary8/1/2022
2022 Sept Data9/27/2022
2022 Fall Pre-General10/31/2022
2023 Jan Semiannual1/7/2023

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.



Facebook was paid $19,924 from Ohio campaign accounts; other states reported millions

In Ohio, state-level candidates and PACs have spent $19,924 from their campaign accounts on services from Facebook in the 2022 election cycle so far. Facebook received 0.03 percent of all reported expenditures. 

According to reports filed with the Ohio Secretary of State between Jan. 1, 2021, and Apr. 13, 2022, here are the top candidates and PACs that have spent campaign funds with Facebook.

Top 10 Ohio campaigns spending money with Facebook

Of the $19,924 spent with Facebook, 90.95 percent came from these 10 campaign accounts.

Top Campaign Expenditures with Facebook (1/1/2021 – 4/13/2022)

RankTotal Paid to FacebookNameAccount Type
1.$9,505.17Joe BlystoneCandidate PAC
2.$2,864.63Casey WeinsteinCandidate PAC
3.$2,249.82Phillip RobinsonCandidate PAC
4.$866.91The MatriotsNon-candidate PAC
5.$594.61Christian JohnsonCandidate PAC
6.$532.83Juanita BrentCandidate PAC
7.$458.88Gary ClickCandidate PAC
8.$378.03Theresa GavaroneCandidate PAC
9.$350.00Pickaway County Patriot AllianceNon-candidate PAC
10.$319.14Summit County Democratic Party Executive Committee Restricted FundNon-candidate PAC

Campaign expenditures with Facebook in 12 states

Campaign expenditures vary widely. Here is how spending with Facebook in Ohio compares to 12 other states with data available from Transparency USA for the most recent election cycle:

Comparison of total campaign finance expenditures with Facebook, by state

RankStateTotal Paid to FacebookReporting Period
1California$5,290,7451/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2Virginia$4,486,8631/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3Texas$2,675,2761/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4Michigan$194,1801/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5Minnesota$166,0721/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6Arizona123,1541/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7Pennsylvania$106,5131/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8Wisconsin$101,9781/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9North Carolina$78,9601/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10Florida$38,5421/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11Indiana$29,5341/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12Ohio$19,9241/1/2021 – 4/13/2022
*Virginia’s two-year election cycles end in an odd-numbered year. The first available reports for Virginia’s 2023 election cycle are due Jul. 17, 2022.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active Ohio PACs submitted to the Ohio Secretary of State. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

Report NameReport Due Date
2021 Annual1/31/2022
2022 Pre-Primary4/21/2022
2022 Post-Primary6/10/2022
2022 Semiannual7/29/2022
2022 Pre-General10/27/2022
2022 Post-General12/16/2022

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.



Facebook was paid $5.29 million from California campaign accounts

In California, state-level candidates and PACs have spent $5.29 million from their campaign accounts on services from Facebook in the 2022 election cycle so far. Facebook received 0.5 percent of all reported expenditures. 

According to reports filed with the California Secretary of State between Jan. 1, 2021, and Apr. 23, 2022, here are the top candidates and PACs that have spent campaign funds with Facebook.

Top 10 California campaigns spending money with Facebook

Of the $5,290,745 spent with Facebook, 75.07 percent came from these 10 campaign accounts.

Top Campaign Expenditures with Facebook (1/1/2021 – 4/23/2022)

RankTotal Paid to FacebookNameAccount Type
1.$1,659,746.07Stop the Republican Recall of Governor NewsomNon-candidate PAC
2.$538,601.24Kevin KileyCandidate PAC
3.$472,888.31Larry ElderCandidate PAC
4.$255,000.00Committee to Protect California Kids Sponsored by Nonprofit Health OrganizationsNon-candidate PAC
5.$232,500.00Rescue CaliforniaNon-candidate PAC
6.$225,000.00Jenny Rae Le RouxCandidate PAC
7.$202,739.38Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support a Coalition of Housing and Mental Health Experts, Concerned Taxpayers, and Digital Sports Entertainment and Gaming CompaniesNon-candidate PAC
8.$150,000.00Rescue California-to Support the Recall of Gavin NewsomNon-candidate PAC
9.$142,785.93Reform CaliforniaNon-candidate PAC
10.$92,757.71Voto Latino Against the Newsom Recall (Nonprofit 501(c)(4))Non-candidate PAC

Campaign expenditures with Facebook in 12 states

Here is how spending with Facebook in California compares to 12 other states with data available from Transparency USA for the most recent election cycle:

Comparison of total campaign finance expenditures with Facebook, by state

RankStateTotal Paid to FacebookReporting Period
1California$5,290,7451/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2Virginia$4,486,8631/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3Texas$2,675,2761/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4Michigan$194,1801/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5Minnesota$166,0721/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6Arizona123,1541/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7Pennsylvania$106,5131/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8Wisconsin$101,9781/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9North Carolina$78,9601/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10Florida$38,5421/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11Indiana$29,5341/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12Ohio$19,9241/1/2021 – 4/13/2022
*Virginia’s two-year election cycles end in an odd-numbered year. The first available reports for Virginia’s 2023 election cycle are due Jul. 17, 2022.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active California PACs submitted to the California Secretary of State. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

Report NameDue Date
Semiannual1/31/2022
1st Pre-Election – Primary4/28/2022
2nd Pre-Election – Primary5/26/2022
Semiannual8/1/2022
1st Pre-Election – General9/29/2022
2nd Pre- Election – General10/27/2022
Semiannual1/31/2023

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.



Facebook was paid $4.49 million from Virginia campaign accounts

In Virginia, state-level candidates and PACs spent $4.49 million from their campaign accounts on services from Facebook in the 2021 election cycle. Facebook received 1.06 percent of all reported expenditures. 

According to reports filed with the Virginia Department of Elections between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021, here are the top candidates and PACs that spent campaign funds with Facebook.

Top 10 Virginia campaigns spending money with Facebook

Of the $4,486,863 spent with Facebook, 90.36 percent came from these 10 campaign accounts.

Top Campaign Expenditures with Facebook (1/1/2020 – 12/31/2021)

RankTotal Paid to FacebookNameAccount Type
1.$3,736,097.89Terry McAuliffeCandidate PAC
2.$100,473.28Vote Yes Richmond Wins!Non-candidate PAC
3.$39,889.76Vote Yes PortsmouthNon-candidate PAC
4.$31,106.28Tim AndersonCandidate PAC
5.$30,445.30Jennifer KitchenCandidate PAC
6.$29,884.39Stephen E HeretickCandidate PAC
7.$23,744.35Dawn AdamsCandidate PAC
8.$22,491.16Vote Yes for BristolNon-candidate PAC
9.$20,585.91Jennifer Carroll FoyCandidate PAC
10.$19,567.46Kathy ByronCandidate PAC

Campaign expenditures with Facebook in 12 states

Here is how spending with Facebook in Virginia compares to 12 other states with data available from Transparency USA for the most recent election cycle:

Comparison of total campaign finance expenditures with Facebook, by state

RankStateTotal Paid to FacebookReporting Period
1California$5,290,7451/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2Virginia$4,486,8631/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3Texas$2,675,2761/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4Michigan$194,1801/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5Minnesota$166,0721/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6Arizona123,1541/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7Pennsylvania$106,5131/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8Wisconsin$101,9781/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9North Carolina$78,9601/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10Florida$38,5421/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11Indiana$29,5341/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12Ohio$19,9241/1/2021 – 4/13/2022
*Virginia’s two-year election cycles end in an odd-numbered year. The first available reports for Virginia’s 2023 election cycle are due Jul. 17, 2022.

While spending varies widely between states, no state on Transparency USA has reported more than 1.06 percent of total campaign expenditures on services from Facebook in the most recent cycle.

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active Virginia PACs submitted to the Virginia Department of Elections. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

Report NameReport Due Date
2022 Jan Semiannual1/15/2022
2022 Jul Semiannual 7/15/2022
2023 Jan Semiannual1/15/2023

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.