Did the Money Work? What Super PACs Got for Their 2026 Spending

by

The side with more outside money behind it lost most of the 2026 midterms' marquee Senate races. In Texas, outside groups backed Republican Ken Paxton with $251.7 million in ads, against $30.6 million for Democrat James Talarico (AdImpact). Talarico won (CBS News).

This is our look at the results so far, as of Friday morning, Nov. 6. It covers the races where super PACs spent the most and how each side's biggest spenders did. The Senate races in Alaska and Mississippi are still uncalled. It updates our early scorecard from Wednesday.

A caution before the numbers. A super PAC backing the loser does not prove its money was wasted, and backing the winner does not prove the money worked. Democrats won control of both chambers in a wave. National conditions like that can swamp almost any amount of advertising.

The record spending

OpenSecrets projected nearly $12 billion in total spending on the 2026 elections, with outside spending near $4 billion, double the 2022 total (Newser). Through September alone, super PACs and other outside groups had already spent a record $2 billion, according to the Brennan Center.

Republican-aligned groups had more of it. Per OpenSecrets figures cited by The New Republic, Republicans outspent Democrats by $670 million in super PAC money. Democrats won the Senate, with NBC News projecting 54 seats to 44 before Alaska and Mississippi are decided. NBC also projected about 258 House seats for Democrats (NBC Chicago).

The top races

The table shows the largest independent expenditures, about $250,000 or more each, filed with the FEC from Oct. 19 to Oct. 30 (SuperPACs.com analysis of FEC reports). This window is the only one where we have a consistent split by side for most races. It includes all large independent spenders, not only super PACs. Cycle-long totals by group are in the next section.

Race Winner Outside money for winner's side (Oct. 19–30) For loser's side Source
Texas Senate Talarico (D) $46.1M $69.6M CBS, FEC tally
Ohio Senate Brown (D) $57.1M $49.1M CBS, FEC tally
Michigan Senate El-Sayed (D) $29.5M $42.2M CBS, FEC tally
Iowa Senate Turek (D) $36.1M $20.2M CBS, FEC tally
Kansas Senate Hamilton (D) $31.3M $17.2M CBS, FEC tally
Maine Senate Jackson (D) $16.0M $14.9M CBS, FEC tally
South Carolina Senate Andrews (D) $12.7M $11.7M CBS, FEC tally
Nebraska Senate Ricketts (R) $21.9M total, not split by side CBS, FEC tally
North Carolina Senate Cooper (D) Not itemized $39.1M (SLF and No Going Back, cycle through ~Oct. 19) CBS, Legis1
NY-17 (House) Conley (D) $2.1M (House Majority PAC) $11.5M+ (Congressional Leadership Fund) ABC7, SuperPACs.com
NY-21 (House) Constantino (R) leads; not called by AP $555K (Safety & Affordability PAC) $1.7M (House Majority PAC) plus $420K+ (Invest in Tomorrow Coalition) City & State, SuperPACs.com

In that final stretch, the winner's side spent more in five of the seven Senate races where we have a split by side. It spent less in Texas and Michigan.

In NY-21, Republican Anthony Constantino led 51% to 48.8% with all election districts reporting. The AP had not called the race when City & State reported it. Democrat Blake Gendebien later said in a statement that it appears Constantino will narrowly win. In NY-17, Rep. Mike Lawler conceded to Cait Conley on election night (ABC7).

Still uncalled: Alaska and Mississippi

Alaska. No call yet. As of early Nov. 6, ABC News' results table showed Democrat Mary Peltola with 102,962 votes and Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan with 102,325, with 74% of the expected vote reported (ABC News). Earlier counts had Sullivan ahead (NBC Chicago). The state's next updates are scheduled for Nov. 10, 13 and 18. Ranked-choice tabulation follows on Nov. 18 if no candidate has a majority (Newsweek).

Mississippi. No call yet. ABC's table showed Democrat Scott Colom at 466,775 votes and Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith at 464,962, with 96% of the expected vote reported. Mail ballots postmarked by Election Day can arrive until Nov. 10, and counties must certify by Nov. 13 (ABC News).

How the biggest spenders fared

Senate Leadership Fund and Texas PAC (R). SLF had spent $252.3 million by about Oct. 19, nearly all of it against Democrats. Its largest targets were Ohio ($68 million against Sherrod Brown), Michigan, Iowa and North Carolina (Legis1). Texas PAC, the SLF-aligned group created for Texas, put $182.1 million in ads behind Paxton (AdImpact). Republicans lost all five of those races.

MAGA Inc. and affiliates (R). MAGA Inc. had spent $353 million as of Oct. 30 by Al Jazeera's count (Newser), including $41.3 million in Texas (AdImpact). No Going Back PAC had spent $191.7 million by about Oct. 19, concentrated in Ohio, Michigan and North Carolina (Legis1). Republicans lost all three. Safety & Affordability PAC reported $43.5 million in large expenditures in the final window (SuperPACs.com). More on where the money went: Where has MAGA Inc.'s money gone? and MAGA Inc.'s October spending.

WinSenate and Senate Majority PAC (D). WinSenate had spent $170.7 million by about Oct. 19 (Legis1). Senate Majority PAC's total stood at $248 million as of Oct. 30 (Newser). Democrats won WinSenate's largest targets: Ohio, Iowa and Michigan. Affiliate Lower Costs Now reported $38.8 million in the final window (SuperPACs.com). Texas Forever spent $7.8 million in Texas (AdImpact).

House groups. House Majority PAC had spent $192 million as of Oct. 30 (Newser), including $129.0 million in large expenditures in the final window. The Republican Congressional Leadership Fund reported $69.0 million in the same window (SuperPACs.com). Democrats won the House, but many districts are still being counted, so a district-by-district scorecard will have to wait.

Crypto and AI. The Fairshake network had spent about $97 million through Oct. 5. Its largest bet was Ohio, where its affiliate Defend American Jobs backed Sen. Jon Husted (SuperPACs.com). Husted lost. TIME reported that pro-AI-industry super PACs struggled, and that Leading the Future "mostly kept their powder dry" late in the race (TIME). Candidates backed by AI-safety groups, including El-Sayed in Michigan, won. Background: crypto super PACs and the AI industry's super PACs.

Did third-party boosts matter?

Some super PACs spent to boost third-party candidates (SuperPACs.com). In Alaska, Alaska Values PAC spent $3.8 million on Gerald Heikes, who drew 2.3% in the unofficial count (Newsweek). That is more than the gap between Peltola and Sullivan, but ranked-choice tabulation could redistribute his votes. In Ohio, groups spent $3.8 million or more on Libertarian Bill Redpath and $2.6 million on Greg Levy. Brown won by about five points (TIME). We did not find final vote shares for those two.

What the money can and can't tell us

The effect of outside spending is hard to measure, and researchers say so. Before the election, the Brennan Center's Ian Vandewalker wrote that "the impact of all this spending remains to be seen" (Brennan Center). In six battleground states Democrats won, OpenSecrets found that "the more reliable predictor was candidate fundraising." In each one, the candidate who raised more in direct contributions beat an opponent with more outside support (The New Republic). David Nemer, a University of Virginia professor, told Newsweek that spending "buys attention and organization, and it also buys scrutiny" (Newsweek).

Final numbers are still to come. Post-general reports, covering activity through Nov. 23, are due to the FEC on Dec. 3. They will also give the first full donor disclosure for many pop-up super PACs that formed late in the cycle. Current totals are in our 2026 Midterm Super PAC Tracker. See also who backed Republican and Democratic Senate candidates.

Sources