Tracking of digital political ad spending declared in platforms' ad libraries (Meta, Google) during the 2026 elections, by country. It measures a key gap for electoral transparency: the distance between what is visible in public Ad Libraries and what escapes them —ads not labeled as political, spending on platforms without a library, or undeclared influencers—. It is a scarce, high-value data point for regulators, data journalism and transparency teams. Each record documents country, platform, observable amount and period, with its source.
Statistical readings derived from the attributes of each recorded case. All figures come from the documented events; amounts are computed only over cases with a sum expressed in the indicated currency, without converting between currencies.
Choropleth by number of forensically or judicially documented cases. Countries with no verifiable public cases remain in the base colour — the absence of events does not equal the absence of surveillance. Hover or click a coloured country to see the cases.
The United States projects $10.8 billion in political advertising in 2026; the European Union, by contrast, banned political advertising on platforms. But the most revealing data point is not how much is spent, but how much escapes the ad libraries: when the EU banned it, the spending did not vanish, it became invisible.
Digital political ad spending is one of the most coveted and worst-measured data points of any election. Coveted because it reveals who invests in persuading and with how much muscle. Poorly measured because much of it happens in places no ad library reaches. This tracker does not attempt an impossible total figure; it attempts to map the gap between what is seen and what escapes.
The two ends of the 2026 spectrum are instructive. The United States, with no federal transparency law, faces the most expensive midterm in its history: a projection of $10.8 billion in political advertising, a growing portion of it digital. The European Union took the opposite path: under Regulation 2024/900, it banned political advertising on platforms, and Meta and Google suspended it in October 2025.
The European paradox: banning political advertising to make it more transparent had the opposite effect in the short term. In Hungary, spending was reclassified as non-political content and kept circulating via proxy pages —a pro-Fidesz group spent over €1.7 million on Facebook—, no longer triggering transparency requirements. What cannot be seen cannot be audited.
For an electoral regulator, a data journalist or a transparency team, the useful question is not 'how much was spent in total' —a figure no one can know for certain— but 'what portion of real spending is traceable and what portion escapes us'. In Brazil, declared digital advertising is a small fraction, but the influence via WhatsApp and influencers, which no library captures, weighs far more. In Colombia, the polling blackout and private messaging do the same.
That is this tracker's design: each record documents the observable spending on a platform with a queryable library and, above all, notes what falls outside. The visible figure is the floor, not the ceiling. And the distance between that floor and real spending —impossible to measure precisely but possible to bound qualitatively— is exactly the opacity risk that matters to anyone watching electoral transparency.
Total political ad spending is projected at $10.8 billion for the 2025-2026 cycle, the most expensive midterm in US history (AdImpact estimate); in 2024 over $1.9 billion went to online advertising. Gap: transparency depends on voluntary libraries; much of the connected-TV and streaming spend escapes the Ad Libraries.
After the EU political-ad ban (Regulation 2024/900), Meta and Google suspended it, but spending continued via proxy pages: the pro-Fidesz group Megafon spent over €1.7 million on promotional content on Facebook in 2024. Extreme gap: political advertising was reclassified as non-political and stopped triggering transparency requirements.
Under the political-ad transparency Regulation (TTPA), in force since October 2025, Meta and Google suspended political advertising in the EU. The Commission plans a centralized European repository from April 2026. Paradoxical gap: the ban reduced visible advertising but pushed spending toward less traceable channels.
Colombian political advertising is partially traceable in Meta and Google libraries during the presidential campaign, but much activity happens in private messaging (WhatsApp, Telegram) outside any library. Gap: the polling blackout and the weight of private messaging limit the traceability of real spending.
Brazil restricts digital political advertising under TSE rules. Historically, digital advertising has been a fraction of spending: in 2022 it was around 3% of the total, against traditional TV and radio. Gap: the bulk of spending remains in traditional media, but digital influence (WhatsApp, influencers) escapes Ad Library measurement.
Each record documents the political ad spending observable in a platform's ad library for a 2026 election, by country. The amount is the one declared/observable in the Ad Library, not the outlet's own estimate; where a figure is a third party's estimate, it is attributed. The gap is interpreted qualitatively: what portion of real political spending falls outside the library (platforms without an Ad Library, unlabeled ads, influencer content). No unpublished figures are imputed. Meta and Google are prioritized as the platforms with queryable libraries.