2026 US Midterms on Track to Be the Costliest Elections in the Country's History

The 2026 U.S. midterm elections are on pace to be the most expensive in American history. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact projects that spending in this election cycle will reach $11.6 billion US, which would top the midterm record of $8.9 billion US set in 2022 and the $11.2 billion US spent during the 2024 presidential cycle.

For a sense of scale, Canada's Liberal and Conservative parties together raised $95 million US across 2024 and 2025, according to Elections Canada. In Texas, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico alone is projected to have raised $146 million US. Combined ad spending in his race against Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton has passed $500 million US, putting it on track to become the costliest U.S. Senate contest ever.

Rising prices explain part of the increase, especially for advertising. But the larger driver is the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections. Jen Heerwig, an associate professor of sociology at Stony Brook University, said outside groups such as super PACs have stepped in to supplement candidate spending in many competitive races. Unlike candidate committees or regular PACs, super PACs can accept donations of any size, including the hundreds of millions Elon Musk is putting into Republican-aligned groups.

Henrik Schatzinger, a political science professor at Ripon College, called the "relentless rise of the mega donor" a defining story of this cycle. In 2014, he said, an individual needed to give at least $2.3 million US to rank among the top 40 donors. This year the threshold is at least $25 million US.

The two parties are raising money in different ways. According to the Federal Election Commission, Democratic House and Senate candidates have raised more than $906 million US, against more than $420 million US for Republican candidates. All of the top 10 Senate fundraisers are Democrats, as are eight of the top 10 in House races. In the 10 battleground Senate races, Democratic campaigns raised more than five times as much as Republican ones, according to Politico.

Outside groups tell the opposite story. Washington Post calculations show Republican-leaning donors have given $1.7 billion US, compared with $832 million US from Democratic-leaning givers. In Texas, groups backing Paxton have spent about $239 million US, more than five times what the largest Democratic-aligned groups have spent, Reuters reported. Musk is the largest individual donor at $446 million US of his own money. Alex Keena of Virginia Commonwealth University summed it up this way: "The Republicans are kind of the party of billionaires and the Democrats are the party of millionaires."

Some observers doubt the Republican money edge will translate into votes. Heerwig noted that "there are only a handful of billionaires who will cast ballots but millions of small-dollar donors." Schatzinger said the strength of small-donor giving points to more energy in the Democratic base than the Republican one.

Whether the spending works is also in question. AdImpact estimates campaigns are spending about $5.6 billion US on broadcast television and around $1.6 billion US on digital platforms including Facebook, Google, Snapchat and X. Keena said his read of the evidence is that it will not really affect race outcomes, and he questioned how many voters broadcast ads still reach. Schatzinger said studies often show ad effects fade within a week. In Texas, Republicans have spent millions on negative ads against Talarico, yet polls show a very tight race, with Talarico possibly holding a small lead in a state that has not had a Democratic senator in over 30 years.

Schatzinger pointed to cost-of-living worries and President Donald Trump's record low approval ratings as a tough backdrop for advertisers. "Money can buy you the megaphone, but you can't really buy the national mood," he said. Todd Belt of George Washington University said Republicans appear to be panicking: "They don't have the message. They don't have the policies. They have the money." He called the election an "amazing natural experiment" to see whether money can outspend the economy and voters' policy interests.