Republican super PACs are spending more in competitive Senate races. Democratic candidates are raising more on their own. Both sides claim the other is spending more, and each is counting a different layer.
Every competitive Senate race this year has produced the same argument from both campaigns: the other side is spending more.
The claim is accurate on both sides, because each campaign is measuring a different part of the money.
Republicans have a clear lead in total advertising. AdImpact reports Republicans have spent or reserved about $5.18 billion on advertising this cycle, compared with roughly $4.77 billion for Democrats. In competitive Senate races, the Republican lead is about $237 million.
But AdImpact also found Democratic candidates are outspending their Republican opponents, while Republican outside groups are providing most of the Republican advantage.
The divide is the story, not a contradiction.
Bell County's state House races this year produced a simpler version of the same finding. Once PACs, businesses and larger contributors were removed, the smaller-dollar totals in each race were close. The financial separation came almost entirely from political committees and donated services.
The Senate picture is the opposite. Democratic small-dollar fundraising is much larger than Republican small-dollar fundraising, and Republican megadonors and outside groups more than offset it.
Neither side's spending claim tells the whole story. Both are true, and they describe different parts of the same election.
How This Directory Made the Comparison
The Directory examined FEC filings, AdImpact spending data and outside-spending analyses covering the 2026 election cycle. Contribution and spending figures are reported through late October, before Election Day.
Total-cycle and candidate-level figures describe different measures. AdImpact figures cover advertising that has aired or been reserved through November 3. FEC figures describe money raised and reported through the most recent filings.
The analysis uses outside spending as reported by OpenSecrets and other tracking organizations. Individual super PAC totals include contributions from conduits such as ActBlue and WinRed, which forward small donations to candidates and are not contributions to the super PACs themselves.
Historical figures come from OpenSecrets, the Campaign Finance Institute and the Center for Responsive Politics. Those organizations use different cutoffs and methodologies, so the historical comparisons identify general patterns rather than exact dollar totals.
Democrats Have the Larger Small-Dollar Network
Through September, Democratic candidates raised $588.7 million in contributions under $200. Republican candidates raised $140 million, about 19% of the Democratic total.
That difference was not spread evenly across races. In Texas, Democrat James Talarico raised $75.3 million in small donations, compared with $5.37 million for Republican Ken Paxton, about 7% of Talarico's total. In Georgia, Democrat Jon Ossoff raised $66.1 million in small donations, compared with $2.72 million for Republican Mike Collins.
The gap is also visible in the number of donors. WinRed, the main Republican online fundraising platform, had about 1.5 million donors this cycle, down from 2.2 million at the same point in 2022. ActBlue, the Democratic platform, grew from 4.9 million to roughly 6.6 million donors.
About 22% of WinRed donors gave only to Trump's groups rather than to another candidate or committee. Another 39% gave to both Trump and another Republican.
That distribution matters. A large share of Republican small-dollar giving is going to Trump rather than to Senate and House candidates, which is one reason those candidates have smaller individual fundraising totals.
Republicans Have the Larger Outside-Money Operation
That small-dollar gap did not leave Republicans at a spending disadvantage.
Conservative groups spent $985.2 million on Senate races through October 13, compared with $459.1 million from liberal groups. The Senate Leadership Fund, the main Republican Senate super PAC, raised a record $272.9 million in the third quarter, roughly $122 million more than its Democratic counterpart. Elon Musk gave $158 million to the fund during that period, and the fund then sent $158 million into Texas to support Paxton.
The Republican advantage is concentrated in a small number of donors. The 50 largest donors and organizations have contributed $2.77 billion, with Republicans receiving $1.67 billion, about 60%, and Democrats $832 million, about 30%.
Most of that money goes to super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions, rather than to candidates, who are limited to $3,500 per election. That difference is the structural reason outside spending can grow faster than candidate fundraising.
A Candidate's Dollar Goes Further Than a Super PAC's
The biggest offset is not a fundraising advantage. It is an advertising rule.
Federal law requires television stations to sell airtime to candidates at the lowest rate charged to any commercial advertiser. Super PACs do not receive that rate and typically pay more.
In September, Republicans spent $233 million on broadcast television advertising in nine competitive Senate races, compared with $121 million for Democrats. That near-2-to-1 spending advantage produced only about 40% more advertising exposure, measured in gross rating points. Democrats paid about $201 per rating point, compared with about $274 for Republicans.
Roughly 90% of Republican advertising dollars in those races came from outside groups, compared with about half for Democrats.
That is the clearest connection back to Bell County. Where money comes from matters as much as how much there is. A candidate committee's smaller budget can still compete with a much larger outside operation, because each dollar buys more.
Historical Spending Does Not Predict Midterm Outcomes
The claim that one party usually outspends the other in midterms does not hold across recent cycles.
2006: Republican-leaning party committees outspent Democratic committees, $129.7 million to $118.3 million, in that category. Republican groups also outspent Democratic groups overall by more than $29 million. Democrats won both chambers.
2010: Outside spending favored Republicans, $10.9 million to $1.3 million in Senate television advertising. But party and nonparty spending combined was roughly even in competitive House races, and Democratic candidates outspent Republicans in about 60% of competitive House races. Republicans had a wave year.
2014: Republicans outspent Democrats $1.766 billion to $1.722 billion. Republicans led in almost every category. Republicans won the Senate.
2018: Democrats outspent Republicans by more than $450 million across all four spending categories. Democrats won the House; Republicans gained Senate seats.
2022: Republicans outspent Democrats $4.2 billion to $4 billion. Democrats led at the candidate level. Republicans narrowly won the House; Democrats held the Senate.
2026: Republicans lead in total spending, and Democrats lead at the candidate level.
There is no consistent relationship between which party spends more and which party wins.
The pattern that does hold is that the candidate with more money usually wins. In 2018, the bigger spender won 88.54% of House races and 82.86% of Senate races. In 2022, those figures were 94.4% and 90%.
But that statistic includes a large number of races that were not competitive. In 2018, more than half of the Democratic House candidates who outraised their opponents still lost.
The research on what money actually does is narrower than the totals suggest. Steven Levitt's study of repeat challengers found spending has "an extremely small impact on election outcomes." Field experiments by Alan Gerber found incumbent mailings had little effect while challenger spending did work. But one Senate-focused study estimates an incumbent's spending advantage is worth about 6% of the vote.npr+2
The clearest finding is that money matters most for challengers in genuinely close races. It cannot overcome a state's partisan makeup. In 2022, Tim Ryan outspent J.D. Vance $55.5 million to $14.5 million in Ohio and lost. Val Demings outspent Marco Rubio $80 million to $48.1 million in Florida and lost. Cheri Beasley outspent Ted Budd $38 million to $14.7 million in North Carolina and lost.
Trump's Travel Is Not Mainly a Sign of Republican Trouble
The other common claim this cycle is that President Trump is campaigning in safe Republican states because his party is in trouble.
The record does not support that reading.
The Directory classified each of Trump's 28 October campaign stops by whether the state had a competitive Senate race at the time of the visit. Eighteen of those 28 stops were in states rated as a tossup or leaning toward one party in the Senate race. Eight were in states rated solidly Republican. Three were in races rated as leaning Democratic.
The most common pattern was not a visit to a safe state. It was a visit to a tossup Senate race.
Several of the red-state stops also had a second purpose. Rock Hill, South Carolina, where Trump campaigned, is in the Charlotte media market, which serves battleground North Carolina. Highland Heights, Kentucky, is in the Cincinnati market, which serves swing Ohio.The better explanation is turnout, not panic.
Republican turnout typically drops in midterm years when Trump is not on the ballot, and Trump has described his travel as an effort to counteract that. Alaska, Kansas, Mississippi, Iowa, Ohio and Texas all had Senate races that were competitive at some point this cycle.
The clearest comparison is former President Barack Obama's.
Obama campaigned in Clayton County, Georgia, a county Democrats win overwhelmingly, because turnout in Atlanta's urban core was lagging turnout in the surrounding suburbs. His purpose was not to protect a county in danger of being lost. It was to increase turnout among Democratic-leaning voters who might not otherwise vote.
That is the same strategy Trump is using in red states. It is not evidence that either party is uniquely worried.
A president's party usually loses seats in midterm elections, which is what makes turnout mobilization important for both sides this year.
The Comparison That Matters
Bell County's state House races and this year's Senate races produce the same lesson with opposite numbers.
In Bell County, the small-dollar totals were similar within each race, and the financial difference came from political committees and donated services.
In Senate races, the small-dollar totals are very different, and the financial difference comes from megadonors and outside groups, offset by advertising rules that give candidate committees a better rate.
Both comparisons show the same underlying point. Money is not a single number, and a total does not explain how it is used.
Republicans are spending more overall because super PACs can accept unlimited contributions. Democrats are spending more at the candidate level because their donor network is larger. Neither claim is false, and neither settles the election.
The historical record shows that the party with more money has not reliably won midterms. The candidate with more money usually wins, but that includes many races that were never in doubt.
The Senate outcome will be determined by turnout and by which candidates voters actually support. The spending totals describe the machinery being used to seek those votes.