Mission vs. money

Does the money match the mission?

Every big political group publishes a reason to exist: protect the environment, end gun violence, strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. Here is each group's mission in its own words, next to how much of its 2026 money went to attacking candidates and how many of its ads ever mention that cause. The ads are below each group so you can judge them yourself.

Issue groups

Groups that say they exist for a cause. Sorted by 2026 outside spending.
  • Fairshake network (crypto)

    Says it stands for: Crypto and blockchain policy · $154M outside spending

    Money spent attacking32%

    Ads: not collected yet

  • Americans for Prosperity Action

    Says it stands for: Lower taxes, fewer regulations, lower health costs · $105M outside spending

    Money spent attacking45%

    Ads: not collected yet

  • America PAC (Elon Musk)

    Says it stands for: Meritocracy and individual freedom · $87M outside spending

    Money spent attacking77%

    Ads: not collected yet

  • AIPAC network

    Says it stands for: The U.S.-Israel relationship · $54M outside spending

    Money spent attacking57%
    Ads that mention the cause0%

    0 of 33 coded ads, 3 unclear

  • LCV Victory Fund

    Says it stands for: The environment and clean energy · $54M outside spending

    Money spent attacking64%
    Ads that mention the cause22%

    8 of 25 coded ads, 14 unclear

  • VoteVets

    Says it stands for: Veterans and service members · $35M outside spending

    Money spent attacking44%

    Ads: not collected yet

  • Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund

    Says it stands for: Ending gun violence · $35M outside spending

    Money spent attacking29%

    Ads: not collected yet

  • Club for Growth Action

    Says it stands for: Lower taxes, less spending, free markets · $19M outside spending

    Money spent attacking59%
    Ads that mention the cause42%

    8 of 24 coded ads, 4 unclear

  • 314 Action Fund

    Says it stands for: Electing scientists and STEM professionals · $18M outside spending

    Money spent attacking43%

    Ads: not collected yet

  • EDF Action Votes

    Says it stands for: Climate and the environment · $15M outside spending

    Money spent attacking98%

    Ads: not collected yet

For comparison: the party super PACs

These groups exist to win seats for a party, so every election ad is on mission for them. Their attack share is the baseline for how negative outside money runs.

Method

How we score it

The mission is quoted word for word from the group's own website, or from its founder or a fact-checker quoting it where the group publishes none. Each quote links to its source and the date we checked it.

Attack share (money) is the share of the group's 2026 independent expenditures that it reported to the FEC as opposing a candidate, through 10/14/2026. Every super PAC files each expenditure as support or oppose, so this needs no judgment from us.

The ads are the group's political ads in Google's public ad library (YouTube, Search and display) first shown since 2025-01-01. We code each one on two questions only: does it attack a named candidate, and does it mention the issue in the group's own mission (any of a fixed list of words for that issue, shown on each group's page). Shares are weighted by Google's minimum reported views. A video is coded from its cover frame and title, which can miss words spoken later in the ad, so each tile says what it was read from and links to the full ad.

What we don't do. We don't combine these into a single score, and we don't label any ad hateful or divisive. Attacking a candidate is legal and common; a group can attack a candidate for reasons that serve its mission. The numbers show how far the advertising strays from the stated cause, and the ads are here so you can judge them yourself. Google's library misses TV and radio, where most super PAC money goes.