Seven charts that show how parties are spending campaign money in the U.S. midterms

This year’s American midterm elections are on track to be the most expensive in at least two decades, a Globe and Mail analysis of U.S. Federal Election Commission data shows. (All figures are in U.S. dollars.)With all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats up for grabs, campaigns had brought in more than $3.6-billion by Sept. 30, 16 per cent higher than the $3.1-billion at the same point in 2022. After inflation, the increase is only about 2 per cent, but that figure is expected to soar even further as election day approaches.Canada has strict election spending rules. In the U.S., however, outside groups known as super PACs can raise and spend as much money as they want on any given campaign, as long as they don’t co-ordinate with the campaigns.Such groups spent $3.5-billion by Oct. 24, more than twice as much as four years earlier, after adjusting for inflation. There have also been significant donations by individuals, the largest from billionaire Elon Musk, who gave more than $400-million to super PACs backing Republicans. Most of that spending has gone to attack ads, and is geared toward competitive races, notably the Senate race in Texas, followed by races in Ohio and Michigan. David Shribman: Billionaire donors have changed the game in these U.S. midtermsJ. Miles Coleman, the associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, said that every political cycle seems to be more expensive than the last. “It kind of shows you what the stakes are,” said Mr. Coleman, adding that he believes the spending can be attributed to how people are thinking about politics in the country. “Every election feels like it’s existential and I feel like that’s a big reason.” Mr. Coleman said that by the end of the campaign, it’s likely more than half a billion will have been spent in the Senate races in Texas and Ohio, which he says is “insane.” The Senate race in Texas is the most expensive contest of these midterms. Candidates, outside groups, and party committees have spent about $635-million on this race, which includes what the campaigns spent in the primaries. Republicans and their supporters account for $385-million of that, and Democrats $250-million. Most of the money does not come from the candidates. In Texas, outside groups spent 69 per cent.Ohio’s Senate race follows at $488-million and Michigan’s at $409-million. In Iowa, the amount is $246-million, with opposing candidates nearly tied in spending.House races usually cost much less because each House seat covers just one district, not an entire state. The most expensive competitive House race, New York’s 17th district, north of New York City, has seen $62-million in spending, less than a tenth of the Texas total.Each party has raised around $5-billion this cycle, through very different channels. Democrats mostly rely on direct donations to their candidates, while Republicans rely more on super PACs. Democratic campaigns raised $2.1-billion in donations, nearly double the Republicans’ $1.2-billion. Super PACs supporting Republicans raised $2.4-billion, compared with $2-billion for those supporting Democrats.Republican candidates also contributed more of their own money, $271-million versus $151-million. Mr. Coleman said Democratic candidates typically outraise Republicans, while Republicans tend to have an advantage when it comes to contributions from outside spending. Why the U.S. can’t get inflation under control, explained in seven chartsThe Democratic voting base, he said, is made up of educated voters who listen to NPR, or read The New York Times, and so they tend to pay attention to individual races, and therefore those donors are a bit more strategic. That’s unlike the Republican donors, who are contributing largely because they like Donald Trump, who he said, is more popular than individual Republicans. “So, if I’m a Republican donor, I’m more likely to give to a Trump PAC or a national group. Contrast that to Democrats who try to be a little more strategic. They want to give in races that they feel could make the difference.” But does all that spending really matter? Mr. Coleman says “money is helpful, but it’s not everything.” For example, he said, the Republican candidate in Texas’s Senate race, Ken Paxton, is being almost entirely propped up by Elon Musk and outside spending. “He still could win, but, he’s been behind in the polls for basically months and the needle hasn’t really moved,” he said. “I think spending is important but it kind of depends on what you do with it. Are the candidates using that money to smartly target voters they need, or are they just running a bunch of bland cookie-cutter type ads?” Most outside money is spent on attacking opponents, rather than propping up a particular candidate. Of the general-election spending by the 15 biggest outside groups, 82 per cent went to ads and messages against a candidate. Earlier in the cycle, during the party primaries, only about a third of outside spending was on negative ads. By September, when the general election took over, that number went up to three-quarters.The most-attacked candidate is James Talarico, the Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, with $206-million spent against him.Groups that back Democrats spent almost twice as much on online ads and those that support Republicans spent more than three times on mail.Groups helping Republicans have spent more than those helping Democrats every week since August. By the middle of September, they spent almost four times as much. As the election nears, however, groups supporting Democrats have caught up. (Spending counts as helping a party when it supports that party’s candidate or attacks the opponent.)Mr. Coleman said his state, Virginia, is considered relatively safe for Democrats, so he’s not subjected to a lot of political ads, but his friends in Texas and Ohio are getting inundated. “After so long, they just start to tune out all of the political ads they see. They get sick of it and, you know, I think at some point for all this money that’s spent in these races, there is a point of diminishing returns.”Elon Musk emerges as biggest known donor in crucial midterms as he tries to save RepublicansSuper PACs are allowed to accept unlimited cash, which means a small group of billionaires are bankrolling them. Mr. Musk, the world’s richest person, leads the list. He gave $428-million as an individual and another $18-million through his trust and a company he controls, about $446-million in all, mostly to groups backing Republicans. That is almost three times the next-biggest donors, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, owners of the shipping-supplies company Uline, who gave $150-million.Counting couples together, five of the 10 biggest donors mainly give to Republicans. Three, led by former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg with $84-million, give to Democrats. The other two, Jeff Yass and Greg and Anna Brockman, sent large shares to single-issue groups, like school choice. Their money was largely spent in party primaries.Among the top 10 donors, five support Republicans, giving $730-million, and three support Democrats, giving $158-million.David Meyers, the director of editorial and media strategy at OpenSecrets, a research group that tracks U.S. spending and its effect on elections and public policy, said outside spending allows individuals and organizations to spend as much money as they want, which means the numbers keep getting bigger with each election. But it’s not just Mr. Musk spending, he said, there are many others spending tens of millions of dollars, which all adds up to what’s expected to be a record number. And super PACS can accept money from organizations that don’t have to reveal their source, he said, and that’s how they end up with what they call dark money, dollars spent on elections that can’t be traced back to the original source.“So, there’s a lot of murkiness in super PAC money that you don’t have with regular campaign cash, and we do our best to try and track it.” He said money absolutely makes a difference. “You can’t compete if you don’t have money to spend either through your own campaign or having an allied super PAC,” he said. Mr. Meyers added, however, that there have been plenty of cases over the years where a candidate who raises less money still wins. “Money is not going to necessarily decide the race, but you can’t be competitive without it.”