Before the election day on November 3rd, one of the last major snapshots of campaign funding was released, and both parties found aspects to their advantage in it. However, the way in which the campaign funds were allocated was quite different; overall, this environment is more favorable to the Democratic Party.

On one side are the Democratic candidates, who have raised far more funds in key districts of the Senate and House of Representatives than their Republican rivals, with a seemingly endless stream of funding coming their way.

On the other hand, the Republican Party still has one ace up their sleeve: an unprecedented influx of funds from external super political action committees (super PAC), supported by a handful of billionaires, led by Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and (SpaceX). Against the backdrop of continuously low support for U.S. President Donald Trump and stubbornly high inflation, this influx of capital may be enough to help the Republican Party weather the worst of the already difficult political environment.

On Thursday, ahead of a key deadline, the United States Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) disclosed in detail the fundraising and spending activities of candidates from July to September, and provided information about many external groups that supported them. Additional details regarding external funding will be released after another round of reporting deadlines next week.

The following are the five points of view of CNBC:

Strong grassroots fundraising by the Democratic Party

If the Democrats want to find a financial basis for the "blue wave," they should first look at the candidates themselves.

Democratic Senate candidates delivered impressive results in the third quarter. James Talarico from Texas ($James Talar token issuance) raised 60.2 million dollars, Jon Ossoff from Georgia ($Jon Ossoff) raised 33.1 million dollars, and Abdul Saeed from Michigan ($Abdul El - Sayed) raised 30.7 million dollars. Sherrod Brown ($Sherrod Brown) raised 23.1 million dollars, Troy Jackson from Maine ($Troy Jackson) raised 20.4 million dollars, Mary Peltoora from Alaska ($Mary Peltola) raised 14.1 million dollars, and Roy Cooper from North Carolina ($Roy Cooper) raised 12.2 million dollars.

Even in the generally red-state of Kansas, Democrat Adam Hamilton (Adam Hamilton) managed to raise 9.4 million dollars.

In several of these campaigns, the Republican numbers were even far behind. Ken Paxton from Texas ($Ken Paxton) raised approximately 10.2 million dollars, Mike Rogers from Michigan ($Mike Rogers) raised 9.7 million dollars, Susan Collins from Maine ($Susan Collins) raised 5.2 million dollars, and Jon Hesterd from Ohio ($Jon Husted) raised 4.8 million dollars.

The funds directly raised by candidates are particularly effective in the final sprint phase, as the campaign teams can decide on the use of these funds autonomously and can obtain lower television advertising rates than super political action committees. In other words, the Republican Party may be able to make up for a $100 fundraising gap with external funding, but the cost of doing so could exceed $100.

This fundraising advantage has also extended to the House of Representatives.

According to the analysis of the FEC filing by CNBC, among the 21 House districts currently rated as "toss-up" in Cook, as of the end of September, Democratic candidates had raised more funds than their Republican opponents in 13 districts. Taking North Carolina's 11th district as an example, Democrat Jamie Agler (Jamie Ager) raised $2.1 million in the third quarter, while Republican Jennifer Balcom (Jennifer Balkcom) raised approximately $313,000.

This surge in fundraising coincides with changes in electoral district boundaries: Amy Walter led by Cook Political Report predicted last week that the Democratic Party could gain 2 to 6 seats in the Senate – enough to bring them closer to a four-seat majority – and 9 to 19 seats in the House of Representatives, thereby flipping control of that chamber.

The Republican Party's "trump card"

Although Democratic candidates have an advantage in direct donations, the Republicans are counterattacking with astonishing external spending.

According to the FEC document, the main super political action committee of the Republican Senate – the Senate Leadership Fund ( Senate Leadership Fund, SLF ) – raised 272.9 million dollars from July to September, which is approximately 122 million dollars more than the corresponding Democratic organization. On the House of Representatives side, the House Leadership Fund ( Congressional Leadership Fund ) raised a record 94.4 million dollars in the third quarter and entered October with 156 million dollars in cash.

This external funding serves as a financial backing for Republican candidates, especially those who are significantly behind in direct fundraising. Texas is the most extreme example: according to the FEC document, SLF transferred $158 million to Super PAC Texas PAC that supports Paxton.

In other places, the Republican Party has pledged to invest $15 million through SLF to retain Senator Pete Rikits ( Pete Ricketts ) in Nebraska. This week, The Wall Street Journal reported that in Alaska, external groups account for about 80% of all advertising purchases, and SLF has spent $14 million to support Senator Dan Sullivan ( Dan Sullivan ).

According to AdImpact data analysis, as of October 9th, this advertising campaign has allowed the Republican Party to maintain an advantage in the advertisements aired in seven out of eight of the most important Senate battles, as well as in 25 out of 42 House of Representatives seats that Cook reports are classified as "toss-up" or "slightly leaning" in favor of the Republican/Democratic Party.

However, despite this advantage, opinion polls have shown almost no significant changes in recent weeks.

Elon Musk steps in for Texas

No donor can exemplify the scale of such external funding advantages – as well as the leverage effect – more than Elon Musk, the world's richest man.

In the third quarter, he invested over $276 million in federal political groups, becoming the largest individual donor known in these mid-term elections. His disclosed donations included a contribution of $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, as well as $89 million to his own America PAC, according to FEC documents.

Most of the funds were designated for a single “rescue mission”: Texas, which is also his primary place of residence and the location of the headquarters of his companies.

On September 9, Musk donated $75 million to SLF, and on September 23, he donated another $83 million. After both donations, SLF transferred an equal amount to Texas PAC the following day. The organization supports Paxton, and as of the end of September, no other donors have been disclosed.

Prior to this, many national Republicans were reluctant to invest resources in Texas' expensive media market, as they were already engaged in multiple battles across the expanding territory of the Senate. Musk has effectively eliminated this dilemma by establishing a dedicated funding firewall for Paxton, without the need to force Republicans to divert resources from other battlegrounds.

Democratic Party's major donors return to the battlefield

For several months, Democrats have been concerned that traditional major donors would be unwilling to continue funding after the 2024 electoral cycle, especially with dramatic presidential election developments taking center stage. The latest reports indicate that these signs of a freeze are beginning to ease—although a large amount of money is still bypassing the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ).

Facebook Co-founder Dustin Moskowitz ( Dustin Moskovitz ) and his wife Kari Tuna ( Cari Tuna ) invested approximately $16 million in the mid-term elections this summer; LinkedIn Co-founder Reid Hoffman ( Reid Hoffman ) also paused donations to DNC during this round earlier on, but earlier this year he invested $11.5 million in super political action committees supporting Tarikko.

Major donors' funds have flowed back, providing the Democratic Party with another source of support in the last few weeks, and these funds can be quickly reallocated when needed.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Senate Majority Political Action Committee (Senate Majority PAC) raised a record $151 million in the third quarter and held $112 million in cash at the end of September, although the Republican counterpart organization raised significantly more funds.

Record-breaking scale of funds

All these expenditures are contributing to an election that has the potential to break records.

AdImpact It is estimated that political advertising spending during the 2025-26 electoral cycle will reach $11.6 billion, making 2026 the most expensive electoral cycle in history, surpassing the $8.9 billion spent during the midterms of 2022 and the $11.2 billion spent during the 2024 presidential election cycle.

According to AdImpact, alone the congressional campaign has already invested 3.8 billion dollars in advertising, which is over 870 million dollars more than in the same period of 2024. The Senate campaign is driving this growth: the organization expects that by the end of this cycle, Senate advertising spending will reach 3.4 billion dollars, an increase of 48% compared to 2022.

However, as the scale of funds continues to grow, it becomes increasingly difficult for voters to trace the origin of some of that money.

Thursday's reports showed that millions of dollars flowed from non-profit organizations and other entities that are not required to disclose their donors to super political action committees, obscuring the original sources of some of the largest checks in this round of elections.