In Top Senate Races, Parties Spend to a Tie

The midterms are over, and Democrats won control of both houses of Congress by decisive margins. Throughout the election cycle, GOP candidates benefited from record-breaking super PAC spending, which has led some observers to conclude that Democrats won despite being massively outspent. But early spending data from key Senate races tells a different story. In these races, the parties largely spent to a tie.

The GOP had a decisive advantage among top super PAC donors who gave tens of millions of dollars or more, but Democratic candidates in key races were able to keep pace through their own unprecedented fundraising from thousands of traditional donors, who can legally give up to $7,000 per election cycle. GOP candidates tended to have far fewer of these donors, leaving the two parties relatively evenly matched in the end.

Across the 13 most expensive Senate contests, 49 percent of spending favored Democrats and Nebraska’s independent candidate, who Democrats supported. Democrats outspent Republicans in five of these races, including some with the biggest shifts toward Democrats from Trump’s 2024 vote share, like Georgia, Kansas, and North Carolina. Democrats outspent or kept within 10 percentage points of the GOP in 9 of the top 13 races. The lowest Democratic share of spending in these races was 40 percent.

Democrats won all these races except Florida and Nebraska. Alaska has yet to be called.

In addition to the most expensive races, there were surprisingly tight results in two other contests, Louisiana and Mississippi. In Louisiana, 41 percent of spending favored the Democratic candidate, who narrowly lost. Mississippi is at the other end of the spectrum: 73 percent of spending favored the Democrat, who won by several thousand votes.

The most striking difference between GOP and Democratic candidates was less often in how much was spent on their behalf than where the money was coming from. In 10 of the 13 most expensive contests, the Democratic candidate’s main campaign committee (as opposed to aligned super PACs) outspent its Republican counterpart, sometimes decisively. Democratic campaigns outspent Republican ones by a margin of more than three to one in Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas. GOP candidates in these races often made up the difference through super PACs.

In Texas, for example, Democratic candidate James Talarico spent $136 million, dwarfing Republican Ken Paxton’s $18 million. But pro-Paxton super PAC expenditures hit $324 million — driven by more than $200 million donated by Elon Musk — far more than the $145 million pro-Talarico super PAC total. Similarly, in Ohio, Democrat Sherrod Brown’s campaign committee outspent Republican Jon Husted, $64 million to $16 million. But pro-Husted independent spending of $264 million overshadowed the pro-Brown $159 million.

This difference in strategies may confer advantages beyond what the comparative spending totals reveal. When it comes to ad buys, candidates’ money is more valuable. Under Federal Communications Commission rules, candidate committees can buy broadcast TV and radio ads at significantly lower rates than super PACs, meaning that pro-Republican super PACs got fewer ad spots per dollar this year than Democratic campaigns. Recent legal changes making it easier for candidates to work through national party committees may affect this dynamic in the future, but in this cycle, parties represented a relatively small portion of total spending.

Routing spending through their own campaigns also ensures candidates have direct control over spending strategies, rather than having to choreograph the activities of putatively independent groups — although weak laws and enforcement allow extensive coordination with supportive super PACs.

On the other hand, traditional campaign fundraising tends to be expensive because of the need to reach many more donors than super PACs need to reach. This can reduce the buying power of candidate funds.

This midterm cycle is likely to break the record for the most spending on advertising of any election. Much of that was driven by these Senate races, with $624 million spent in Texas, $538 million in Ohio, and $405 million in Michigan.

The full picture of spending in the 2026 election won’t emerge until committees make their final disclosures to the Federal Election Commission in January. According to an OpenSecrets analysis of disclosures available so far from across the entire midterm cycle, Democrats outspent Republicans by $5.5 billion to $5.1 billion. This and the evidence from the key Senate races show Democrats managed to avoid a big spending disparity as they took control of Congress.