In 2022, Democrats spent $53 million on ads helping far-right candidates win Republican primaries. Paying for ads that support far-right candidates, the reasoning went, could help Democrats win in the general elections because it is easier to beat extreme than moderate candidates. In the current research, we ask: how do consumers react to the use of “meddle ads”? On the one hand, because of rising levels of polarization, consumers might be accepting, or even supportive, of meddle ads. On the other hand, because meddle ads might come across as unethical and risky, consumers might be averse to their use. Across 7 main studies and 10 supplemental studies (N = 7,740) using multiple empirical approaches — including conjoint analysis, vignette studies, incentive-compatible donation studies, and analysis of online comments using human coders and NLP tools — we find that consumers are averse to the use of meddle ads. This aversion is driven by three factors: concerns about the character of the candidate, outcome-related risk (losing elections), and system-related risk (losing trust in democracy). These findings contribute to research on political marketing, provide practical guidance for marketers around meddle ads, and identify a novel type of risk perceptions with implications for consumer behavior research.