'Dark money' floods US midterm elections: five groups spent more than $1 billion

Record spending outside party structures

Just over a week before Election Day, records have been broken in America's traditionally expensive electoral system. An AFP analysis of federal data shows that just five groups — super PACs (political action committees) — accounted for nearly a third of all outside spending in this election cycle as of October 25, pouring in more than $1 billion.

A tilt toward the Republicans

Three of the five groups are Republican-oriented, and about two-thirds of the billion spent will benefit the Republican Party (GOP). The spending is fueled by ultra-wealthy donors who lean Republican, among them Elon Musk, a key ally of President Donald Trump. According to AFP, Musk alone directed nearly $450 million to Republican groups, including the largest super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund. At the same time, Democrats retain an advantage in direct donations to candidate campaigns and national party committees: Democratic candidates in competitive Senate and House races consistently outraised their Republican opponents, which, in AFP's assessment, points to strong motivation among small donors from the Democratic base.

The legal framework: limits for people, freedom for PACs

America's convoluted election law imposes strict limits on donations from private individuals: direct contributions to a candidate's official campaign are capped at $3,500, and donations to national party committees at $44,300. Super PACs face virtually no limits — or any real oversight. The six biggest players of the cycle are formally a mix of super PACs and hybrid PACs — structures that did not exist before 2010. They grew out of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which held that the government cannot restrict political spending by corporations, unions and other groups as long as it is spent independently of candidates. A subsequent lower-court decision allowed these organizations to raise unlimited sums from donors. As a result, major donors can channel vast sums into influencing elections and remain anonymous by giving through intermediary organizations.

Where the money goes

Across the country, super PACs are directing significantly more money into Senate races and spending it mostly on attack advertising. The biggest spending has come in the Texas Senate race: Democrat James Talarico, seeking to become the first Democrat to win a Senate election in that state since 1988, has faced more than $200 million in opposition from outside groups. In second place is the special Senate election in Ohio, where Democrat Sherrod Brown, attempting to return to the Senate, has also faced massive outside spending against him — nearly $170 million. Jen Herwig, an associate professor of sociology at Stony Brook University (SUNY), notes that the flood of negative advertising is typical: super PACs mostly produce negative content, doing the 'dirty work' of attacking their candidates' opponents. At the same time, she says, money alone does not guarantee victory: even in races where super PACs spend hundreds of millions of dollars, it is unclear what this will 'buy' without mass support for the candidate in a given jurisdiction. Constant negativity, she adds, 'feeds our sense of frustration and low confidence and trust in the institutions that govern us.'

Why it matters

Record super PAC spending with almost no oversight of their funding means that the outcome of the midterm elections increasingly depends on a narrow circle of ultra-wealthy donors able to act anonymously — even though ordinary voters' direct donations are capped at $3,500. This directly affects voters in states with competitive Senate races, above all Texas and Ohio, where hundreds of millions of dollars in attack advertising have already been funneled into the campaigns. A practical takeaway for observers: when assessing candidates' chances, one should factor in the gap between Democratic party fundraising and outside Republican infusions, since, as Herwig notes, money does not guarantee victory without mass support.