Race for money in 2026 midterms: Democrats gain momentum as Musk supports Republicans

One of the last big campaign finance snapshots before Election Day on Nov. 3 is now available, and both political parties have found something they like. But campaign money is flowing in very different ways — and, overall, portends a more favorable environment for Democrats.

On the one hand, Democratic candidates have become veritable cash cows, reaping far more than their Republican rivals in the Senate and House battlegrounds.

Republicans, however, still have a head start in the face of an unprecedented flood of outside money from the super PAC, funded by a small circle of billionaires led by Tesla And EspaceX CEO Elon Musk. The deluge of capital could be enough to stave off the worst of an otherwise dangerous political environment for the Republican Party, amid stubbornly high inflation and President Donald Trump’s declining approval ratings.

A series of documents filed by the Federal Election Commission on a key deadline Thursday detailed what candidates raised and spent from July to September and provide insight into many of the outside groups supporting them. More information on outside money will come next week with another deadline for additional deposits.

Here are CNBC’s five takeaways:

If Democrats want a financial case for a blue wave, start with the candidates themselves.

Democratic Senate candidates posted gaudy third-quarter totals. James Talarico raised $60.2 million in Texas, Jon Ossoff raised $33.1 million in Georgia and Abdul El-Sayed raised $30.7 million in Michigan. Sherrod Brown raised $23.1 million in Ohio, while Troy Jackson raised $20.4 million in Maine, Mary Peltola raised $14.1 million in Alaska and Roy Cooper raised $12.2 million in North Carolina.

Even in reliably red Kansas, Democrat Adam Hamilton raised $9.4 million.

In several of these races, the Republican numbers weren’t even close. Ken Paxton raised about $10.2 million in Texas, Mike Rogers $9.7 million in Michigan, Susan Collins $5.2 million in Maine and Jon Husted $4.8 million in Ohio.

Candidates’ money is especially important in the final stretch, as campaigns control where they go and qualify for lower TV ad rates than super PACs. In other words, Republicans might be able to fill a $1 fundraising gap with outside money — but it may cost them more than a dollar to do so.

The same fundraising advantage extends to the House.

Democratic candidates have outperformed their Republican opponents through September in 13 of the 21 House races currently being evaluated by Cook, according to a CNBC analysis of FEC filings. In North Carolina’s 11th District, for example, Democrat Jamie Ager raised $2.1 million in the third quarter, compared to about $313,000 for Republican Jennifer Balkcom.

The fundraising surge coincides with a map shift: The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter projected last week that Democrats could gain two to six seats in the Senate — enough to put the four-seat majority threshold within reach — and nine to 19 seats in the House, which would flip the chamber.

While Democratic candidates dominate direct donations, Republicans are fighting back with massive overseas spending.

The Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP’s main Senate super PAC, raised a record $272.9 million from July to September, about $122 million more than its Democratic counterpart, according to FEC filings. On the House side, the Congressional Leadership Fund raised a record $94.4 million during the quarter and began October with $156 million in cash, according to its FEC filing.

This outside money functions as a financial safety net for Republican candidates who are behind in direct fundraising. Texas is the most extreme example: SLF pumped $158 million into the Texas PAC, the super PAC that supports Paxton, according to FEC filings.

Elsewhere, Republicans committed $15 million through SLF to defend Sen. Pete Ricketts in Nebraska, the Wall Street Journal reported this week. Outside groups account for about 80% of all ad buys in Alaska, where the SLF spent $14 million supporting Sen. Dan Sullivan, according to a CNBC analysis of AdImpact data.

The blitz has resulted in Republicans holding an advantage in broadcast advertising in seven of the eight major Senate battles and in 25 of the 42 contested House seats ranked “Toss Up” or “Lean” Republican or Democratic by the Cook Report as of Oct. 9, according to AdImpact.

But polls have shown little progress in recent weeks, despite the advantage.

No donor understands the scale – or leverage – of this external financial advantage better than the world’s richest person, Musk.

He pumped more than $276 million into federal political groups during the third quarter, making him the largest known individual donor to the midterm elections. His disclosed donations included $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund and another $89 million to his America PAC, according to FEC filings.

Most of that capital was earmarked for a single rescue mission: Texas, the state that is his primary residence and headquarters of his businesses.

Musk gave SLF $75 million on September 9 and another $83 million on September 23. Both times, the SLF transferred the exact same amount to the Texas PAC the next day. The group, which supports Paxton, did not report any other donors until late September.

Until now, many national Republicans have been reluctant to devote resources to the Lone Star State’s expensive media market while fighting on an already expanded Senate map. Musk effectively erased that tradeoff, providing enough money to build a dedicated financial firewall around Paxton without forcing the party to pull resources from other battlegrounds.

For months, Democrats have worried about the reluctance of traditional megadonors to write checks after the 2024 election cycle, with presidential drama at the top of the list. The latest documents suggest the freeze is thawing — although much of the money still bypasses the Democratic National Committee.

Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, invested about $16 million in the midterm fight this summer, according to FEC filings, while LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who also withheld money from the DNC this cycle, poured $11.5 million into the super PAC supporting Talarico earlier this year.

Renewed money from megadonors gives Democrats another source of firepower for the final weeks, which can be quickly redirected if necessary.

Already, the Democratic majority PAC in the Senate raised a record $151 million in the third quarter and ended September with $112 million in cash, even as its Republican counterpart raised far more.

All of this spending is fueling an election poised to shatter spending records.

AdImpact projects $11.6 billion in political advertising during the 2025-2026 election cycle, which would make 2026 the most expensive cycle on record – surpassing both the $8.9 billion spent during the 2022 midterms and the $11.2 billion spent during the 2024 presidential cycle.

The congressional fight alone has already generated $3.8 billion in on-air advertising, more than $870 million ahead of the comparable 2024 figure, according to AdImpact. The Senate elections are contributing to this increase: the company forecasts $3.4 billion in Senate advertising by the end of the cycle, an increase of 48% compared to 2022.

But as the amount of money increases, it becomes increasingly difficult for voters to trace the original source.

Documents filed Thursday showed millions of dollars flowing into super PACs from nonprofits and other entities that are not required to disclose their own donors, leaving the original source of some of the cycle’s biggest checks hidden.