The upcoming midterm elections will be the most expensive elections ever held in the United States. And more of the money is “dark” than ever before, meaning it’s impossible to get a complete picture of who is spending gargantuan sums to influence races that could pose a critical drag on Donald Trump’s second term.
The election also showed how money in politics is being reshaped, with the increasingly powerful role played by big tech industry donors as well as the growing concentration of spending among a few powerful individuals and companies.
The impact of the rise of mega-donors such as Tesla founder Elon Musk, and the increase in dark money among the largest donors, on this year’s election results is difficult to quantify.
But signs of massive spending are everywhere. Advertising industry tracker AdImpact projects $11.6 billion in ad spending this cycle, surpassing the $11.2 billion spent in the 2024 presidential election. OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics, estimates that total spending in the midterms is on track to reach $11.9 billion.
The top 40 donors are giving more than ever: $2.4 billion as of mid-October, seven times the amount the top 40 donors gave in 2014, adjusted for inflation, according to a new analysis from the nonpartisan, pro-financial reform institute the Brennan Center for Justice. But the significant difference since then is that major donors now give more to Republicans, and at a larger differential. In 2014, the top 40 gave Democrats two to one, but this year the top 40 gave Republicans three to one against Democrats.
Spending by Super Pacs, which can accept unlimited amounts of money to spend in elections, hit the $2 billion mark at the end of September, 51% more than the last midterm cycle, adjusted for inflation, according to the Brennan Center analysis.
And the New York Times counted at least $1 billion already spent by dark money groups as of the end of August. “Dark money” consists of organizations such as 501(c)4 nonprofits, which are not required to disclose their donors at all, since they are not supposed to have political activity as their primary purpose. (These rules are often flouted in spirit, if not in practice.) Such dark money spending is increasingly prevalent in even lower-profile races across the country and in primaries. Recent numbers crunching by the Brennan Center estimates that dark money groups account for an unprecedented 29 percent of the top 40 donors and that $699 million is largely untraceable.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 Citizens United decision forever changed American campaign finance by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on political spending. The cost of the 2010 midterms was only $3.6 billion according to OpenSecrets. But rules prohibiting Super Pacs from working closely with campaigns and candidates, meant to counter the corruption risk inherent in unlimited independent election spending, are continually flouted and rarely enforced. Trump himself has repeatedly referred to Super Pac Maga Inc as being under his personal control and subject to his decisions, which is against campaign finance law.
Democrats are poised to regain control of the House and possibly the Senate, although Republicans have far outspent, with polls showing minimal results following the deluge of offensive ads in competitive races. The exact figures for this disparity are difficult to pin down and constantly changing. For example, on Friday, just days before the election, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg allocated an additional $36 million to Democratic candidates, on top of the $80 million he had already pledged. But the best estimates show a clear Republican advantage in spending in Senate elections, and a narrower advantage in House elections.
The increased spending is a warning sign for the upcoming election, said Brennan’s Ian Vandewalker: “We’ve had a system of limits and disclosures for a long time, but it’s increasingly disappearing.” » Vanderwalker points to trends such as new high-net-worth industries like AI and cryptocurrency that have burst onto the scene, donating heavily to both parties, “clearly hoping for light or no regulation from government, which will only increase,” and mega-donors like Musk whose major spending “looks like a business investment.”
Bought by billionaires
Elon Musk’s ideological and personal business interests are well documented, but other high-profile mega-donors go unnoticed. George Soros is one of the few major individual donors who gives primarily to Democrats. Billionaires such as Wall Street’s Jeffrey Yass and the Uihlein family (owners of shipping giant Uline) are longtime Republican mega-donors, focused on school choice and traditional ultraconservative causes, respectively. Together, the two families have donated at least $260 million in the 2026 cycle.
Other mega-donors include AI moguls Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, whose donations focus on deregulation, advancing the crypto industry, and electing pro-AI candidates. Israeli-American businesswoman Miriam Adelson has donated $67 million this cycle and is known for championing the U.S. government’s far-right pro-Israel policies and for having significant influence over Trump’s U.S.-Israel policies.
Musk alone has given $483 million so far in the midterms, double what Soros gave to Democrats in 2022. The world’s richest person has worked to help Republicans maintain the Senate majority, particularly in a tight race in Texas. Musk’s business empire and personal fortune were aided by his close relationship with Republican candidate Ken Paxton.
New rules, new industries
A Supreme Court ruling in June allowing political parties to spend more in coordination with the candidates they support helped the Republican Party pump large sums of money from wealthy donors into small but crucial races, where Democrats enjoyed an advantage by raising more directly from small donors. Before the ruling, national party committees could only spend $130,600 to $4,071,800 in coordination with an individual Senate candidate, and $65,300 to $130,600 in coordination with an individual House candidate. But the court removed those limits. The shift means Republican committees were able to raise more than $48 million, dwarfing the additional $4 million added by Democrats, furthering the influence of big pockets over smaller races that previously benefited from larger local donations.
The last decade has also seen a major shift in the industries that influence elections with significant spending. The Democratic-leaning Labor once made up 14% of the top 40 mid-term donors – today it’s not even in the top 40, according to Brennan. Donations from traditional financial interests have also lost influence – from nearly half of the top 40 donors in 2014 to just 15% this year.
New industries like cryptography and artificial intelligence, and the mega-donors associated with them, are crowding out these traditional industries, as the scale of big money increases. Even the real estate industry, a longtime bipartisan donor, has seen its contributions relatively eclipsed by this new money.
The share of major donors giving to both parties increased significantly this year, by more than 100 times the levels seen in 2022 and 2018. Surprisingly, that means that in this election cycle, big bipartisan spenders — largely cryptocurrencies, online gaming, AI and pro-Israel interests — gave almost as much to both parties as major donors who gave only to Democrats.
All that money has resulted in record advertising spending, but with unclear results. Some polls show very little movement in Senate races in Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, before and after a GOP advertising blitz this fall.
And all that money doesn’t even account for the growth of informal influence campaigns — campaign or Pac payments to online political influencers on social media are rarely tracked or disclosed. Campaigns can be funded through intermediary companies, and influencers are not required by law to tell their audiences whether they are being paid to support a candidate.
While it’s unclear exactly how this exorbitant spending affected 2026 votes, the bigger changes can’t be ignored, Vanderwalker says — and serve as a warning for the 2028 election. It’s easier than ever for politicians to rely on a single, very wealthy donor, he said: “In a democracy, it’s supposed to be one person, one vote, and the more one person can influence, the less egalitarian our system becomes.” »
Gn headline
