Senate Candidates Spend $15 Million Targeting Out-of-State Donors

Campaign finance in four competitive U.S. Senate races has shifted toward a national model, with candidates spending more than $15 million on fundraising advertisements in the 2025-26 election cycle. An analysis of Google Ads for races in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas shows that approximately 75% of this expenditure was directed at audiences outside the candidates' home states. This strategy relies on digital platforms to solicit small-dollar contributions from a nationwide donor base rather than focusing solely on local voters.

The shift is driven by the operational efficiency of grassroots fundraising tools. ActBlue and WinRed, the primary digital platforms for Democrats and Republicans respectively, have lowered the cost of soliciting small contributions. Zachary Albert, a professor of politics at Brandeis University, noted that these platforms reduced transaction costs to the point where even $5 or $10 gifts are financially viable for candidates. This economic structure encourages candidates to prioritize national digital advertising over local ground operations.

Messaging in these out-of-state ads differs sharply from local campaign materials. Candidates frequently use national partisan labels and reference President Trump in ways that would be uncommon in local television spots. In Iowa, Republican nominee Ashley Hinson emphasizes her America First credentials, while in Georgia, Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff directly attacks Trump. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown campaigns to turn his state blue, and Georgia Representative Mike Collins asks supporters to make his seat red.

For some candidates, the dependence on external funds is substantial. More than 80% of the itemized individual contributions for Senator Jon Ossoff and Iowa Democratic nominee Josh Turek came from donors outside their states. Wesleyan Media Project researcher Michael Franz explained that while local ads avoid party labels to appeal to moderates, digital ads targeting out-of-state audiences rely heavily on party identity to activate partisan donors.

The Ossoff campaign stated that its strategy is powered by small-dollar donors because the senator refuses donations from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists. The campaign denied targeting audiences by location in a statement. Other campaigns in the studied races declined to comment or did not respond to interview requests.

This fundraising trend is not new but has accelerated due to changes in campaign finance and political organization. OpenSecrets data indicates that out-of-state funds for congressional campaigns have risen in every recent election cycle. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, described a new era where candidates appeal to two distinct groups: local voters and a national donor base. He noted that candidates compete for votes against local opponents but compete for dollars against other prominent candidates from their own party.

Democrats built their digital fundraising infrastructure earlier than Republicans. ActBlue launched in 2004, while WinRed did not launch until 2019. This head start allowed Democrats to establish a dominant position in small-dollar fundraising, particularly in states with weaker local funding systems. Republicans have since caught up, leveraging the national audience cultivated during Donald Trump's presidency to activate small-dollar donors.

Regulation of these funds remains limited. Hawaii will implement a cap on out-of-state donations starting in 2027, but national regulation is difficult. Raymond La Raja, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, cited the Supreme Court's June ruling favoring coordinated campaign spending as a barrier to limiting out-of-state money. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times as much on advertisements at this point in the cycle compared to the previous midterms.

Researchers suggest potential solutions to localize fundraising. Sarah Bryner of Public Agenda pointed to Alaska's top donor disclosure law, which requires ads to list the top three donors. Colorado and Virginia have similar laws for online and broadcast ads. La Raja proposed a fund matching system modeled on New York City, where public funds would match local donations to incentivize candidates to focus on constituency issues rather than national politics.