Big Money Breaks Records, Boosts GOP: 5 Things to Know About the Midterms

As the 2026 election enters its final stretch, super PAC and dark money spending is breaking records, with hundreds of millions of dollars coming from big donors connected to the AI, crypto, finance, and other industries looking to shape government policy. This midterm cycle has seen the biggest giving by any donor in modern history, with Elon Musk reportedly spending at least $366 million to elect Republicans. 

More than in any midterm since 2010’s Citizens United, the biggest donors are tilting toward one party — the GOP. Republicans also have a big advantage so far in spending by the national parties, which, thanks to Supreme Court rulings, have far more leeway this year to spend in close cooperation with candidates.

All of this is unfolding with effectively no regulatory oversight, as the Federal Election Commission has now gone more than a year without a quorum. At the same time, public anger over the role of money is boiling over, with both parties campaigning on promises to fight corruption if they win.

Here are five things to know about how money is shaping this unprecedented election cycle.

Megadonor-funded super PACs and dark money are breaking records.

Independent expenditures from super PACs and other groups reached a record-breaking $2 billion through the end of September, a 51 percent increase over the last midterm cycle in inflation-adjusted numbers. Super PACs rely almost entirely on donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars or more from a handful of megadonors.

These groups are supposed to operate independently from candidates, but that separation is increasingly a legal fiction, with candidates and outside groups now often working hand-in-glove. In one of the most brazen examples, President Trump has repeatedly referred to the hundreds of millions raised by his super PAC, MAGA Inc., as “his” money and made no secret he controls it.

Who is supplying all this money? The biggest super PAC donors make their money in tech, finance, and gambling. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, has already given at least $366 million to help the GOP so far this election, according to information Musk’s team provided to The New York Times. That amount breaks Musk’s own record as the biggest donor ever (the $290 million he gave in 2024), as well as the prior record for a midterm ($179 million given by financier George Soros in 2022).

According to FEC data covering donations through June, other top donors include venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, who invest in tech startups in artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, defense, gaming, and the like, with $115 million given to boost Republicans. Financier George Soros and his family have given $103 million to support Democrats. They are trailed closely by hedge fund mogul and TikTok investor Jeff Yass, packaging supplies magnates (and past supporters of the election denial movement) Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, and casino owner Miriam Adelson, all of whom support Republicans.

A significant amount of this early super PAC spending has gone to shape intraparty primary contests. For instance, two leading AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, have directed more than $55 million to primary races for seats that are unlikely to change party hands in support of candidates aligned with each company’s agenda.

Dark money — spending by groups that hide their donors — is also on course to break records, with more than $1 billion already infused into the 2026 elections, according to The New York Times. Much of this money gets funneled through super PACs, including those with close ties to elected leaders. For instance, super PACs tied to both parties’ leadership in the House and Senate raised $198 million through their dark money affiliates as of the end of June, more than ever before.

These totals are almost certainly not the full picture. Increasingly, super PACs and others seek to influence voters through online spending, which is often not covered by campaign disclosure rules. For instance, media reports suggest that groups are spending significant amounts of money on paid influencers. These payments are easy to hide on campaign finance reports and the influencers themselves do not have to disclose who is paying them.

The biggest money heavily favors Republicans.

More than ever since Citizens United, the biggest spenders — which rely the most on megadonor funding — strongly prefer Republicans. Among the top 20 highest-spending groups, accounting for half of the independent expenditures this cycle, reported Republican spending is more than double that of Democrats. In 2014, the parties were nearly tied in spending by those top groups, but the Republican advantage has steadily risen since

Part of the GOP advantage comes from groups affiliated with Trump. A super PAC affiliated with a president has never before been a major player in midterms. In the last few weeks, MAGA Inc. and No Going Back Inc. (another group reportedly controlled by Trump) have spent more than $150 million to help congressional Republicans.

The impact of all this spending remains to be seen. The Washington Post recently reported that Republicans’ half-billion dollar spending blitz since the summer does not appear to have moved the polls. But super PAC activity is typically concentrated in the final weeks of the campaign, so its full impact is still unclear.

The GOP is benefiting from a major change in party spending limits.

Since Citizens United, the congressional party committees have made major independent expenditures, more than $100 million per cycle. Early on, Democrats significantly outspent Republicans in this category, although the parties were spending to a tie by 2022. This year, due to legal changes, the parties are making no independent expenditures at all. They have shifted to spending in coordination with their candidates, and the change has so far been entirely to the advantage of Republicans.

This shift can be traced to a June Supreme Court decision, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, which struck down limits on the amounts parties could spend in coordination with candidates. Now candidates in competitive races can outsource significant parts of their campaigns to the national parties, which can accept donations many times higher than individual candidates. Thanks to another Supreme Court ruling, these party efforts benefit from the same highly favorable Federal Communications Commission–mandated advertising rates that candidates receive (and from which super PACs are excluded).

The Senate GOP has aggressively taken advantage of these changes, spending $48 million in coordination with its candidates by the end of August. That makes up the lion’s share of the $63 million in coordinated expenditures this cycle from all four congressional committees. In fact, the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s spending alone is three times higher than all four committees’ combined expenditures at the end of August 2022.

Interestingly, the increase in party spending has so far not diminished the parties’ reliance on affiliated super PACs, which have only accelerated their own spending. These groups, each with ties to Democratic or Republican leadership in the House or Senate, have increased their spending by a factor of 10 since 2014. Together, they spent $494 million through September. Most of that ($280 million) came from two groups with ties to the Senate GOP — the Senate Leadership Fund PAC, known as SLF PAC, and Texas PAC — which is more than SLF PAC spent on independent expenditures for the entire 2022 cycle.

The FEC is not policing this activity.

Even as spending skyrockets, the agency in charge of enforcing the campaign finance laws is missing. The Federal Election Commission has lacked a quorum for most of this election cycle, rendering it unable to conduct investigations, issue penalties, or make new rules.

Currently only two of six seats on the commission are occupied. Most of the vacancies happened when commissioners moved on after their terms ended, and the president never nominated a replacement. One resulted from Trump summarily firing a Democratic commissioner, raising the specter of a president politicizing the agency and making it a tool of partisan politics.

Big money is a top campaign issue.

Big spending is not just influencing the midterms — it’s also becoming a central issue on the campaign trail. Polling shows that Americans are furious about corruption. Nine in ten voters say that government prioritizing the interests of billionaires and big corporations is corrupt, and majorities of both parties blame campaign donations. With tech interests like AI, cryptocurrency, and Elon Musk rivaling party-affiliated groups in spending, voters are right to worry that wealthy business interests are trying to buy favorable policies.

Candidates from both parties have sought to leverage these concerns in their messaging. Leading Democratic Senate candidates have called to get money out of politics and curb the influence of billionaire megadonors. Republican candidates have also attacked Democrats for taking money from special interests. Both parties’ ads also take on corruption more generally, accusing opponents of profiting from government service in their businesses or stock trades, or traveling on the dime of special interests. With both parties campaigning hard on corruption this year, the big question for after the election is whether their campaign rhetoric will translate into concrete action.

The role of money in elections is also directly on the ballot in several states. In August, more than 70 percent of Alaskans voted for a measure that would restore campaign contribution limits to the state after courts struck down a prior law. This fall, Michigan votes on an initiative to prohibit utilities and state contractors from contributing to campaigns, Montana votes on whether to revoke the right of corporations doing business in the state to spend money on elections, and California will decide whether to allow the state and local governments to establish their own public financing programs.