“There are two things that are really important in politics: the first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is,” American Senator Mark Hanna remarked in 1895. American election campaigns have always been a very expensive sport.
In the 2024 presidential election, total spending reached the astronomical figure of $14 billion, and it is projected that the amount will be even higher for the 2026 midterm elections.
Endless spending – A war of billions
To begin with, it is extremely difficult to track how much money is being spent, in what manner, and on behalf of which candidate, because the regulatory framework for campaign finance is highly complex.
Although there are legal limits on the amount of money a candidate can receive directly, there are no restrictions whatsoever on independent expenditures made by third-party organizations.
A guide to the main categories of campaign finance
To understand how the election campaign financing process works, one must first be familiar with the primary categories and the limitations that apply to them. Individual contributions, PACs and Super PACs, “dark money” organizations, joint fundraising committees, and self-funding make up a complex system that drives election campaigns.
The primary source of funding consists of direct individual contributions. Private citizens may contribute up to $3,500 per candidate per election, as well as up to $44,300 annually to a national political party. Donations exceeding $200 are recorded with the donor’s identity, while smaller donations are classified as grassroots contributions. Additionally, the practice of “bundling” is employed, whereby influential figures collect checks from their personal networks and deliver them to the candidate in a single batch.
A second category comprises traditional PACs (Political Action Committees)—political committees established by corporations, labor unions, or interest groups. These entities can collect contributions from their members and provide up to $5,000 directly to a candidate per election.
The most powerful force today is the Super PAC, which emerged in the wake of the Citizens United ruling. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums from billionaires, corporations, or labor unions to fund advertisements. The only strict legal rule is that any direct communication or coordination with a candidate’s official campaign or political party is prohibited.
At the same time, “dark money” organizations—known as 501(c)(4)s—exert immense influence. These are non-profit social welfare organizations that, under tax law, are not required to disclose their donors. They can spend funds on political activities or channel vast amounts into Super PACs, effectively obscuring the original source of the money.
Furthermore, “Joint Fundraising Committees” are also utilized. These allow a major donor to write a single, substantial check—potentially exceeding $1 million—which is then legally distributed among the various entities (such as a candidate’s campaign, the national party, and state-level organizations) in accordance with their respective contribution limits.
Finally, there is the possibility of self-financing by candidates, as a candidate has the constitutional right to contribute unlimited amounts from their personal wealth. However, academic research indicates that candidates who rely exclusively on their own funds typically fail, since the ability to attract external donors serves as the true indicator of political momentum.
Conversely, public financing remains effectively dormant, as it is subject to strict spending limits; meanwhile, U.S. law explicitly prohibits any financial contributions from foreign citizens, foreign governments, or foreign corporations.
Mega-donors, cryptocurrencies, and artificial intelligence
To date, $10 billion has been spent on advertising for the midterm elections—a figure that excludes hundreds of millions in other political expenditures, as well as the additional funds expected to be spent between now and Election Day on November 3rd.
In this relentless financial war, contributions from just 20 major donors account for approximately 12% of the total funds raised by campaigns and Super PACs. Fourteen of these donors support the Republican Party exclusively or almost exclusively. The Republican advantage in terms of “mega-donors” is further bolstered by a new wave of political funding originating from the cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, and online betting sectors—industries that have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the process.
Elon Musk alone has contributed approximately $366 million to support the Republicans. Meanwhile, prominent Silicon Valley donors include OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman—who has made personal donations totaling $25 million to pro-Republican Super PACs—as well as the Winklevoss brothers, founders of the Gemini exchange, who have contributed a combined $52.6 million.
Conversely, the Democrats are facing significant difficulty in raising funds through official party structures. Major benefactors from the past, such as George Soros and Reid Hoffman, have “frozen” their contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC)—not donating a single dollar to it during the current election cycle—choosing instead to channel their funds independently. For instance, Soros has contributed over $102 million exclusively through his own Democracy PAC.
The reasons for this withdrawal from party coffers can be traced to the lingering trauma from the 2024 election defeat, concerns regarding the mismanagement of that campaign, and a sense of wariness toward the party’s rising progressive wing.
Bypassing Political Parties and the Profile of Candidates
By September 2026, candidates for federal office had raised a total of $2.66 billion in direct contributions—$1.81 billion for House of Representatives races and $854 million for Senate races.
At the same time, a structural shift is underway, as many major donors are choosing to bypass party apparatuses and provide direct support to individual Super PACs. For instance, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman contributed $11.5 million to the “Lone Star Rising” Super PAC—which supports Democrat James Talarico in Texas—without donating any funds to the DNC. Similarly, Michael Bloomberg channeled $11 million into a Super PAC focused on a specific House district.
This strategy explains an interesting phenomenon: while Republicans dominate in terms of total Super PAC funding, Democrats hold a striking lead in the funds raised directly by individual candidates. Of the ten candidates with the highest fundraising totals nationwide, nine are Democrats. At the top is Jon Ossoff, running for the Senate in Georgia with $77.3 million, followed by James Talarico in Texas with $68.6 million. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who is seeking a House seat in Louisiana, ranks ninth with $21 million.
Furthermore, in the seven most critical states for the Senate, Democrats hold more than twice as much cash on hand as Republicans—$74.7 million compared to $36.8 million.
However, the final verdict rests with the American voters. At a time when the American President’s popularity is in freefall, the Republicans’ financial advantage may not be enough to reverse the election outcome.
