Loading…
Grouped by the funder named on each ad's "Paid for by" disclosure — a fact printed on the ad, not a judgement about whom it helps. Totals are the sum of Meta's spend brackets, so they are ranges. One funder often pays for several pages, so these totals are larger than any single page's — WA Labor's covers four pages, only one of which is its candidate's.
Every candidate contesting this seat, in ballot order, with the advertising we can find for each. Candidates running none are listed too — absence is a finding, and only visible if it is shown. Two scopes are given, because a candidate's own page is usually a small part of the money behind them.
Cumulative spend as observed each day, with the full possible range shaded. These are figures Meta reports directly — unlike daily activity below, no subtraction is involved.
Days observed — a gap cannot be filled in later, because the source only ever reports each ad's total right now:
Estimated spend per day, derived by subtracting consecutive cumulative readings. Because the source reports coarse brackets, a day often shows zero until an ad crosses a bracket boundary — small daily spend can be invisible and then appear at once. Lines show the midpoint estimate; each day's full possible range is in the tooltip and the table below.
Attribution: curated = the funding disclosure has been matched to a real-world entity by hand; unattributed = recorded but not yet verified. Relevance to this contest is partly inferred — see methodology.
As reported by Meta, and only as precisely as Meta reports it. Delivery is by state, never by electorate — which is why relevance to this seat has to be inferred at all. Age shares are weighted by each ad's estimated impressions, so an ad seen a million times counts for more than one seen a thousand times.
Both are read from the advertiser's own published text. Nothing here reflects how anyone responded: the Ad Library reports no comments, likes or shares, and this project does not collect anything written by individuals.
Each ribbon runs from the funder named in the "Paid for by" disclosure to the page that ran the ad, sized by midpoint spend. This is the link a page name cannot give you: "Why Take The Risk?" names neither a party nor a candidate, and the connection exists only because its disclosure was matched to an entity by hand.
Contributions disclosed to the WAEC, against advertising spend in this contest, on one time axis. WA discloses contributions within days, so this comparison can be drawn while the campaign is running — federally it could not be drawn until years afterwards. The two panels keep separate scales: incoming money here is roughly fifty times the advertising spend, so a shared axis would flatten one to nothing, and a second axis would imply the heights are comparable. Compare the timing, not the bar heights.
Contributions disclosed to the WA Electoral Commission since the campaign window opened — published within days of being received, so this is the live half of the picture. Shown beside what the same organisations are spending on advertising here, which is the only comparison of its kind we are aware of.
Disclosed donations to the same entities paying for advertising here, from the AEC Transparency Register. These are previous years' returns — money behind the current campaign is not disclosed yet, which is the point of the panel below. Donations are shown separately from other receipts (transfers, investment income, fundraising), which are usually larger and are not gifts from anyone.
Browse every ad in this contest →
Every advertiser receives identical treatment regardless of who they are. Methodology & limitations · About, independence & corrections.