America’s most expensive midterm elections ever

Voting for the 2026 U.S. midterm elections will be on November 3. According to statistics from the advertising monitoring agency AdImpact, as of November 2, political advertising expenditures this cycle reached US$11.87 billion, exceeding the US$11.2 billion in the 2024 presidential election cycle, setting a new record for advertising expenditures. The scope of statistics includes federal and state-level election advertising, and expenses such as campaign staff salaries, grassroots organization building and polling are not included.

Money is spent, but the results are not the same. Democratic candidates raise more direct donations, while the Republican camp dominates spending by outside groups. The results of key election battles are quite contrasting: Democratic candidates who led in direct fundraising won one after another; after including expenditures by external groups, the Republican camp with higher total investment actually lost many of them.

The two parties have different sources of funding

Let’s start by looking at the candidates’ own campaign accounts. According to the rules announced by the Federal Election Commission, from 2025 to 2026, each donor can contribute up to $3,500 to each candidate committee per election, and the primaries and general elections are calculated separately. USAFacts According to Federal Election Commission data on October 28, Democratic congressional candidates have raised approximately $2.1 billion this cycle, and Republicans have raised approximately $1.3 billion. Candidates who have lost or withdrawn are also included.

The rules for outside groups are completely different. Super political action committees, also commonly known as super PACs, can accept unlimited donations as long as they cannot coordinate spending with a candidate's team and can only independently carry out activities supporting or opposing the candidate. According to statistics by political leanings from the U.S. non-profit organization "OpenSecrets", as of October 30, external groups supporting the Republican Party had spent US$2.03 billion, and external groups supporting the Democratic Party had spent US$1.67 billion. Donations are also concentrated from a small number of donors. As of October 24, the top 1% of donors had donated $6.51 billion to outside groups, accounting for 98.4% of the total donations received by these groups. Musk alone has donated more than $445 million to external groups, ranking first among individual donors.

You have a lot of money, but you have to spend it effectively

Nowhere is this more telling than in the Texas Senate election. "Open Secret" According to the analysis of filing data on November 4, the Republican candidate Paxton's camp invested a total of approximately US$335 million, and the Democratic candidate Talarico's camp invested approximately US$275 million. In the end, Talarico won. The total spending by both parties includes campaign spending, as well as money spent by outside groups to support their candidates or attack their opponents. The advantage of Paxton's camp mainly comes from the $318 million spent by external groups; Talarico directly raised about $145 million, more than 6.5 times Paxton's direct fundraising of $22.2 million.

In Texas, outside groups also pay more to buy ads. In September 2026, a Republican super PAC spent more than $22 million on an ad that was broadcast about 15,500 times. Talarico’s team’s most-played ad cost less than $4 million and aired about 8,000 times. The difference comes partly from rates. The Federal Communications Act stipulates that candidate teams can enjoy the lowest unit rate when purchasing advertising 60 days before the election, and external groups cannot enjoy it. The more money you spend, the more broadcasts you buy may not increase in proportion.

Similar results occurred in other key elections. "Open Secrets" analyzed seven Senate elections that were rated as "unwinnable" before the election. The next day after voting, the results of six contests were announced. The winners were all Democratic candidates, and their direct fundraising was also higher than that of their Republican opponents. In the four elections in Texas, Ohio, Michigan and Maine, when the expenditures of campaign teams and outside groups were combined, the Republican camp with higher total investment all lost. In these key races, the spending advantages of outside groups did not translate into victories.

Before voting, it should be made clear where the money comes from

Although some expenditures are declared in accordance with the law, the identity of the real investor does not need to be disclosed. This is the so-called "dark money". As of October 30, Open Secrets has identified approximately $1.47 billion in “dark money” donations to outside groups in this round. This number may rise as some donations have not yet been sorted.

Disclosure too late creates the same problem. The Our Heritage Matters super PAC did not register until October 15, and the first regular donor report was not submitted until December 3. The New York Times reported that the organization invested approximately $6.5 million in the final 10 days of the campaign to support third-party candidates and attack Republican candidates. By the time the donor information was made public, the voting had already ended.

Regulation cannot keep up. There are six commissioners on the Federal Election Commission, but only two are left. Since April 30, 2025, the committee has been unable to perform some of its decision-making functions due to insufficient quorum. CBS reported on October 7 that the committee has not voted to resolve any enforcement cases since then, nor has it approved new civil fines, and the backlog of cases has increased from 154 to 307.

Limiting the influence of money on elections has support among voters in both parties. A national survey conducted from February to March 2026 by the University of Maryland Public Consulting Project showed that 82% of respondents supported amending the Constitution to allow Congress and state legislatures to limit or prohibit election spending by corporations and private political groups. The support rate among Democratic respondents was 85%, and that among Republican respondents was 82%.

Advertising can buy time slots, but it cannot buy certain election results. The record spending leaves two old questions alive: whether donor disclosures can catch up with voting and when the Federal Election Commission can regain its enforcement capabilities.