Did money decide the 2026 election?

The short version

• Most races were lopsided before any money was spent. In 300 races one side outspent the other at least four to one, and that side won 291. Those are safe seats and entrenched incumbents, and donors give to them because they win.
• In close races, money was a weaker signal than party. Of the 56 races where we gave each side at least a 15% chance, the bigger spender won 40. Simply picking the Democrat would have been right in 48. Our own forecast got 34 right.
• Outspending helped Republicans less. Republicans who outspent their opponent won 161 of 188; Democrats who did won 225 of 232. Of the 34 candidates who outspent their opponent and still lost, 27 were Republicans.
• Spending your own money did not buy a win. Of the 30 candidates who put in $1 million or more of their own, 14 won.

Money follows winners

Donors, parties and PACs give to candidates they expect to win, and to incumbents who will still be in office next year. So the bigger spender winning is partly the money following the result, not causing it. Incumbents outspent their challenger in 307 of 330 races with one, and won 297. The 17 incumbents who outspent their challenger and still lost are the more telling number: money could not hold a seat once the year turned against them.

Across these races, Democratic candidates spent $1.2 billion and Republican candidates $803M. That gap came from the same enthusiasm that produced the Democratic wave, so it is hard to say which caused which.

Spent the most and lost

The 10 losing candidates who spent the most. Susan Collins spent $23.8M and lost to Troy Jackson, who spent $25.3M. 8 of the 10 were outspent themselves, so this list mostly shows what expensive races look like, not money failing.

Outspent and won

The 10 winners who overcame the biggest spending gaps. Jon Ossoff beat Mike Collins in Georgia Senate despite being outspent $10.2M to $0. 5 of the 10 beat an incumbent.

Spent the least and won

Winners who spent the least against an opponent who spent at least $1 million. Jon Ossoff won Georgia Senate on $0 against Mike Collins's $10.2M. These are the clearest cases of a tide lifting candidates who could barely fund a campaign.

Self-funders

Candidates who put $1 million or more of their own money into their campaign, as contributions or loans. 14 of 30 won.

What this does and doesn't measure

• Candidate campaigns only.“Spent” is each candidate committee's disbursements reported to the FEC. Super PACs, party committees and other outside groups are not included, and in many Senate races they spent more than the candidates.
• Through mid-October. The last report filed before the election covers spending to October 14. The final reports, due in December, will add the last three weeks.
• Called races with a Democrat and a Republican. 21 races with money data had not been called as of November 7, and governor races are left out because their money is filed with the states, not the FEC. 27 called races had no Democrat-against-Republican matchup. 2 more are left out because the record we have belongs to a relative the nominee replaced: Darline Graham replaced her late brother Lindsey Graham; the FEC record is his committee; Trever Nehls replaced his brother Troy Nehls; the FEC record is his committee.
• Correlation, not cause. Who wins and who raises money depend on the same things: the district, the year, incumbency and how strong the candidate is. These numbers show how money and results lined up, not how many votes a dollar bought.

Data: GovMoneyGraph, based on FEC records. Results from Wikipedia's race pages, updated November 7. Each race's page has its candidates' full money breakdown. See also how our forecasts did.