Republicans are using their web of political action committees (PACs) and super PACs to funnel more and more money into television ads for politicians in tight races nationwide. But that money isn't translating to success.
Writing for the Washington Monthly on Tuesday, politics editor Bill Scher explained that although GOP campaigns and allied groups have amassed huge sums of money, Democrats have stretched their advertising dollars further because their candidates raise more funds directly and qualify for cheaper broadcast rates.
"Money is rarely the sole factor in determining election outcomes," wrote Scher. "Democrats spent more on Senate campaigns in 2024 and still lost the chamber. But if Republicans hope to hold off a Blue Wave in a midterm when their president’s job approval is cratering, money is their best bet."
He cited a recent report from The Cook Political Report's Amy Walter, who wrote that as of the end of September, both Republicans and Democrats found that "attack ads against Democrats were not yet 'moving the needle.'"
Scher said the GOP's biggest problem is that it's selling a bad product, so increasing marketing spend won't work.
"Voters don’t want to buy more Republican policies that have eaten away at their bank accounts. And when they’re mad about their thinning wallets, as I wrote previously, they are not easily riled up by appeals to transphobia and Islamophobia," he said.
According to AdImpact, Republicans spent $563 million on Senate advertising across nine battlegrounds through September, compared with Democrats’ $375 million. The report said that Republicans’ 26 percent advantage in broadcast spending produced just a 7 percent advantage in actual ad airings. In Texas, a 44 percent spending advantage yielded just 8 percent more ads airing. Democrats received more broadcast airings in Ohio and North Carolina despite spending less.
Therein lies the problem for Republicans: putting all their money into special interest groups rather than into candidates or campaigns.
The difference comes down to who buys the ads. Federal law gives qualified candidates the lowest broadcast advertising rates during the final 60 days before a general election. Whereas super PACs, which cannot legally coordinate with candidates, don't get the same discounted rate. Republicans have relied heavily on organizations such as President Donald Trump's MAGA, Inc., the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund. But Democratic candidates finance more of their own advertising directly.
It was a tactic that was working, until a Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 4. Candidates have had the cheapest possible ad rates, seeing them as almost the price of a public service announcement. Super PACs, by contrast, don't qualify for that. In March, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) changed its policy, saying that the groups could have the same ad rate.
The debate has been fought in court over the past year. In August 2026, the federal appeals court ruled against the new FCC rules. The Supreme Court then stepped in and paused the appeals court ruling, allowing the PACs to have the cheaper rate. That means that by the time the Supreme Court decides on regulating campaign ad costs, the election will likely be over.
The only problem Republicans face now is ensuring they reserved the ad time in advance.
Democrats in North Carolina, Ohio and Texas have either eliminated or mitigated the GOP money advantage. That's not the case in New Hampshire.
"The state where Republicans enjoy the biggest disparity in broadcast ad airings, New Hampshire, has yet to pay off in improved poll numbers. Ads on behalf of Republican John Sununu, a former U.S. Senator, have aired nearly twice of much as those for Democratic nominee Chris Pappas. But Pappas has held leads between five and eight points in polls sampled over the latter half of September," said Scher. "Perhaps because Pappas currently represents half of the state in the U.S. House, he is a familiar enough figure to be inoculated from Republican attacks."
Where it appears to be working is in Maine, where Troy Jackson's "favorability scores in recent polling have been underwater after a blitz of attack ads" from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Scher cited that in the state "61 percent of the ad spending is Republican and 61 percent of the broadcast airtime is Republican."
Jackson simply doesn't have the campaign cash to spend that much, and the Democratic Party isn't swooping in, like the GOP, to attack Collins.
Scher closed by citing recent reports in which Ken Paxton was recorded at a D.C. event complaining that he's never had less control over a race in his life. He said the whole campaign is being run out of Washington, including what issues they're focusing on. That's not happening with his opponent James Talarico. He cautions against complacency, but said that the reporting of Democrats being drowned out by GOP dollars is being overstated.
