Senate Candidates Pour $15 Million Into Out-of-State Fundraising Ads

Democratic and Republican candidates in four competitive Senate races spent more than $15 million on fundraising advertisements during the 2025-26 election cycle. An analysis of Google Ads in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas revealed that approximately 75 percent of this expenditure targeted audiences outside the candidates' home states. This spending strategy relies on digital platforms that facilitate small-dollar contributions from a national donor base.

The shift toward national fundraising has been driven by the low cost of digital solicitation. Zachary Albert, a politics professor at Brandeis University, noted that platforms like ActBlue and WinRed lowered transaction costs for contributions. He explained that even small gifts of $5 or $10 became profitable for campaigns because the cost to solicit those donors dropped significantly compared to previous methods.

Candidates have adapted their messaging to appeal to these external donors. Wesleyan Media Project researcher Michael Franz observed that local TV ads avoid party labels to attract swing voters, while digital ads aimed at out-of-state viewers frequently emphasize party identity. For example, former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown urges viewers to turn his state blue, while Georgia Representative Mike Collins asks supporters to help turn his state red. Iowa Representative Ashley Hinson promotes her America First credentials in similar national spots.

This approach contrasts with local campaign strategies. Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff and Iowa candidate Josh Turek have received more than 80 percent of their itemized individual contributions from out of state. The Ossoff campaign stated it is powered by small-dollar donors and refuses money from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists. Other campaigns in the four states either declined to comment or did not respond to interview requests.

Political science experts attribute this trend to changing campaign finance laws and the homogenization of party platforms. Daniel Hopkins, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said candidates now appeal to two distinct groups: local voters and national donors. He noted that while Ossoff competes against Georgia Republicans for votes, he competes against other prominent Democratic candidates for donations.

Historically, Democrats relied on out-of-state funds due to weaker local financing in states like Ohio and Michigan. The party launched ActBlue in 2004, nearly 15 years before Republicans introduced WinRed in 2019. Sarah Bryner of Public Agenda explained that donors in solidly partisan states like California often send funds to competitive states like Georgia or Texas to influence outcomes.

Regulatory efforts to limit these funds face constitutional hurdles. Hawaii will cap out-of-state donations starting in 2027, but national regulation remains difficult following a June Supreme Court ruling that favored coordinated campaign spending. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times more on advertisements than in the previous midterms. Researchers suggest fund matching or top donor disclosure laws as potential methods to refocus campaigns on local issues.

Despite the influx of external money, experts question its impact on election results. Bryner pointed to candidates like Amy McGrath and Beto O'Rourke who outraised their opponents with out-of-state funds but lost their races. She argued that voters remain the final decision-makers and that external donors cannot cast ballots in the candidate's state.