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.”
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)
Rank
Total Paid to Facebook
Name
Account Type
1.
$1,101,595.06
Donald Huffines
Candidate PAC
2.
$359,631.61
Eva Guzman
Candidate PAC
3.
$300,000.00
Evan Young
Candidate PAC
4.
$210,117.29
Save Austin Now PAC
Non-candidate PAC
5.
$76,931.37
Boot Texas Republicans
Non-candidate PAC
6.
$43,268.17
Tan Parker IV
Candidate PAC
7.
$42,365.71
Raul Reyes Jr.
Candidate PAC
8.
$39,530.99
Matt Rostami
Candidate PAC
9.
$25,220.15
Charter Schools Now PAC
Non-candidate PAC
10.
$24,654.75
Texas Organizing Project Political Action Committee
Non-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
Rank
State
Total Paid to Facebook
Reporting Period
1
California
$5,290,745
1/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2
Virginia
$4,486,863
1/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3
Texas
$2,675,276
1/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4
Michigan
$194,180
1/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5
Minnesota
$166,072
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6
Arizona
123,154
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7
Pennsylvania
$106,513
1/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8
Wisconsin
$101,978
1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9
North Carolina
$78,960
1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10
Florida
$38,542
1/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11
Indiana
$29,534
1/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12
Ohio
$19,924
1/1/2021 – 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.
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)
Rank
Total Paid to Facebook
Name
Account Type
1.
$9,954.00
Carolina Federation
Non-candidate PAC
2.
$7,077.14
Jim Perry
Candidate PAC
3.
$4,000.00
Colorofchange
Non-candidate PAC
4.
$3,200.00
Durham for All
Non-candidate PAC
5.
$2,900.80
Angie Spillman
Candidate PAC
6.
$2,734.06
George McClellan
Candidate PAC
7.
$2,213.94
Chad Hawkins
Candidate PAC
8.
$2,105.89
Harper Peterson
Candidate PAC
9.
$2,074.56
Graig R Meyer
Candidate PAC
10.
$2,035.00
Beth Stockwell
Candidate 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
Rank
State
Total Paid to Facebook
Reporting Period
1
California
$5,290,745
1/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2
Virginia
$4,486,863
1/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3
Texas
$2,675,276
1/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4
Michigan
$194,180
1/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5
Minnesota
$166,072
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6
Arizona
123,154
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7
Pennsylvania
$106,513
1/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8
Wisconsin
$101,978
1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9
North Carolina
$78,960
1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10
Florida
$38,542
1/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11
Indiana
$29,534
1/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12
Ohio
$19,924
1/1/2021 – 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 Name
Report Due Date
2022 Semiannual
1/28/2022
2022 Q1 Plus
5/10/2022
2022 Semiannual (only candidates not on 2022 ballot)
7/29/2022
2022 Q3 Plus
10/31/2022
2022 Q4
1/11/2023
2022 Year End Semiannual (only candidates not on 2022 ballot)
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.
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.
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
For the first time since 1964, there’s no statewide initiative on California’s primary ballot
Georgia’s May 24 primary elections
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Rank
Total Paid to Facebook
Name
Account Type
1.
$37,500.00
Demand Justice PAC
Non-candidate PAC
2.
$18,500.00
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin Political Fund
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
Rank
State
Total Paid to Facebook
Reporting Period
1
California
$5,290,745
1/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2
Virginia
$4,486,863
1/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3
Texas
$2,675,276
1/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4
Michigan
$194,180
1/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5
Minnesota
$166,072
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6
Arizona
123,154
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7
Pennsylvania
$106,513
1/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8
Wisconsin
$101,978
1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9
North Carolina
$78,960
1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10
Florida
$38,542
1/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11
Indiana
$29,534
1/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12
Ohio
$19,924
1/1/2021 – 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.
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)
Rank
Total Paid to Facebook
Name
Account Type
1.
$9,505.17
Joe Blystone
Candidate PAC
2.
$2,864.63
Casey Weinstein
Candidate PAC
3.
$2,249.82
Phillip Robinson
Candidate PAC
4.
$866.91
The Matriots
Non-candidate PAC
5.
$594.61
Christian Johnson
Candidate PAC
6.
$532.83
Juanita Brent
Candidate PAC
7.
$458.88
Gary Click
Candidate PAC
8.
$378.03
Theresa Gavarone
Candidate PAC
9.
$350.00
Pickaway County Patriot Alliance
Non-candidate PAC
10.
$319.14
Summit County Democratic Party Executive Committee Restricted Fund
Non-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
Rank
State
Total Paid to Facebook
Reporting Period
1
California
$5,290,745
1/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2
Virginia
$4,486,863
1/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3
Texas
$2,675,276
1/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4
Michigan
$194,180
1/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5
Minnesota
$166,072
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6
Arizona
123,154
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7
Pennsylvania
$106,513
1/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8
Wisconsin
$101,978
1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9
North Carolina
$78,960
1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10
Florida
$38,542
1/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11
Indiana
$29,534
1/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12
Ohio
$19,924
1/1/2021 – 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.
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)
Rank
Total Paid to Facebook
Name
Account Type
1.
$1,659,746.07
Stop the Republican Recall of Governor Newsom
Non-candidate PAC
2.
$538,601.24
Kevin Kiley
Candidate PAC
3.
$472,888.31
Larry Elder
Candidate PAC
4.
$255,000.00
Committee to Protect California Kids Sponsored by Nonprofit Health Organizations
Non-candidate PAC
5.
$232,500.00
Rescue California
Non-candidate PAC
6.
$225,000.00
Jenny Rae Le Roux
Candidate PAC
7.
$202,739.38
Californians for Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support a Coalition of Housing and Mental Health Experts, Concerned Taxpayers, and Digital Sports Entertainment and Gaming Companies
Non-candidate PAC
8.
$150,000.00
Rescue California-to Support the Recall of Gavin Newsom
Non-candidate PAC
9.
$142,785.93
Reform California
Non-candidate PAC
10.
$92,757.71
Voto 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
Rank
State
Total Paid to Facebook
Reporting Period
1
California
$5,290,745
1/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2
Virginia
$4,486,863
1/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3
Texas
$2,675,276
1/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4
Michigan
$194,180
1/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5
Minnesota
$166,072
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6
Arizona
123,154
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7
Pennsylvania
$106,513
1/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8
Wisconsin
$101,978
1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9
North Carolina
$78,960
1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10
Florida
$38,542
1/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11
Indiana
$29,534
1/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12
Ohio
$19,924
1/1/2021 – 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.
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)
Rank
Total Paid to Facebook
Name
Account Type
1.
$3,736,097.89
Terry McAuliffe
Candidate PAC
2.
$100,473.28
Vote Yes Richmond Wins!
Non-candidate PAC
3.
$39,889.76
Vote Yes Portsmouth
Non-candidate PAC
4.
$31,106.28
Tim Anderson
Candidate PAC
5.
$30,445.30
Jennifer Kitchen
Candidate PAC
6.
$29,884.39
Stephen E Heretick
Candidate PAC
7.
$23,744.35
Dawn Adams
Candidate PAC
8.
$22,491.16
Vote Yes for Bristol
Non-candidate PAC
9.
$20,585.91
Jennifer Carroll Foy
Candidate PAC
10.
$19,567.46
Kathy Byron
Candidate 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
Rank
State
Total Paid to Facebook
Reporting Period
1
California
$5,290,745
1/1/2021- 4/23/2022
2
Virginia
$4,486,863
1/1/2020-12/31/2021*
3
Texas
$2,675,276
1/1/2021 – 5/14/2022
4
Michigan
$194,180
1/1/2021 – 4/20/2022
5
Minnesota
$166,072
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
6
Arizona
123,154
1/1/2021 – 3/31/2022
7
Pennsylvania
$106,513
1/1/2021 – 3/9/2022
8
Wisconsin
$101,978
1/1/2021 – 3/21/2022
9
North Carolina
$78,960
1/1/2021 – 4/30/2022
10
Florida
$38,542
1/1/2021 – 3/31/202
11
Indiana
$29,534
1/1/2021 – 4/8/2022
12
Ohio
$19,924
1/1/2021 – 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.
