It affected a lot of areas. Many different shores, then the ocean environment itself. There probably isn’t a simple answer to this question, other than to broadly point out that the most important stuff has been done already.
At the time of the leak, the most pressing concern by far was, you know, stopping the leak. They succeeded in capping the well in July 2010 and permanently sealing the well in September. Not much else to do there.
Then there’s stopping the oil from getting onshore. Many of the local government ideas, like constructing sand barriers, were pointless wastes of money. Dispersants and booms had some effect. All of that is over and done with, though.
The oil on shores breaks up naturally over time. In some cases doing cleanup causes more environmental damage (this was a problem in some areas with Exxon Valdez).
Underwater, luckily, microbes have consumed oil at a faster than expected rate. The oil still probably devastated swaths of bottom-dwelling niches. Scientists are discovering animals in the Gulf, like the pancake batfish, that will hopefully survive the oil spill but who knows.
As far as tourism, you guys realize that BP can actually be held financially liable for any loss of tourism in those states? That’s almost certainly why they’re paying for the commercials. You can dismiss it as cynical, and BP should be criticized for their pathetic safety standards that led to the spill. But I’m not sure what the point is of criticizing them for paying for the disaster they caused. Do you not want BP to pay for the damage they caused to the tourism industry?