Senate Republican spending is heavily concentrated in just a handful of races — a distribution that doesn’t reflect the reality of the battleground map.
That dynamic is the result of poor fundraising among some key candidates and the party’s dependence on fickle major donors to bridge the gap. The playing field is ripe with inviting targets, but the advertising from the Republican Party and its allies is heavily skewed rather than spread across them. And some of the places where they’re more involved aren’t the most obvious pick-up options.
Instead, a combination of the strengths and weaknesses of individual candidates, donor preferences and targeting of special interests has created a deeply uneven playing field and a clear picture of a party that has fallen badly behind in individual fundraising.
Among the differences:
-
Republicans and their allies are spending more money in a single state, Pennsylvania, than in Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona combined.
-
In fact, the Republican Party is spending 2.3 times as much to help former hedge fund CEO Dave McCormick oust a strong Democratic incumbent in Pennsylvania as it is in Michigan, another purple state with an open seat.
-
More money is going toward defending Sen. Ted Cruz’s seat in Texas, which is in play but not in serious danger, than in three Senate races in presidential battlegrounds.
-
In Arizona, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) alone spends more than all Republican advertisers, including outside groups, combined.
-
GOP super PACs and mega-donors are pouring more money into former Gov. Larry Hogan’s upside bid for the Senate in blue-leaning Maryland than into Sun Belt targets.
National Republicans would like to seriously contest all eight of their offensive battlegrounds, and party leaders had no intention of creating such a grossly unequal map. But races don’t just attract money based on how winnable they are.
“In the case of McCormick and Hogan, there are personal reasons why they attract the kind of outside spending that they do,” said Scott Jennings, a longtime adviser to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. For example, “I know this person, or I like the kind of politics Larry Hogan represents.”
Both parties are still pouring in money in the final weeks of the campaign, and a top Senate GOP PAC has pledged millions of dollars in recent days to help close the divide in the Midwest. Price-to-air advertising fluctuates widely from state to state, and Pennsylvania is among the most expensive, which justifies some of the high price tag there.
Still, the shocking differences could have a major impact on Republicans’ success in November – and raise questions about the size of the majority they are aiming for.
Republicans only need to flip two seats to guarantee control of the Senate, and they already have one, West Virginia, in their pocket. Their main targets, the red states of Montana and Ohio, are fully funded: there is virtually no airtime left for super PACs in Montana. In Ohio, Republican Bernie Moreno’s allies are already spending more than $40 million on Democrats, thanks in part to a $30 million investment by a crypto industry super PAC.
If Republicans can win either of these seats, and oust Senator Jon Tester in Montana or Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, control of the Senate is almost certainly theirs. But they entered the cycle eager to topple a slew of other battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada — all places where Donald Trump is contesting and energizing the GOP base. They even landed a top recruit who single-handedly put Maryland in the game.
But in some key states, Democratic spending has been overwhelming.
Particularly in Nevada and Arizona, the Republican Party is running a spending deficit of more than two to one, and some party members are privately feeling increasingly bleak about their prospects. And the donor dollars flowing to a blue state like Maryland or to a veteran incumbent like Sen. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania underscore the discrepancy between donor preferences toward candidates and other states that may be more likely to turn around.
“Donors do not think like political strategists. They think like donors. And they’re trying to shape where the party is going,” said a Republican official involved in Senate races who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about financial motivations.
Pennsylvania: Republican money is being poured into helping a former hedge fund CEO oust a troublesome incumbent president
Pennsylvania, a highly competitive swing state, was always going to be a top Senate race.
And McCormick was a prized recruit to the Republican Party. As the former CEO of one of the largest hedge funds in the world, he has impeccable connections in the financial sector. He helped some of the party’s donors grow their wealth during his time on Wall Street, and now they’re giving him a big boost.
His allies started a super PAC, Keystone Renewal, funded by a nearly comprehensive list of GOP megadonors, from the Ricketts to the DeVoses to the Uihleins. As of Oct. 2, it had spent more than $42 million on the Senate race.
Meanwhile, the Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP super PAC closely aligned with McConnell, is spending more than $45 million on ads for McCormick. The outside spending has brought pro-McCormick advertising in the state to a massive $113 million from Labor Day to Election Day.
By comparison, Democrats collectively spent $81.6 million during that period, of which $21 million came from Casey’s campaign.
Republicans know McCormick will need every possible minute of advertising to get his message across crowded and expensive airwaves during a presidential election year in Pennsylvania.
Casey, the son of a former governor, has won six statewide elections in his career. He was first elected to the Senate in 2006 and won his three races by double digits or close. Even some Republicans acknowledge he is “political royalty” in the state and will be difficult to beat.
“Casey is hard to beat. I’ve known him for 30 years,” said Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.). Casey could be swept up by his association with national Democrats, he said, but McCormick will still need as much money as he can muster: “Other than that, he’s a really nice guy, and that’s how Pennsylvania sees him. So Dave has to do really well to win.”
Sun Belt: Democrats are drowning Republicans in TV spending, and it’s even worse than it seems at first glance
Other states that on paper seem like better offensive targets than Pennsylvania have received only a small portion of that kind of spending.
Take Nevada: First-term Sen. Jacky Rosen and her allies are outspending Republican Sam Brown and his supporters more than 2:1 as of Labor Day, $45 million to $19 million. Brown has booked just $3 million in ad buys for his campaign, compared to Rosen’s $12.5 million.
Hidden behind the overall TV spending figures is an even worse reality for Republicans in many states.
Candidates can buy TV advertising time at cheaper rates, sometimes at significant discounts, than super PACs or outside groups. But most Republican candidates raise far less money and rely heavily on super PACs to close the gap — meaning much of the pro-GOP spending is far less efficient, seen by fewer voters for every dollar spent .
Democratic Senate candidates have raised huge sums of money that they can then put on the air. In Ohio, Brown announced last week that he brought in $30.6 million in the third quarter. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, who is running for Michigan’s open seat, brought in $18 million. Gallego has raised more than $21 million in Arizona.
Gallego’s campaign alone has spent or set aside nearly $25 million as of Labor Day, part of a stunning advertising gap: Democrats have posted $65.7 million, and Republican Kari Lake and her allies have just $23 million.
“It kind of shows you where the political market thinks this race is going,” Kirk Adams, a Republican former speaker of the Arizona State House, said of the lack of spending by GOP groups. “The real metric to look at is the money they put into Arizona versus the money they put into other contested races. And that probably tells your story there.”
Lake, who ran a fire-and-brimstone MAGA-focused race for governor in 2022, has not endeared himself to some key names in the GOP establishment.
“Republicans here locally are more optimistic about almost every other race, including legislative races,” Adams said. “That optimism does not include the Senate race.”
Maryland: Republican donors are pouring money into an uphill battle
Hogan’s bid in the Maryland Senate is among the most supported, with $30 million in GOP TV spending after Labor Day. The Democrats are at $17 million.
Hogan’s air dominance is made possible by Maryland’s Future super PAC, which is rich in cash from many of the same names that spawned McCormick’s PAC. That group has lost more than $19 million in advertising to date.
That means more GOP dollars are being spent in Maryland, a state that Joe Biden won by more than 30 points in 2020, than in the presidential battlegrounds of Nevada or Arizona.
“You see opportunities there in Maryland that I think are real,” said Senator Thom Tilis (R-N.C.). “I think it’s smart. They look at analytics and make decisions that are the right decisions so far.”
Other Republicans are also leaning on tailor-made super PACs created to help them, though Hogan’s and McCormick’s are better funded. Tim Sheehy in Montana and former Rep. Mike Rogers in Michigan also have dedicated outside groups supporting their Senate bids. That gives donors the ability to cut back on big checks to help a specific candidate, but it also means less control for groups like the Senate Leadership Fund, which is intended as a party clearinghouse and can direct resources more strategically across the country.
“The decentralization of Republican fundraising is a real thing that is happening, and it will happen even more in the next cycle,” said a Republican strategist involved in Senate races, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “It encourages candidates to build their own ecosystems.”
