State elections the year after a presidential contest are often seen as bellwethers for which party has momentum. This year’s elections were likely trendsetters in another respect: Several races broke spending records. Since the beginning of the Citizens United era, election spending has boomed, with money from the biggest donors accounting for most of the increase. The trend is only likely to continue going up.
Overall spending records fell in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. California and New York City broke records for independent expenditures. It’s a sign that the costs of elections continue to rise even in state and local races, fueled by big money from all over the country and a sense of high stakes even for offices not typically thought of as nationally significant.
New Jersey’s gubernatorial race was the most expensive in the state’s history. Final totals are not yet in, but the cost is likely to exceed $200 million. Polls showed a tight race, although Democrat Mikie Sherrill won by a comfortable margin in the end. The prior spending record was set in 2005 and amounted to $144 million, adjusted for inflation. Since this year’s major candidates participated in a public financing system that capped their spending, the biggest factor was independent spending by super PACs, including several national groups.
Virginia was the only other state with a gubernatorial election this year. At $102 million, it was the second-most expensive in the state’s history. But the state’s attorney general contest was the real standout: costing $40 million, it was the most expensive attorney general election not just in Virginia, but in U.S. history. National Republican groups invested heavily in the race in October, after a scandal erupted over revelations that Democratic candidate Jay Jones had sent texts with violent language. Nevertheless, Jones went on to win.
In Pennsylvania, retention elections for three of the seven state supreme court justices gave voters the choice to give each justice another 10-year term or oust them. Since all three were in the court’s liberal majority, the elections could have altered the court’s ideological makeup. Heavy spending, expected to surpass $15 million when the final tally is calculated, made it the state’s most expensive retention election. Voters retained all three justices.
California attracted national attention for Proposition 50, a ballot measure that would allow the state legislature to redraw the congressional district map. It’s one battlefield in a mid-decade redistricting war that broke out this year; the proposal amounted to Democratic retaliation for pro-Republican redistricting legislation in Texas. The Prop 50 election was one of the top 10 most expensive ballot elections in California history. Independent spending by groups other than the main ballot campaign committees hit a record high. Overall funding was heavily lopsided in favor of Prop 50, which passed. The committee in support raised so much money so fast that the state’s website struggled to display the amount, and in October, the face of the effort, Gov. Gavin Newsom, told people to stop giving.
Finally, New York City’s mayoral contest saw record-breaking independent expenditures. Although spending by candidates was down compared to the last election, the $65 million in spending by super PACs and other outside groups was nearly double the prior high-water mark. As in New Jersey, the major candidates participated in the city’s public financing system, which rewards candidates for raising small donations from city residents and limits their spending. Big money — including some multimillion-dollar contributions — went to super PACs, which mostly attacked the eventual winner, Democrat Zohran Mamdani.
Nationwide, increases in election spending are coming largely from wealthy donors with an agenda. This year showed that the side with the most money doesn’t always win. And public financing programs like New York City’s can fuel people-powered campaigns regardless of where the big money goes. But frequently both sides have megadonors behind them, raising the question of how much election spenders can influence policymaking by the elected officials who owe them a favor.
