AdImpact recently reported that political ad spending for the 2026 cycle is nearing $1.1 billion. At first glance, such a robust figure feels encouraging. That optimism quickly fades when you see how the dollars are being distributed, allocations that don’t align with fact-based thinking or today’s media realities.
The expected media allocation is astonishingly lopsided:
- Broadcast TV: $334 million
- Digital: $280 million
- Cable: $228 million
- Connected TV (CTV): $190 million
- Radio: $29 million
- Satellite: $4 million
Radio is arguably the most powerful, resilient, and trusted medium of them all, yet forecast to receive less than 3% of total political spending.
Media buyers and planners claim to follow audience behavior, yet the allocations suggest otherwise. In just the past five years:
- Broadcast and Cable have hemorrhaged more than half theiraudiences to streaming platforms.
- Among those who migrated, only about half are actually ad-supported subscribers. The rest are behind paywalls, completely unreachable.
- Meanwhile, radio continues to reach 82%–87% of Americans every single week (Nielsen).
- Trust in radio remains unmatched. Studies consistently rank AM/FM radio as the most credible source of local news, weather, and community connection.
So why would planners funnel hundreds of millions into declining, less trusted, and more fragmented channels, while relegating radio to the sidelines?
Beyond the selfish reasons of advocating for my own industry, I believe this underinvestment in radio is a detriment to democracy itself. Political campaigns should be reaching voters where they actually are, with a message that resonates.
- Radio is universal and free. No subscription fees, no log-ins, no algorithms hiding content. It’s accessible to rural and urban voters alike, from the working class to the wealthiest zip codes.
- Radio is immediate and simultaneous. It can reach millions of people at the same moment with the same message, something digital, fragmented, and on-demand platforms simply cannot replicate.
- Radio is cost-effective. Frequency and repetition, critical in persuasion campaigns, are far more affordable compared to the inflated CPMs of CTV or social platforms.
If the goal of political advertising is to inform, persuade, and mobilize, then sidelining radio isn’t just short-sighted, it borders on irresponsible.
Radio doesn’t need charity. It needs recognition. Recognition of its unmatched reach, its proven trust, and its democratic accessibility. If media planners are truly committed to serving their clients, and in this case, the voters, they should challenge outdated perceptions and re-evaluate the allocation models that keep radio marginalized.
Because the real question is not “Why is radio only getting 3%?” but rather:
“What could campaigns achieve if they invested in the most trusted medium with the broadest reach?”