Out-of-State Donors Fund Over $15 Million in Senate Ad Campaigns

Digital fundraising ads in four key Senate races cost candidates more than $15 million in the 2025-26 election cycle.

An analysis of Google Ads for the contests in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas reveals that approximately three-quarters of this spending targeted audiences outside the candidates' home states. The advertisements frequently feature national issues, such as the presidency or the control of the Senate, rather than local policy priorities. For specific candidates, including Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff and Iowa Democratic nominee Josh Turek, itemized individual contributions from out-of-state donors account for more than 80% of their fundraising totals.

The reliance on external funds has grown steadily over recent election cycles. Democrats established the grassroots platform ActBlue in 2004, while Republicans launched WinRed in 2019. Zachary Albert, a politics professor at Brandeis University, notes that these platforms lower the transaction costs for small contributions. This efficiency makes it viable for campaigns to solicit gifts as small as $5 or $10 from a national audience. As a result, candidates in competitive states often shift their messaging to appeal to a broader, partisan audience rather than local moderates.

Michael Franz of the Wesleyan Media Project explains that this shift changes how candidates present themselves. In local television ads, candidates often avoid using their party label to appeal to swing voters. However, in digital ads targeting out-of-state donors, the party label becomes central. For example, former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown promotes turning his state blue, while Georgia Representative Mike Collins asks donors to help turn his seat red. Iowa Representative Ashley Hinson emphasizes her America First credentials, and Ossoff directly attacks President Trump in his fundraising appeals.

The strategy reflects a dual obligation for modern candidates. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, describes a new era where candidates must satisfy two distinct groups: local voters and a national donor base. When competing for votes, a candidate like Ossoff faces local opposition. When competing for money, he competes for attention against other prominent candidates in his party. This dynamic encourages candidates to align with party platforms to maximize external fundraising.

Sarah Bryner, a director at Public Agenda, observes that donors in states with predictable outcomes often send money to more competitive races. Residents of solidly blue states like California, for instance, may contribute to campaigns in Georgia or Texas to influence outcomes where they cannot vote. This flow of capital allows parties to maintain a national fundraising infrastructure that extends beyond their traditional strongholds.

Regulatory efforts to limit these funds remain limited. Hawaii will cap out-of-state donations starting in 2027, but national regulation is difficult due to Supreme Court rulings on campaign spending. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of coordinated campaign spending, a decision that allows for increased external financial support. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times as much on advertisements in this cycle as it did in the previous midterms.

Experts suggest potential remedies such as fund matching systems, modeled on New York City programs, or donor disclosure laws like those in Alaska and Colorado. These measures aim to incentivize local fundraising and transparency. However, Bryner notes that high out-of-state fundraising does not guarantee electoral success. Candidates like Amy McGrath and Beto O'Rourke raised substantial amounts from outside their states but still lost their races. The current structure of the four major Senate races continues to depend heavily on this nationalized funding stream.