How US midterms have cost a record $12bn as cost of living soars

The US midterm elections are on track to be the most expensive for candidates and political donors in history. According to OpenSecrets, a research group that tracks money in US politics, close to a record $12bn has been spent by candidates and outside political groups on campaigning.

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk alone has given $445 million to the Republicans, according to campaign finance records.

Critics have questioned the huge sums of money being spent to sway voting during an election cycle in which the cost of living and affordability have been the key issues in most campaign agendas.

They argue that campaign spending policy gives wealthy donors, corporations and special interest groups outsized influence over candidate and policy selection.

US elections are funded in two ways. Firstly, candidates can directly raise money for their campaigns. In the lead-up to these midterms, Democratic candidates are expected to have spent more than $2.2bn compared with $1.4bn by Republican candidates, according to OpenSecrets.

Secondly, corporations, unions and other associations can spend money on election campaigns, independently of individual candidates’ campaigns, in a process known as “outside spending”.

Previously, these organisations were barred from funding adverts close to elections in order to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. But in 2010, the US Supreme Court overturned that rule, treating election communications as protected political speech.

In a related ruling, a lower court struck down limits on the size of contributions these groups could raise, provided they did not coordinate directly with candidates.

Since then, Federal Election Commission disclosure data shows such spending on elections has increased hugely, nearly tripling in the past decade alone from $4.12bn in 2016 to an estimated $11.9bn for 2026’s midterm elections.

This “outside spending” is largely driven by groups called independent expenditure-only political action committees – better known as super PACs – which organise the funding and then spend it on advertising or other initiatives in support of candidates or parties.

There are no limits on the amount of money donors can give to outside spending groups such as super PACs.

That has been the case since the Supreme Court ruled that unlimited contributions to groups which do not coordinate directly with candidates are protected under free speech laws.

The majority of super PACs are politically aligned and organised in line with either the Democratic or Republican Party.

Among the largest super PACs are the Senate Leadership Fund, which has spent $489 million, and MAGA Inc, with $353 million, both for Republican candidates. The Senate Majority PAC and the House Majority PAC have spent $248 million and $192 million respectively on Democratic candidates.

Other super PACs are organised by individuals and special interest groups, such as the Republican-supporting America PAC founded and funded by Elon Musk and the Democracy PAC funded and organised by George Soros which backs Democratic candidates.

Super PACs report on their direct contributors as well as financial activity to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) every month during election years, and every six months during non-election years. But contributors may include organisations whose own funding sources are not publicly disclosed.

This means that funds can pass through multiple organisations – sometimes through other PACs, known as “shell PACs” – before they are spent on campaign-related activities or advertising, making it difficult to trace contributions back to their original source.

When an original source of political spending cannot be identified, the funds are commonly described as “dark money”. According to OpenSecrets, “dark money” contributions will surpass a record $1.5bn in these midterm elections. That is up from the previous record of $1.35bn set in 2024 and has prompted concerns about the transparency of funding for political candidates.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has accused the nonprofit lobbying group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), of spending “millions in dark money”, for example, on pro-Israel candidates.

Public records reviewed by Al Jazeera found that AIPAC has channelled millions of dollars through shell PACs ahead of the US midterm elections.

AIPAC is one of the best-known super PACs and has attracted criticism in recent years, particularly in light of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. The lobbying group decided to end endorsements and direct campaign contributions after a challenging year.

AIPAC was founded as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs by American journalist and lawyer Isaiah Kenan in the 1950s. It was renamed American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 1959 and has grown to more than 6 million members. On its website it says “AIPAC helps pro-Israel candidates no matter their race, religion or background, and opposes anti-Israel candidates no matter their race, religion or background”.

Much of the money AIPAC spends has been channelled through the United Democracy Project (UDP), another registered super PAC affiliated with it. AIPAC has spent money on both Republican and Democratic campaigns, and has been accused of using money raised by Republican donors to fund adverts for “moderate” Democratic candidates in the hope of unseating or blocking progressive candidates, particularly those with pro-Palestine views.

That includes nearly $15 million spent on advertising and campaigning for pro-Israel Democrat George Latimer to stand against progressive Jamaal Bowman in New York’s 16th congressional district Democratic House primary in June 2024. Latimer ultimately won that vote.

AIPAC also spent $5.24 million on advertising for Wesley Bell against Cori Bush, who has criticised Israel’s war on Gaza, in the St Louis, Missouri primary which Bush lost. UDP has also spent $20.7 million to campaign against Abdul El Sayed in the Michigan Senate race.

Reject AIPAC, a coalition of progressive advocacy groups, launched a campaign calling on candidates for federal office to promise not to take endorsements or contributions from AIPAC or aligned PACs in 2024.

The coalition includes Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party, as well as organisations focused on Palestinian rights, including the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and the IfNotNow Movement.

The greatest amounts of money have been spent in “toss-up” states – where candidates face a close race – including Georgia, Texas and Michigan, which has seen record spending in its Senate contest between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

In Michigan, an estimated $333m has been spent on the campaign. Rogers has raised about $23m in direct contributions, while El-Sayed has brought in approximately $54m. Outside groups, however, have spent about $169m supporting Rogers and roughly $94m supporting El-Sayed.

But multiple polls have shown that the cost of living and the economy are the key current concerns for both Republican and Democratic voters.

This spending comes as the US is in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis, with fuel prices in particular soaring as a result of the Trump administration’s war on Iran. Prices have skyrocketed since February after shipping disruption in the Strait of Hormuz caused the cost of diesel to spike by 65 percent and fertiliser costs rose by up to 40 percent causing food prices to rise.

El Sayed, in particular, has campaigned on reforming election funding and taking “money out of politics”.

But a football fan on X responded: “$12 billion in political ads for the midterms, amaze me. Spending that much in such a useless way while saying we don’t have money for schools and/or healthcare.”

According to the Iran War Energy Cost Tracker, Americans have spent at least $150bn on petrol and diesel since the US-Israel war on Iran began in February, 30 percent more than they would have spent without the war raising prices. $12bn could cover 8 percent of those fuel costs or roughly $92 per household.

The Trump administration included $12bn in spending cuts for the Department of Education as part of the 2026 fiscal budget. That $12bn could pay for roughly 1 percent of the federal government budget for public schools.

There have also been spending cuts in medical and science research funding, including to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). $12bn could increase the NIH research funding budget of $47bn by one-quarter.