During this time ExxonMobil was by far the most prolific spender, racking up over $400K in four weeks on over 360 individual political ads. The ads urge rejecting specific ballot initaitves whilst promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production. Facebook’s data indicates that ExxonMobil’s ads made over 10 million “impressions” in this time with users in Colorado, Texas and Louisiana. Oil industry trade groups were also active with campaigns. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA)’s ‘Vote NO on 1631’ campaign group was established to oppose a ballot initiatve proposing the implementation of a carbon tax in Washington State. The group received over $13M in funding from BP alone and spent more than $1M of this on political social media ads in the four weeks running up to the vote. Similar ads were evident in the state of Alaska prior to the midterms. A selection of stills from these adverts are shown above, indicating the use of highly political, negative and seemingly targeted messages by the companies to swing critical energy and climate decisions in their favour. For example, the WSPA Vote No on 1631 campaign ran adverts stressing the negative impact of an ‘unfair tax’ on Washington state families and small businesses. The industry-backed campaign ‘Stand for Alaska’ against new environmental standards appealed to Alaskans to oppose ‘ousiders’ and ‘billionaire activitists from Washington DC and California’ telling them what to do. Social media disclosures suggest neither Shell nor Total appear directly involved in funding these Facebook/Instagram ads relating to climate and energy policy leading up to the midterm elections, although indirectly, key trade groups they are members of (like the AFPM) were involved in such activities. 19 InfluenceMap March 2019