Ohio voters are experiencing a constant stream of political advertising as the November 3 election draws near. While the sheer volume of campaign messages may not necessarily change voters' minds, political scientists and marketing experts tell WCMH that the ads serve to keep candidates and issues prominent for a relatively small number of undecided or persuadable voters.
This advertising effort is substantial, with the Ohio U.S. Senate race alone attracting approximately $240 million in advertising by late September, according to advertising-tracking firm AdImpact. This spending has made Ohio’s Senate contest the nation’s biggest midterm advertising market. Earlier figures cited by AdImpact showed roughly $88 million spent on television advertising for the Ohio U.S. Senate race since September 1.
The competitive nature of Ohio's statewide elections explains the high volume of advertisements. The contest for the U.S. Senate between Republican Sen. Jon Husted and former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown is among the most closely watched races in the country, potentially affecting control of Congress. A September 22-October 1 New York Times/Siena College survey of 616 likely voters indicated Brown at 49% and Husted at 46%, though other surveys have shown different margins, highlighting the race’s competitiveness. Ohio's governor's race, featuring Republican Vivek Ramaswamy and Democrat Amy Acton, also shows close polling.
Ohio State University marketing and psychology professor Selin Malkoc noted that excessive political advertising can become counterproductive. Voters may feel overwhelmed, leading them to avoid ads or even become so annoyed with the political system that they choose not to vote. Malkoc warned that the constant messaging "can backfire in avoiding ads altogether."
Despite voter frustration, Malkoc said campaigns continue to invest in advertising because most people don't closely scrutinize every commercial. Campaigns use repetition to ensure their message remains familiar when voters make their final decisions, due to memory decay. Malkoc stated that campaigns aim to provide messages "steadily so that it will stay fresh in your memory."
Dominik Stecula, an Ohio State assistant professor of communications and political science, said political advertisements are generally not very effective at completely altering a voter's political preference. While direct interaction with voters can be more impactful, mass media strategies like television and digital advertising become more attractive for reaching large numbers of people in statewide races. Stecula noted that Ohio voters are exposed to many ads because "a lot is on the line" in the state.
Spending has accelerated as Election Day approaches. AdImpact data cited in the original report showed that between September 29 and October 5, $47.3 million was spent on Ohio Senate advertising, and another $5.3 million on the governor’s race. The Ohio Senate contest has already set advertising records for the 2024 election cycle, with Malkoc projecting substantial increases over previous records. A Washington Post analysis of AdImpact data confirmed the Ohio Senate contest had nearly $200 million in advertising spending by September 23, reaching about $240 million by September 30.
The surge in advertising is not limited to traditional television. Campaigns increasingly utilize social media, streaming services, and other digital platforms, broadening the reach of campaign messages. This shift has also altered the timing of campaign advertising, with ads appearing before Labor Day this year, which was once the unofficial start of the general-election campaign season. Malkoc attributed this earlier start partly to the expansion of early voting, giving campaigns an incentive to reach voters before they cast their ballots.
Both Stecula and Malkoc said that repeated exposure can lead to irritation, particularly when voters encounter the same candidates and arguments across various platforms. Attack advertisements can intensify this problem. Stecula explained that negative ads can serve to motivate a candidate’s existing supporters, noting that "angry people are more likely to vote." Malkoc, however, believes Ohio’s current advertising landscape leans heavily toward negative messaging, questioning its effectiveness. Malkoc believes that currently there are "more negatives and very little positives," making her doubt their success.
Political advertising also presents voters with the challenge of determining accuracy. Campaign advertisements may contain disputed claims, selective facts, or outright falsehoods. Voters do not have a simple method to verify every statement. Federal law broadly protects political speech under the First Amendment, and television broadcasters have limited ability to reject or alter advertisements from legally qualified candidates. Ohio previously had a law addressing knowingly false statements about political candidates, but a federal court struck it down over a decade ago on constitutional grounds. The rapid development of AI-generated political material further complicates this, as it often outpaces existing regulations, and online advertisements operate under different rules than traditional broadcast television.
Given these challenges, Malkoc advised voters to conduct their own research rather than relying solely on campaign advertisements. As Ohio enters the final weeks before Election Day, both major statewide races continue to attract heavy spending, and voters report growing frustration with the volume of political messaging. For campaigns, this advertising blitz reflects the importance of Ohio in the 2026 election, meaning political commercials are unlikely to cease anytime soon for voters.
