According to the Federal Election Commission's own official reporting, covering January 1, 2025 through March 31, 2026, congressional candidates collected $2.1 billion and spent $1.3 billion. Political parties received $1.1 billion and spent $824.8 million. And 8,816 federal PACs (political action committees) collectively raised $6.3 billion and spent $4.8 billion, with $3.1 billion in combined cash still on hand.
Separately, reported independent expenditures, spending by outside groups not formally coordinated with any candidate's own campaign, totaled $252.1 million during this same period, a category that's expected to grow substantially heading into the actual November 2026 election.
Super PAC outside spending in competitive 2026 Senate and House races is projected to exceed $3 billion, according to compiled 2026 election spending analysis, which would make it the most outside money ever spent in a midterm election cycle. This spending is described as concentrated in a relatively small number of genuinely competitive races rather than spread evenly nationwide, meaning the real per-race spending intensity in contested seats is even more extreme than the national total alone suggests.
According to compiled 2026 election spending analysis, the higher-spending candidate wins roughly 70% of general elections, a real, meaningful, but far from absolute relationship, not a guarantee. Notably, this relationship reportedly reverses in primary elections specifically, where existing name recognition can substitute for the kind of paid advertising typically funded by campaign spending, meaning money's predictive power genuinely varies by election type rather than functioning as a universal predictor across all races.
Campaign finance reform advocates generally argue the scale of outside spending, especially from super PACs and increasingly opaque "dark money" nonprofits that don't disclose their donors, gives disproportionate influence to wealthy individuals and industries over ordinary voters, and point to the growing share of undisclosed spending as making elections measurably less transparent over time. Opponents of stricter campaign finance restrictions generally argue that political spending is a form of constitutionally protected speech, citing the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC ruling as settled law, and argue that competitive fundraising, including robust small-dollar donor bases like ActBlue's, reflects genuine grassroots engagement rather than corruption. Both sides broadly agree that campaign spending has grown dramatically and that 2026 is on pace to set new records, the disagreement is over whether that growth reflects a healthy, engaged democracy or a system increasingly shaped by a small number of very large donors and organized industry interests.
Want the core arguments from both sides, side by side?
See the Left vs. Right Breakdown on Campaign Finance Reform →