Out-of-state donors drive $15 million in Senate fundraising ads

Voters in four competitive Senate races are seeing a split in candidate messaging. An analysis of Google Ads for campaigns in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas shows that candidates spent more than $15 million on fundraising-related advertising during the 2025-26 cycle. Approximately 75 percent of that spending went to ads aired nationally rather than within the state borders.

The funding structure for these races has shifted heavily toward external sources. For Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff and Iowa Democratic nominee Josh Turek, more than 80 percent of itemized individual contributions came from outside their states. This trend is not limited to Democrats. The flow of money has affected at least four of the key Senate contests, where a majority of the funds now originate from outside the state.

Digital platforms are the primary engine for this fundraising shift. ActBlue and WinRed, two major grassroots platforms, allow candidates to solicit small donations with low transaction costs. Zachary Albert, a professor of politics at Brandeis University, noted that these tools make it worthwhile to chase contributions of just $5 or $10. He stated that the costs of soliciting these small amounts are far lower than in the past, encouraging candidates to rely on digital ads to reach a national audience.

Candidates often use two distinct sets of talking points depending on the audience. In local television ads, candidates avoid using party labels to appeal to swing voters. In national digital ads, however, the party label becomes central. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown uses ads to call for turning his state blue, while Georgia Representative Mike Collins asks donors to help turn his state's seat red. Iowa Representative Ashley Hinson highlights her America First credentials, and Ossoff directly attacks President Trump in his fundraising appeals.

The disparity in fundraising infrastructure dates back nearly two decades. Democrats launched ActBlue in 2004, building a system for grassroots donations. Republicans launched WinRed in 2019. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, explained that candidates now appeal to two different groups. They compete for votes against local opponents but compete for dollars against other prominent candidates nationwide. He noted that this creates a dynamic where candidates must please a local voter base and a nationwide donor base simultaneously.

Out-of-state funding has risen every election cycle, according to OpenSecrets. Sarah Bryner, a director at Public Agenda, said donors in one-party states often send funds to competitive races. She cited examples of California donors supporting candidates in Georgia or Texas because their home states are considered safe. Bryner observed that money in politics remains a factor, but she noted that voters ultimately make the final decision. She pointed out that candidates who rely heavily on out-of-state funds, such as Amy McGrath and Beto O'Rourke, have often lost their races.

Regulators are considering ways to limit the influence of outside money. Hawaii will implement a cap on out-of-state donations starting in 2027. Raymond La Raja, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, suggested fund matching as a national model, using New York City as an example. He proposed matching local donations with public funds to incentivize candidates to focus on constituent issues. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of coordinated campaign spending, a decision that allows for more out-of-state funds to be spent in elections. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times as much on advertisements this cycle compared to the previous midterms.