BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 27.1% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 407 faulty-reasoning hits from 347 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.9% and a BS Rank of 21% (23,690 of 29,750 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.60% of the article peer group.

Every election cycle since 2010, we have published profiles of some of the many outside groups trying to influence who gets elected to Congress and the White House. 
Today, we’re launching our latest Players Guide with write-ups of eight of the biggest spenders so far for the 2026 midterms. 
Photo by Oleksandr / stock.adobe.com 
Each profile has information about the individuals who run the group, the people funding the group, the group’s political leanings and motivations, and how the group is spending the millions it has raised. 
If the group has been around for a while, we note its spending during the prior election cycle for comparison. 
During the last midterm cycle, outside groups collectively spent $2 billion on independent expenditures, which are advertisements and other communications that expressly advocate for or against candidates for office, according to OpenSecrets , a nonprofit that tracks money in politics. 
The total was double that amount for the 2024 presidential cycle. 
The eight groups we’re starting with this time include the Senate Majority PAC , which is trying to help Democrats retake control of the Senate, and the Congressional Leadership Fund , which is working to keep Republicans running the House of Representatives. 
We also highlighted Fairshake , a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that backs or opposes candidates based on whether they appear to be for or against policies favorable to the digital currency industry. 
Come back throughout the general election for details about other key players, as we’ll be publishing more profiles over the next three months. 
Some of the featured groups will be ones we’ve written about before  because they continue to spend large amounts of money  but we’ll be writing about a few of the newly formed groups as well. 
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. 
We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. 
Please consider a donation. 
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page . 
If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. 
Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.9%FactCheck.org: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.2%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.8%FactCheck.org: 0.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.2%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.2%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.8%FactCheck.org: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 27.1%D'Angelo Gore: 1.3%FactCheck.org: 1.2%Framing Effect27.1%This article: 1.2%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Loss Aversion1.2%This article: 5.8%D'Angelo Gore: 0.5%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 10.7%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.5%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%D'Angelo Gore: 2.9%FactCheck.org: 2.7%Negativity Bias3.2%This article: 3.2%D'Angelo Gore: 0.5%FactCheck.org: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Recency Bias6.6%This article: 8.1%D'Angelo Gore: 0.2%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Primacy Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 1.2%FactCheck.org: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.3%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%D'Angelo Gore: 3.8%FactCheck.org: 3.4%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.8%FactCheck.org: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.4%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 1.6%FactCheck.org: 2.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.3%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 2.3%FactCheck.org: 2.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 2.0%FactCheck.org: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.8%FactCheck.org: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.6%FactCheck.org: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 1.2%FactCheck.org: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.3%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.8%FactCheck.org: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.5%D'Angelo Gore: 0.5%FactCheck.org: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 1.2%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Indoctrination1.2%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%D'Angelo Gore: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%D'Angelo Gore: 0.9%FactCheck.org: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.3%

347 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.0%attributed speech340writer words
Selected voice

FactCheck.org

100%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +86.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%FactCheck.org: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%FactCheck.org: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%FactCheck.org: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.