Super PAC Runs Wrong-State Ads in Maine Senate Race
Left 100%
Center 0%
Right 0%
4 left · 0 center · 0 right
What happened
In early October, the Republican super PAC Defending Main Street paid for digital ads attacking Troy Jackson, the Democratic candidate challenging Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, over taxes and the cost of living. Google Ads Transparency Center data show the group spent about $20,000 to $25,000 between Oct. 8 and Oct. 11 to run the 30-second ads in hundreds of ZIP codes across Oregon and Washington, including Portland, Oregon, rather than Portland, Maine. A Defending Main Street spokesperson said the PAC’s media vendor mistakenly placed approximately $25,000 in digital advertising in the Portland, Oregon, media market instead of Portland, Maine. Viewers in Oregon first reported seeing the anti-Jackson ads. The Collins and Jackson campaigns did not immediately comment.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
2 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Andy O’Brien and Republican super PAC spokesperson
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: Google ad data
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 12, 16:49 UTC by The Intercept, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Intercept (Google ad data).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
ONE-SIDED THIS WEEK.
Only left-leaning outlets have covered this story in the last two days;
Daily Wire reported it on 2026-10-07.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets had not covered this as of publication, so their readers never hear that Defending Main Street, a Collins-aligned super PAC, ran anti-Jackson ads in Oregon instead of Maine. Left-leaning coverage reports the mix-up, and The Intercept put the misplaced digital buy near $25,000. A reader of the silent side also misses a split on the PAC's explanation: The Hill carried a spokesperson blaming a media vendor, while The Intercept said the group did not immediately respond.
Left-leaning coverage also splits on how to label the spots. The same buy is described as "promoting Sen. Susan Collins" in The Hill and as an attack on Troy Jackson over taxes in The Intercept.
Did any of the ads ever run in Portland, Maine?
Bottom line
Defending Main Street’s anti-Jackson ads ran in Oregon, not Maine — a roughly $25,000 mix-up that right-leaning outlets have not reported.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Defending Main Street spent approximately $25,000 on digital ads placed in Portland, Oregon instead of Portland, Maine
- Google data showed the ad ran more than 1 million times in the wrong Portland
- The buy ran from October 8 to October 11 in hundreds of ZIP codes across Oregon and Washington
- A super PAC executive blamed its vendor for running the ad in Oregon
- Defending Main Street is affiliated with Republican Main Street Partnership, which counts Collins among its Senate members
The Left View
The Intercept, The Hill, and The New York Times have reported the mix-up. The Intercept described Defending Main Street as a Collins-aligned group affiliated with the Republican Main Street Partnership and said Google data showed the ads were delivered more than 1 million times in the wrong Portland; it also quoted Jackson supporter Andy O’Brien mocking the buy as money wasted by outsiders who “don’t know anything about Maine.” The Hill reported a PAC spokesperson’s statement that, during a recent independent expenditure, its media vendor mistakenly placed about $25,000 in digital ads in the Portland, Oregon, market instead of Portland, Maine. The New York Times reported that a super PAC executive blamed the vendor for running the anti-Jackson ad in Oregon.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it names the PAC, candidates, spend range, dates, and markets, and is backed by Google Ads Transparency Center records plus an on-the-record PAC acknowledgment that a vendor placed ads in Oregon rather than Maine. Established facts are the misdirected roughly $25,000 buy in early October and the PAC’s attribution of the error to its media vendor. Commentary that the episode proves outsiders know nothing about Maine, or that it spared Maine voters a wave of ads, is not independently verified. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for comments from the Collins and Jackson campaigns, identification of the vendor, any corrected placements, and further Google or FEC disclosures on the spend.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.