Senate candidates spend $15 million on national fundraising ads

Voters in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas are seeing a different version of their Senate races than the people funding them. An analysis of Google Ads by NPR found that candidates in these four key states spent more than $15 million on fundraising-related advertising during the 2025-26 election cycle. Approximately 75 percent of that expenditure went to ads placed in national markets rather than the candidates' home states.

The shift toward out-of-state fundraising accelerated as digital platforms reduced the cost of soliciting small donations. Zachary Albert, a politics professor at Brandeis University, noted that services like ActBlue and WinRed lowered transaction costs to the point where a $5 or $10 contribution from a distant donor became financially viable for campaigns. This technology allows candidates to tap into a national donor base without the high overhead associated with traditional local fundraising events.

This financial strategy has influenced candidate messaging. Wesleyan Media Project researcher Michael Franz explained that local television ads typically avoid party labels to appeal to swing voters. In contrast, digital ads aimed at out-of-state donors frequently emphasize partisan identity. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who is seeking a return to the Senate, urges supporters to turn his state blue, while Georgia Representative Mike Collins asks donors to help turn his state red. Iowa Representative Ashley Hinson highlights her 'America First' credentials in fundraising ads, whereas Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff directly attacks President Trump.

The reliance on national donors is more pronounced for Democrats in some of these races. For Jon Ossoff in Georgia and Iowa nominee Josh Turek, more than 80 percent of itemized individual contributions have come from outside their respective states. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, described this as a new era where candidates must simultaneously appeal to local voters and a nationwide donor pool. Hopkins noted that when Ossoff competes for votes, his opponent is Georgia Republicans, but when competing for dollars, his competitors are other prominent Democratic candidates.

The trend has implications for how candidates prioritize issues. Oxford University researcher Michael Heseltine observed that while local messaging remains prevalent, candidates are spending increasing energy on national talking points. This approach risks candidates neglecting their specific constituencies in favor of broader partisan narratives. The Ossoff campaign responded to the findings by stating it is powered by small-dollar donors and does not accept money from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists. Other campaigns in the analyzed states declined to comment or did not respond to requests.

Regulatory efforts to limit outside money face constitutional hurdles. Raymond La Raja, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, pointed to a June Supreme Court ruling that favored coordinated campaign spending, which permits greater out-of-state financial influence. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times as much on advertisements this cycle compared to the previous midterms. Some states are attempting local solutions, such as Hawaii's 2027 cap on out-of-state donations and Alaska's requirement to disclose top donors in ads.