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

Senatorial candidates in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas have spent more than $15 million on digital fundraising ads, with roughly 75% of those campaigns airing nationally rather than locally. This spending occurred during the 2025-26 election cycle. The heavy reliance on out-of-state money is changing how candidates communicate with the public. Instead of focusing on state-specific concerns, many advertisements now emphasize national political themes.

The shift toward national fundraising began with Democrats, who launched the ActBlue platform in 2004. Republicans followed in 2019 with WinRed. These platforms lower the cost of soliciting small donations, making it profitable for candidates to target donors across the country. Zachary Albert, a politics professor at Brandeis University, noted that these tools reduced transaction costs for contributions. He explained that even a $5 or $10 donation is worth soliciting because the digital infrastructure makes the process inexpensive.

This financial strategy influences campaign messaging. Wesleyan Media Project researcher Michael Franz observed that candidates use different talking points for local voters versus national donors. In local television ads, candidates avoid partisan labels to appeal to swing voters. However, in digital ads aimed at out-of-state donors, party identification becomes a central feature. For example, former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown urges donors to help turn his state blue, while Georgia Rep. Mike Collins asks for support to make his seat red.

The reliance on national funds has created a dual audience for candidates. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said candidates must now appeal to local voters and a nationwide donor base. This often leads to polarized messaging in fundraising ads. Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson highlights her America First credentials in her ads, while Sen. Jon Ossoff attacks President Trump directly in his fundraising materials. The Ossoff campaign stated it is powered by small-dollar donors and refuses money from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists.

OpenSecrets data indicates that out-of-state funds for congressional campaigns have risen in every election cycle. Sarah Bryner, a director at Public Agenda, noted that donors in safe states often send money to competitive races. She cited California donors supporting candidates in Georgia or Texas because their home states have predictable outcomes. The Ossoff campaign and the Turek campaign in Iowa both report that more than 80% of their itemized individual contributions came from outside their states.

Some states are attempting to limit this trend. Hawaii will implement a cap on out-of-state donations starting in 2027. Raymond La Raja, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, said national regulation is difficult due to Supreme Court rulings on campaign spending. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of coordinated campaign spending, allowing more out-of-state funds to enter elections. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times as much on advertisements this cycle as it did in the previous midterms.

Researchers suggest fund matching or donor disclosure laws could help localize campaigns. Bryner pointed to Alaska's top donor disclosure law as a model, which requires ads to list the top three donors. Colorado and Virginia have similar rules for online and broadcast advertising. Despite the influx of outside money, Bryner noted that candidates who rely heavily on out-of-state funds, such as Amy McGrath and Beto O'Rourke, have often lost their elections. She emphasized that while money is a factor, voters still make the final decision, and out-of-state donors cannot cast ballots in those states.