UNMASKING MUSK
Inside the Scheme To Hide Elon Musk’s $20 Million Spending On “RBG PAC” Campaign Ads From Voters Until After The Election
By Jon Golinger
Introduction
Fifteen years ago this month, in January 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, striking down prohibitions on corporate spending on election campaigns and paving the way for “independent expenditure committees” – commonly known as SuperPACs – to pour unlimited funds into election ads.[1] The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined three of her Court colleagues in a vigorous dissent, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, opposing the Citizens United decision as wrongly decided on both the law and the facts.[2] The dissenters asserted that the Citizens United decision would blow open the doors to corporations and wealthy individuals dominating elections with massive ad spending.
Justice Ginsburg and her dissenting colleagues were right – and in the 2024 Presidential election the disastrous results of Citizens United were more evident than ever.[3] In fact, one billionaire’s spending was used to exploit the Citizens United SuperPAC loophole and deploy Justice Ginsburg’s own name, image, and reputation to fund campaign ads aimed at persuading a key election demographic – women between the ages of 18 and 54 in four swing states – to buy the claim that Trump’s and Justice Ginsburg’s opposing positions on the issue of abortion were somehow “alike.”
The $20 million donated by that billionaire – Elon Musk – was used to coopt Justice Ginsburg’s name for a pro-Trump political committee that exploited loopholes in federal campaign disclosure laws to hide Musk’s funding of the “RBG PAC” committee until after Election Day when it was too late for voters to factor that into their voting decisions. This report examines how this happened, why it matters, and how to fix it.
I. DESIGNED TO DECEIVE: How Musk’s Funding of RBG PAC Was Hidden From Voters Until After The Election
While Elon Musk was highly visible during the 2024 elections with his record-breaking funding of $238 million to elect Donald Trump via his Super PAC “America PAC ” – with attention getting stunts such his $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes and promise to give $100 to every Pennsylvania voter who signed his petition – there was an entirely different and secretive approach to revealing Musk’s $20 million funding of a last minute creation: a mysterious independent expenditure political committee named “RBG PAC.”[4] A review of the campaign finance records filed by this RBG PAC committee reveal that its timeline, structure, and activities appear deliberately designed to hide Musk’s funding of the committee’s ads from the very voters who were targeted with those ads until after those voters had cast their ballots. Why were they so afraid of voters knowing that Musk was the person paying for the “RBG PAC” ads? Public awareness that Musk was backing RBG PAC would have exposed the cynical agenda behind it, destroyed its credibility as something legitimately associated with Justice Ginsburg, and likely defeated the deceptive purpose of the entire enterprise.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that a new federal independent expenditure committee named “RBG PAC” was officially formed with an FEC “Statement of Organization” filing on Wednesday October 16, 2024.[5] This date was less than 3 weeks before Election Day and the day after the deadline for such a newly formed committee to have to reveal its funders before the election. This first RBG PAC FEC filing disclosed only the name of its Treasurer, May Mailman, a Delaware address, and a bank in Virginia. It did not disclose any ties to Elon Musk.
One week later, on October 24, 2024, RBG PAC filed its second public document with the FEC, a Report of Receipts and Disbursements Covering the Period of 10/1/24 to 10/16/24.[6] This second RBG PAC FEC filing disclosed that, during that period, it had received zero dollars and spent zero dollars. It was signed by May Mailman. It did not disclose any ties to Elon Musk.
A day later, on October 25, 2024, RBG PAC filed its third public document with the FEC, a 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures.[7] This third RBG PAC FEC filing disclosed that it had, within the previous 24 hours, spent $19,976,000 on the following:
- $17,300,000 on “Digital Media” to Western Creative Group LLC to support Donald Trump for President
- $1,000,000 on “Printing/Postage” to Western Creative Group LLC to support Donald Trump for President
- $76,000 on “Digital Media Production” to Western Creative Group LLC to support Donald Trump for President
- $1,600,000 on “Text Messages” to Western Creative Group LLC to support Donald Trump for President
This filing was signed by May Mailman. It did not disclose any ties to Elon Musk. Because of a loophole in federal election law, while these expenditures had to be disclosed, the funder of these expenditures could remain secret until after the election. In other words, voters could know how much was being spent by this RBG PAC to influence who they cast their ballot for – but not who was doing the influencing.
On this same day – 10 days before Election Day – RBG PAC’s political presence appeared, with an RBG PAC website[8], YouTube account[9], and Twitter account[10] featuring two 30-second slickly produced campaign ads backing Trump for President.[11] None of these campaign ads or platforms disclosed ties to Elon Musk or who RBG PAC‘s funders were, simply stating all that federal law currently requires: “Paid for by RBG PAC.” On October 25, after being told about the SuperPAC, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s granddaughter, Clara Spera, issued a statement making clear that the RBG PAC “has no connection to the Ginsburg family and is an affront to my late grandmother’s legacy.” [12] “The use of her name and image to support Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, and specifically to suggest that she would approve of his position on abortion, is nothing short of appalling,” Ms. Spera, an abortion rights lawyer, said in the statement.[13]
On October 30, 2024 – five days before Election Day – RBG PAC filed its fourth public document with the FEC, another 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures.[14] This fourth RBG PAC FEC filing disclosed that it had, within the previous 24 hours, spent an additional $500,000 on the following:
- $500,000 on “Digital Media” to Western Creative Group LLC to support Donald Trump for President
This final RBG PAC FEC filing before Election Day also disclosed that, with this additional spending, it had spent a total of $20,476,000 to support Donald Trump for President. It was signed by May Mailman. It did not disclose any ties to Elon Musk.
On December 5, 2024 – one month after Election Day – RBG PAC filed its fifth public document with the FEC, a Report of Receipts and Disbursements Covering the Period of 10/17/24 to 11/25/24.[15] This fifth RBG PAC FEC filing disclosed that, during that period, it had received the following funding:
- $20,500,000 on 10/24/24 from Elon Musk Revocable Trust
This was the first public disclosure by RBG PAC of any ties to Elon Musk. The timing of Musk’s $20 million contribution as the exclusive funder of RBG PAC’s ads on October 24 and the RBG PAC’s nearly $20 million expenditure on campaign ads within 24 hours suggests a carefully coordinated and highly choreographed scheme to maximize RBG PAC’s election impact while depriving voters of information vital to enable them to evaluate the credibility of RBG PAC’s advertising messages. The entire premise of campaign disclosure is that it lets voters know who is funding the ads they are receiving to enable them to consider the funders’ agendas. Instead, this scheme exploited a loophole in federal election disclosure law that enabled the hiding of Musk’s funding of RBG PAC from voters until after they had already cast their ballots.
On January 15, 2025, RBG PAC filed a Termination Report with the FEC in which it disclosed disbursing its remaining funds as a “contribution refund” to Elon Musk Revocable Trust.[16] This filing was signed by May Mailman. Three days later, the Trump Vance Transition team announced that Trump would be appointing May Mailman to serve as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Policy Strategist.[17]
II. BY THE NUMBERS: RBG PAC’s Musk-Funded Ads
The $20 million that Elon Musk spent on RBG PAC generated a huge volume of campaign ads that were surgically targeted to influence women on what was perceived as Trump’s biggest weakness in key swing states that would decide the race: abortion.
RBG PAC’s FEC filings, digital presence, and public statements reveal that it used multiple avenues to deliver and reinforce its messages to voters:
- $17.8 million worth of digital ads and 15 and 30 second videos
- $1 million worth of mailers
- $1.6 million worth of text messages
While painting a full picture of RBG PAC’s advertising and targeting strategy requires documents not yet made public, publicly available digital ads bought by RBG PAC on Facebook and Instagram do reveal key details about who and where RBG PAC was targeting and shed light on why Musk’s backing was hidden from these voters.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, makes its Ad Library publicly viewable and searchable. A review of the ads RBG PAC ran on the Facebook and Instagram platforms in the final 10 days before the election found the following:
- RBG PAC ran 110 different versions of abortion-themed ads on Facebook and Instagram between October 25 and November 5 (Election Day) which Meta Summary Data show cost more than $1 million and were seen on a screen more than 6.6 million times.[18]
- RBG PAC ran Facebook and Instagram ads primarily targeting women between the ages of 18 and 54 in four key swing states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.[19]
- RBG PAC’s Facebook and Instagram ads used 7 different categories of a pro-Trump abortion message aimed at different targets:[20]
- “If you support President Trump on the economy and keeping us safe, but freedom to choose is also important to you, you need to see this. 👇” (30 second video ad)[21]
- “Donald Trump speaks his mind. And on the issue of abortion, he’s spoken it. Here’s what he said. 👇” (30 second video ad)[22]
- “If you support President Trump on the economy and keeping us safe, but freedom to choose is also important to you, you need to see this. 👇” (15 second video ad)[23]
- “Donald Trump speaks his mind. And on the issue of abortion, he’s spoken it. Here’s what he said. 👇” (15 second video ad)[24]
- “If you support President Trump on the economy and keeping us safe, but freedom to choose is also important to you, you need to see this. 👇” (Graphic and link to RBG PAC website)[25]
- “Donald Trump speaks his mind. And on the issue of abortion, he’s spoken it. Here’s what he said. 👇” (Graphic and link to RBG PAC website)[26]
- “If you support President Trump on the economy and keeping us safe, but freedom to choose is also important to you, you need to see this. _” (Graphic and link to RBG PAC website)[27]
III. RBG PAC AD MESSAGES: Hiding Musk’s Backing to Boost Ads’ Credibility
The messages, imagery, and targeting of the RBG PAC ads all appeared designed to achieve one objective: to soften the perception of Trump’s anti-abortion positions in order to win Trump votes from pro-choice women in states that could swing the election. As evidence of this goal, RBG PAC’s Twitter/X account, two days after Election Day, reposted and pinned this gloating post: “TRUMP WON WHITE SUBURBAN WOMEN 51%-47%-NBC” below a GIF of basketball great Michael Jordan celebrating.[28]
As described below, the information that RBG PAC presented to its target voters before the election asserted in various ways that Trump’s position on abortion was aligned with former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s position on abortion. This assertion has no reasonable merit and Justice Ginsburg’s family quickly disputed it in the press. Knowing that Musk was funding the ads may have alerted voters about what was going on – but there was no way for them to know. None of the RBG PAC ad information analyzed here disclosed before the election that Elon Musk was in any way associated with RBG PAC, much less that it had been entirely funded by Musk.
- Campaign Committee Name. When the committee was formed with an FEC filing on October 16, 2024, it listed its name as “RBG PAC.” As described earlier in this report, nothing in the committee’s pre-election filings disclosed any relationship between the committee and Musk. The initials “RBG” have been so popularly associated with the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there have been songs, books, plays, a documentary, and even a Saturday Night Live sketch about Ginsburg that used “RBG” in their titles as shorthand to indicate they were about her.[29] If this conventional use doesn’t already illustrate that the campaign committee’s choice of “RBG” as its name intended to align it with Justice Ginsburg, the committee’s website also prominently featured a headshot photo of her in her Court robe side by side with a smiling photo of Trump. Below their photos was the caption: “GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE.”[30]
- Campaign Website. The RBG PAC website presented itself as aligned with Justice Ginsburg, starting with the URL address of the website: rbgpac.com The content of the website consisted of a single static homepage with five sections all promoting an alignment with Justice Ginsburg and minimizing Trump’s opposition to abortion while revealing no association with Elon Musk:
- As described above, the first section of the RBG PAC website featured large side by side headshots of Trump and Justice Ginsburg above the banner headline: “GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE.”[31]
- The second section of the RBG website featured a screenshot of a Trump Twitter post from 10/1/24 asserting that he “would not support a federal abortion ban” and ending: “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
- The third section of the RBG website featured two embedded thirty second video ads – described later in this report – above four lines of text asserting that Justice Ginsburg’s beliefs about abortion and in a woman’s right to choose meant she did “agree” with Donald Trump’s position on abortion.[32]
- The fourth section of the RBG PAC website featured three news headlines about Justice Ginsburg and Trump, suggesting their positions were “alike.”[33]
- Following a space for website visitors to enter their name and contact information to sign up to receive calls and text messages from RBG PAC, the fifth and final section of the RBG PAC website featured the required federal disclosure indicating who had paid for this campaign ad. The disclosure stated “Paid for by RBG PAC” and did not disclose – nor did federal law require it to disclose – any association with or funding by Elon Musk.[34]
- Campaign Video Ads. The RBG PAC website, Twitter/X Account, and digital ads made use of two 30 second video ads – both of which emphasized that Trump did not support a federal ban on abortion and supported various exceptions to state abortion bans. Both video ads included a disclaimer at the end that stated “Paid for by RBG PAC.” Neither ad disclosed any association with Elon Musk.
- “With Him” Video Ad with “Paid for by RBG PAC” disclosure[35]:
- “Back on Track” Video Ad with “Paid for by RBG PAC” disclosure[36]:
- Twitter/X Account Posts. Before the RBG PAC’s Twitter Account was deleted[37], its headlines, banner, and posts promoted an association with Justice Ginsburg and did not disclose any association with Twitter’s owner – Elon Musk.
- An RBG PAC Twitter account banner image with an “RBG PAC” logo featured side by side photos of Justice Ginsburg and Trump, with Justice Ginsburg’s photo colored blue and Trump’s photo colored red.[38]
- Below the banner image was a statement suggesting that Justice Ginsburg and Trump’s widely divergent positions on abortion were somehow “alike.”[39]
- Like the RBG PAC website, the RBG PAC Twitter account prominently featured the two campaign video ads “With Him” and “Back on Track.” Both video ads included a disclaimer at the end that stated “Paid for by RBG PAC.” Neither ad or the posts of them disclosed any association with Elon Musk.
- RBG PAC Twitter Post of “With Him” video ad[40]:
- RBG PAC Twitter Post of “Back on Track” video ad[41]:
IV. SUNLIGHT ON DARK MONEY: Campaign Ad Top Donors Disclosure Law Would Inform and Empower Voters and Curb Future Deceptions
While the Citizens United majority’s decision striking down reasonable limits on SuperPAC campaign spending was deeply flawed and wrongly decided, the majority opinion did get something right: it affirmed the constitutionality of campaign finance disclosure laws and encouraged the adoption of robust transparency requirements to empower voters: “The First Amendment protects political speech; and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”[42]
Unfortunately, while the Court reaffirmed campaign finance disclosure as valuable, constitutional, and a theoretical prophylactic to reduce the corrupting influence of big money, the rules and laws needed to actually make disclosure a meaningful counterweight to the flood of money in elections have failed to keep pace with reality.
Federal tools are available to strengthen campaign finance disclosure and empower voters – if they can get passed. The Freedom to Vote Act[43] and DISCLOSE Act[44] would bring federal campaign disclosure laws into the modern era. The Securities Exchange Commission should adopt a long-awaited rule to require public companies to disclose their political spending activities to investors and shareholders.[45] The Internal Revenue Service should finally adopt clearer rules defining political activity for nonprofits.[46]
Promisingly, hope has flowered on the ground level in the states. Over the past five years, voters in three states – statewide voters in Alaska and Arizona and municipal voters in San Francisco, California – have demonstrated their strong support for greater campaign finance disclosure by passing ballot initiatives that have survived legal challenges all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.[47] In 2024, an Arizona Federal District Court dismissed a challenge to Arizona’s campaign disclosure law[48] and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear challenges to the Alaska[49] and San Francisco, [50] disclosure laws, allowing lower court rulings upholding them as constitutional to stand.
If adopted by Congress, all three of these voter-approved state campaign finance disclosure laws would be major improvements on current federal campaign finance disclosure law. If the Sunlight on Dark Money campaign ad disclosure law adopted by San Francisco voters had been in place federally for the 2024 presidential election, it would have required the RBG PAC ads to list the names of their top three donors and the amount those donors contributed to fund them – on RBG PAC YouTube ads and digital ads, on its website, and on campaign mailers. Alongside their campaign messages, RBG PAC ads would have had to disclose: “Paid for by RBG PAC – top donor is Elon Musk Revocable Trust ($20,500,000).” Targeted voters would have had more complete context for the RBG PAC ads they were receiving and been able to consider the merits and credibility of RBG PAC ads’ questionable claims accordingly.
Conclusion
Fifteen years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for unlimited spending in U.S. elections, the 2024 presidential election showed just how corrosive the Court’s deeply flawed decision has been. Public trust in elections, government, and the Supreme Court itself has fallen to dramatic lows as everyday Americans have watched big corporations, wealthy special interests, and the richest person in the world game this system to their advantage. The elaborate scheme to create a political committee named after a right-to-choose hero in order to persuade pro-choice voters to back an anti-choice candidate – while preventing those voters from knowing that Trump-ally Musk was funding it until after they had voted – is Exhibit A of the weakness of federal campaign disclosure law and the urgent need to strengthen it.
The good news is that the Supreme Court itself has articulated the value and constitutionality of robust campaign finance disclosure. In 2024, a series of court decisions demonstrated that stronger disclosure laws will stand up to constitutional challenges when tested. And the American people themselves have shone the way forward when they repeatedly voted to approve state and local ballot initiatives that created new disclosure tools and public protections that shed light on secret spending.
The elaborately deceptive RBG PAC scheme should motivate Congress to follow the peoples’ lead and shine sunlight on dark money. The results of meaningful campaign finance disclosure, while straightforward in practice, can have a powerful and positive impact on boosting public trust in our damaged democracy. As the Supreme Court concluded when upholding a challenged disclosure law as part of Citizens United:
“. . . prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are ‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.”[51]
Sources
[1] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 US 310 (2010), decided 1/21/10, majority opinion; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963047.
[2] Citizens United v. FEC, concurrence in part and dissent by Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963047.
[3] “Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election,” Brennan Center for Justice, 1/14/25; https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fifteen-years-later-citizens-united-defined-2024-election; “From Dysfunctional to Destructive: The Federal Election Commission’s Disastrous New Trend Opening the Floodgates to Big Money in Our Elections,” Campaign Legal Center, January 2025; https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/CLC_Report_FromDysfunctionalToDestructive.pdf.
[4] “Musk spent more than a quarter-billion dollars to elect Trump, including funding a mysterious super PAC, new filings show,” CNN, 12/6/24; https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/05/politics/elon-musk-trump-campaign-finance-filings/index.html; “A Chester County man signed Elon Musk’s $100 petition. He hasn’t gotten paid yet,” WHYY, 11/1/24; https://whyy.org/articles/elon-musk-giveaway-america-pac-pennsylvania-payment/; “Elon Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes can proceed, a Pennsylvania judge says,” Associated Press, 11/5/24; https://apnews.com/article/musk-million-sweepstakes-lottery-pennsylvania-krasner-4f683c48eb7dcc57f183e54ef16e7320.
[5] FEC Statement of Organization for RBG PAC, dated 10/16/24; https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00891291/1829958/.
[6] FEC Report of Receipts and Disbursements for RBG PAC, dated 10/24/24: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00891291/1838346/.
[7] FEC 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures for RBG PAC, dated 10/25/24; https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00891291/1842305/.
[8] RBG PAC’s website: https://www.rbgpac.com (appears to have been deleted as of 1/22/25).
[9] RBG PAC’s YouTube Account: https://www.youtube.com/@RBGPAC/videos (appears to have been deleted as of 1/13/25).
[10] RBG PAC’s Twitter/X Account: https://x.com/RBG_PAC (appears to have been deleted as of 1/13/25).
[11] “New ‘RBG PAC’ Spending $19 Million From Secret Donors to Aid Trump on Abortion,” New York Times, 10/25/24; https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-ad.html; RBG PAC Twitter Post 10/25/24, 9:30 AM; https://x.com/RBG_PAC/status/1849805613863256379; RBG PAC Twitter Post 10/25/24, 10:00 AM; https://x.com/RBG_PAC/status/1849813170602508428.
[12] “Mysterious group spends $20M for Trump in final election stretch,” Washington Post, 10/25/24; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/10/25/trump-super-pac-abortion-rbg-pac/.
[13] “New ‘RBG PAC’ Spending $19 Million From Secret Donors to Aid Trump on Abortion,” New York Times, 10/25/24; https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-ad.html.
[14] FEC 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures for RBG PAC, dated 10/30/24, https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00891291/1844857/.
[15] FEC Report of Receipts and Disbursements for RBG PAC, dated 12/5/24: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00891291/1858227/.
[16] FEC Report of Receipts and Disbursements for RBG PAC, dated 1/15/25; https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/085/202501159740178085/202501159740178085.pdf; FEC Committee Termination Approval Letter to May Mailman, Treasurer, RBG PAC, 1/17/25; https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/186/202501170300235186/202501170300235186.pdf.
[17] Trump Vance Transition Press release, 1/18/15; https://x.com/IWF/status/1880742048950583397/photo/1; Politico, 1/20/25 (“May Mailman, formerly the legal director of Independent Women’s Forum, will serve as deputy assistant to the president and senior policy strategist. She previously served in the first Trump administration.”); https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-education/2025/01/20/brace-for-trumps-education-actions-00199196.
[18] Meta Ad Library, Search for “RBG PAC,” on 1/10/25, https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&is_targeted_country=false&media_type=all&q=%22RBG%20PAC%22&search_type=keyword_exact_phrase; according to Meta’s Ad Library Data: Ad Set 1 cost $300,000-$350,000 and had over 1 million impressions; Ad Set 2 cost $20,000-$25,000 and had over 1 million impressions; Ad Set 3 cost $100,000-$125,000 and had over 1 million impressions; Ad Set 4 cost $60,000-$70,000 and had over 1 million impressions; Ad Set 5 cost $350,000-$400,000 and had over 1 million impressions; Ad Set 6 cost $200,000-$250,000 and had over 1 million impressions; Ad Set 7 cost $4,000-$4,500 and had 600,000-700,000 impressions.
[19] Meta Ad Library, Search for “RBG PAC,” on 1/10/25, https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&is_targeted_country=false&media_type=all&q=%22RBG%20PAC%22&search_type=keyword_exact_phrase; according to this data, RBG PAC Ad Set 1 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Pennsylvania (40%), Michigan (31%), and North Carolina (28%); RBG PAC Ad Set 2 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Michigan (44%), Pennsylvania (31%), North Carolina (20%); and Wisconsin (5%); RBG PAC Ad Set 3 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Pennsylvania (42%), Michigan (33%), and North Carolina (25%); RBG PAC Ad Set 4 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Pennsylvania (41%), Michigan (32%), and North Carolina (26%); RBG PAC Ad Set 5 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Pennsylvania (38%), Michigan (29%), North Carolina (22%), and Wisconsin (11%); RBG PAC Ad Set 6 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Michigan (33%), North Carolina (28%), Pennsylvania (26%), and Wisconsin (13%); and RBG PAC Ad Set 7 was shown primarily to women between the ages of 18 and 54 and was viewed primarily by accounts in Michigan (44%), North Carolina (38%), and Pennsylvania (18%).
[20] Meta Ad Library, Search for “RBG PAC,” on 1/10/25, https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&country=US&is_targeted_country=false&media_type=all&q=%22RBG%20PAC%22&search_type=keyword_exact_phrase.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] Id.
[28] RBG PAC Twitter Post 11/7/24, accessed 1/13/25: https://x.com/RBG_PAC; pinned on home page at https://x.com/RBG_PAC/status/1854531690359620076.
[29] “The Notorious RBG – Official Music Video,” 10/30/18, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrNyx_sLWw; “Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” published by HarperCollins, 10/27/15, https://www.harpercollins.com/products/notorious-rbg-irin-carmonshana-knizhnik?variant=32208038821922; “Becoming RBG,” published by Simon & Schuster, 11/5/19, https://parents.simonandschuster.com/9781534424555; “RBG: Of Many, One,” stage play by Suzie Miller, https://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/whats-on/productions/2025/rbg-of-many-one-2025; “Equally Supreme: The RBG Musical,” by Bear Kosik, https://newplayexchange.org/script/2045395/equally-supreme-the-rbg-musical; “In ‘RBG,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks back on a life spent working for equality,” PBS Newshour report on RBG Documentary, 5/4/18, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cED0_VEOuRI; “RBG Workout,” Saturday Night Live sketch featuring Kate McKinnon as Justice Ginsburg, 4/12/20, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99MI90bKWtE.
[30] Screen capture from RBG PAC website, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.rbgpac.com/; This RBG PAC website appears to have be deleted as of 1/22/25 – the url now leads to a page that says “Website Expired.”
[31] Screen capture from RBG PAC website, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.rbgpac.com/.
[32] Screen capture from RBG PAC website, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.rbgpac.com/.
[33] Screen capture from RBG PAC website, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.rbgpac.com/.
[34] Screen capture from RBG PAC website, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.rbgpac.com/.
[35] Screen capture from RBG PAC YouTube account, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.youtube.com/@RBGPAC/videos; video archived on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at: http://web.archive.org/web/20241206130153/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1MoKnG4Kig.
[36] Screen capture from RBG PAC YouTube account, accessed 12/10/24; https://www.youtube.com/@RBGPAC/videos; video archived on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine at: http://web.archive.org/web/20241206130152/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyqe2njowXI.
[37] RBG PAC Twitter Account deleted as of 1/13/25; https://x.com/RBG_PAC.
[38] RBG PAC Twitter Account screen capture taken 12/10/24.
[39] RBG PAC Twitter Account screen capture taken 12/10/24.
[40] RBG PAC Twitter Account screen capture taken 12/10/24.
[41] RBG PAC Twitter Account screen capture taken 12/10/24.
[42] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
[43] S. 2344 – Freedom to Vote Act, 118th Congress (Sen. Klobuchar); https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2344.
[44] S. 512 – DISCLOSE ACT of 2023, 118th Congress (Sen. Whitehouse); https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/512.
[45] “The Historic Campaign for Corporate Political Spending Disclosure,” Public Citizen Report, 9/14/16; https://corporatereformcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Corporate-Political-Spending-Disclosure-report.pdf.
[46] “The Bright Lines Project,” https://brightlinesproject.org/.
[47] “Arizona Proposition 211, Campaign Finance Sources Disclosure Initiative (2022), Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_211,_Campaign_Finance_Sources_Disclosure_Initiative_(2022); “Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020), Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_and_Campaign_Finance_Laws_Initiative_(2020); “San Francisco, California, Proposition F, Campaign Contribution Restrictions and Advertisement Disclaimer Requirements (November 2019); https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Proposition_F,_Campaign_Contribution_Restrictions_and_Advertisement_Disclaimer_Requirements_(November_2019).
[48] “Transparency for Arizona Voters Gets a Win in Federal Court,” Campaign Legal Center, 3/21/24, https://campaignlegal.org/update/transparency-arizona-voters-gets-win-federal-court.
[49] “Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Alaska campaign finance laws,” SCOTUSBlog, 11/18/24, https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/11/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-alaska-campaign-finance-laws/.
[50] “Supreme Court declines to take up ‘dark money’ case,” The Hill, 10/7/24, https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4919230-supreme-court-dark-money-disclosure/; “Supreme Court Order Lets ‘Sunlight on Dark Money’ Campaign Ad Disclosure Law Stand,” Public Citizen News Release, 10/7/24, https://www.citizen.org/news/supreme-court-order-lets-sunlight-on-dark-money-campaign-ad-disclosure-law-stand/.
[51] Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).