Democrats Getting Cover From Republican Spending Surge—Even If They’re Progressive

Democrats want you to know that they need more money. That’s a perennial that could be written any year, but with the battleground expanding seemingly by the day in this midterm, that’s been stressed even more. Gubernatorial candidates are worried that Democrats are under-investing in gubernatorial races; longshot Senate candidates are worried that Democrats are under-investing in Senate races; House members are worried that Democrats are trying to win too many House races and are stretching themselves thin.

It’s important to recognize the nature of this special pleading. Many of the sources, on and off the record, demanding that Democrats spend more money in certain races would be poised to personally benefit if that happened, through media placement of television advertising. I guess “make me rich” isn’t as potent a pitch as “help these poor Democrats win.”

We’ve seen the diminishing role of money in politics this cycle, and how outside money can even turn toxic. This Republican spending advantage may be overwhelming, but it hasn’t really shown up in the polls. And since much of that GOP spending is pushed through outside super PACs and outside groups are charged far more per ad, the cash advantage doesn’t necessarily even translate into a major advertising advantage. Democrats have specialized more in direct donations to candidates, with $833 million going through fundraising platform ActBlue in the third quarter of the year, a new record. That money stretches further; to use one example from AdImpact, a 44 percent advantage in raw dollars on TV in the Texas Senate race translates to only an 8 percent advantage in ad airings.

All that said, while money may not have the same potency, Democrats in tight races do need some cover from inevitable attacks. And in past years, there’s been concern over whether progressive candidates who defeat establishment opponents in primaries for toss-up races will get the same attention in the general election as their moderate counterparts. But those fears are not coming to reality this year.

There’s definitely still behind-the-scenes griping. Puck News got anonymous consultants to designate the four “worst Democratic candidates of 2026,” and predictably all of them were progressives who beat more moderate challengers in primaries. One of these, Will Lawrence, who is running against incumbent Rep. Tom Barrett in Michigan’s 7th district, provides an instructive example, both for the money being piled on against him and for the backing he’s getting from the party anyway, regardless of the haters.

A local report has termed the 7th District race the second most-expensive House race in America; that included the primary, but even without that, Punchbowl put the race at number four, with over $35 million spent thus far.

According to figures from the Federal Election Commission, Inside Track, and AdImpact, total outside money that has been spent and reserved against Lawrence in this House race is currently at about $14.6 million. The GOP spending comes from seven different groups. The Congressional Leadership Fund, the House Republican leadership’s super PAC, has already spent more than $4.4 million on broadcast and digital ads, and has another $6.4 million planned. The National Republican Congressional Committee has jumped in with another $1.2 million, and a little more ($41,000) reserved. 

The Club for Growth has deployed $229,000 in broadcast ads and another $238,000 in digital. Two super PACs controlled by Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. have spent or plan to spend here as well. Safety and Affordability PAC has promised $1.5 million in broadcast ad money, and No Going Back PAC has done about $100,000 in direct mail and texting. Finally, there’s Elon Musk’s America PAC (around $100,000 on digital, texting, and mailers) and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (over $200,000 on media and mailers). One of the Americans for Prosperity mailers can be seen here.

None of this counts the direct money going to Barrett, who has raised $6.3 million this cycle as of mid-July. $1.7 million of that comes from large contributions and another $1.4 million from corporate PAC contributions, according to Open Secrets. That includes, among others, donations from health care giant McKesson, Marathon Oil, Phillips 66, Valero, BNSF Railway, FedEx, American Airlines, the American Bankers Association, tractor manufacturer John Deere, seed monopoly Dow, military contractor Lockheed Martin, local utility giant DTE Energy, Koch Industries, Walmart, Oracle, and a $2,500 donation from AI frontier model maker Anthropic.

Those last two are predictable given Lawrence’s leadership as an opponent of AI data centers, calling for a moratorium on them as well as a pause on advanced AI development until a comprehensive regulatory framework can be passed.

Up against that wall of cash, you could imagine a Democratic establishment with a lot of targets on the board being influenced by rather baseless whispers about Lawrence being a “bad candidate” and slinking away from the fight. That is not what has happened.

Punchbowl calculates that Lawrence has benefited from $14.9 million of investment in the race, compared to $17.7 million for Barrett. That is not exact parity, but it’s close. It includes at least $2.4 million from House Majority PAC, the House Democratic leadership’s super PAC, millions on hybrid ads between Lawrence and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee like this one, and a couple million from other outside groups.

Read more from David Dayen: Will Lawrence Is Upending Conventional Wisdom on How to Win Congressional Districts

This is a pattern seen in other races with progressives in swing seats. According to figures compiled by The Downballot, two of the top five races for spending from House Majority PAC are Lawrence’s and the race in California’s 22nd District featuring progressive Randy Villegas. (Adding in overall spending, Villegas is receiving $3 million more in party funds than his opponent, Rep. David Valadao.) In Maine’s 2nd District, over $2 million has been spent on Matt Dunlap, virtually the same as much as Republicans have spent on their candidate, Paul LePage, in a district Donald Trump won by almost double digits. Both Villegas and Dunlap beat DCCC-backed candidates in their primaries.

In the Senate races Democrats are getting swamped, but Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed is still receiving significant support from Democratic groups, above every Senate Democratic candidate this year except for Sherrod Brown, another progressive, in Ohio. In this election cycle that is so unfavorable to Republicans, just getting enough backup from the party to get close can go a long way.

Asked about the numbers, Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee responded, “The final few weeks will matter a lot, but so far so good.” It’s true that there’s still time for this to reverse. But at least so far for the Democratic leadership, discrete issue positions are not affecting investment decisions as much as whether a candidate can win. And after Lawrence’s debate performance, his willingness to engage in conservative communities, and his strong branding on the key issues of this election season, it’s clear that Democratic leaders think he’s met that test. For all the talk of a rupture between progressive and moderate factions in the Democratic Party, it’s not showing up in the critical decisions made about where to invest campaign dollars.