In Georgia, Sen. Jon Ossoff has raised over $81 million, almost 20 times as much as his opponent, Rep. Mike Collins (GA-10). In Texas, state Rep. James Talarico’s campaign for a seat in the Senate has raised triple the amount of money of Attorney General Ken Paxton. A similar situation is playing out in North Carolina, where former Gov. Roy Cooper has raised three times as much as his opponent Michael Whatley, the former Republican National Committee chair.
But in these races and others, outside spending is inflating Republicans’ campaign war chests. In some cases, including in Talarico’s race in Texas, this spending has resulted in Republicans taking the overall money advantage over their Democratic counterparts, who have not benefited from similar funding streams this cycle. While candidates can take no more than $3,500 per person – or $5,000 from a PAC – per election, there are no limits on what individuals and PACs can give to super PACs and 501(c)(4)s.
Greg Berlin, the managing partner and founder of digital fundraising firm Mothership Strategies, said that while both parties engage in outside spending, Republicans tend to “benefit a lot more from the extra high-dollar money that they can get.”
Republicans are outspending Democrats this election cycle
Democratic candidates have seen a surge in support across the country from both sides of the aisle amid heightened dissatisfaction with the Trump administration due to its economic policies, the war in Iran and rising costs of living.
“You’re seeing polls right now where Republicans are souring on their vote for Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans,” said Chris Fleming, veteran Democratic strategist. Fleming added that any Democratic candidate “talking about kitchen-table issues” would have “a leg up” during this midterms season.
While having the popular advantage has helped Democratic candidates run successful fundraising campaigns, the Republican party has poured more money into battleground districts and states through party committees and super PACs.
The Republican party’s main affiliated party committees and super PACs reported $657 million in cash on hand at the end of June — almost double the $334 million in the hands of equivalent groups in the Democratic Party. This total does not include the $400 million that MAGA Inc., a super PAC affiliated with President Donald Trump, also reported on hand over the summer.
Both party committees and super PACs support candidates by spending money on advertisements or messaging to reach voters, boosting the candidate’s profile and visibility within a district or state. Though these groups often make headlines for pouring large amounts of cash into high-profile contests, such as the Michigan Senate race, researchers have found the effect of independent expenditures on race outcomes to be relatively small compared to campaign expenditures.
According to James Gimpel, a professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland who has researched campaign donation trends, outside spending has the biggest effect in “low-information races, or contests where challengers are little known.”
Still, high independent expenditures remain a point of concern for both politicians and election advocacy organizations. As Berlin pointed out, Republicans — who often have smaller individual donor bases than Democrats — can benefit more from the influx of outside cash.
‘Neither side has a structural advantage’
In wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, super PACs have been able to sink unlimited cash into supporting candidates in elections so long as they did not coordinate with them. Restrictions on coordinating with candidates loosened this summer, which will allow Republican candidates to use their financial edge more directly and effectively.
These rulings have benefited Republican candidates this election cycle due to exorbitant GOP election spending through party committees and super PACs. But in past years, it has also benefited the Democratic Party.
Both Gimpel and Berlin noted that both the Republican and Democratic parties have substantially increased their outside spending in elections since 2010, with Gimpel saying that they “have come to depend heavily on independent expenditures and the involvement of super PACs.”
“Across the last several cycles, outside spending has been roughly balanced between Democrats and Republicans,” Gimpel said. “The totals vary year to year, but the differences are not large enough to create a systematic partisan advantage for Republicans, or for Democrats.”
“Both parties have well‑developed elite donor ecosystems, and neither side has a structural advantage,” Gimpel added.
But Berlin has said that outside spending by Republican and Republican-aligned groups has generally outpaced Democrats, though the latter group has taken steps to catch up to the former after scrambling in the years after the Citizens United ruling.
“Enough people have just said, ‘Whatever, we have to do it,’” Berlin said. “It has just kind of become commonplace.”