Senate races rely on out-of-state cash, shifting ads from local to national
Candidates in four key states spent over $15 million on fundraising ads, with most targeting voters outside their home districts.
By Takeshi Davidson ·
Senate candidates in four competitive states are drawing the majority of their small-dollar donations from outside their home states, a trend that has reshaped their advertising strategies. An analysis of Google Ads data shows that Democratic and Republican nominees in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas spent more than $15 million on fundraising-related advertising during the 2025-26 cycle. Roughly 75% of that budget supported ads placed in national markets rather than local ones.
The shift reflects a change in how campaigns solicit funds. For candidates like Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff and Iowa nominee Josh Turek, more than 80% of their individual contributions come from donors who live outside the state. These funds are primarily channeled through ActBlue and WinRed, two digital platforms that lower the cost of soliciting small gifts. Zachary Albert, a politics professor at Brandeis University, noted that these platforms make it profitable to collect even $5 or $10 donations because the transaction costs are so low.
This funding structure has altered campaign messaging. While traditional television ads in general elections avoid party labels to appeal to moderate voters, digital ads aimed at out-of-state donors frequently emphasize party identity. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown urges viewers to turn his state blue, while Georgia Representative Mike Collins asks for help turning his seat red. In Iowa, Republican Representative Ashley Hinson promotes her America First stance, whereas Ossoff attacks President Trump directly in his fundraising appeals.
Michael Franz of the Wesleyan Media Project explained that the party label becomes more important in digital ads airing outside a candidate’s state. This nationalized approach contrasts with the locally focused messaging required to win votes within the district. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, described this as a new era where candidates must appeal to two distinct groups: local voters and a nationwide donor base.
The reliance on out-of-state money is not new, but it is accelerating. Democrats pioneered this model with ActBlue in 2004, nearly 15 years before Republicans launched WinRed in 2019. Sarah Bryner of Public Agenda said donors in solid-party states like California often send money to competitive states like Georgia or Texas to influence the outcome. The Supreme Court’s June ruling on coordinated spending has further enabled this flow of funds.
Regulating these funds remains difficult. Hawaii will cap out-of-state donations starting in 2027, but national regulation faces constitutional hurdles. Some experts suggest fund matching or donor disclosure laws, similar to those in Alaska, Colorado, and Virginia, could localize fundraising. However, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times more on ads in this cycle than in the previous midterms.
The Ossoff campaign said in a statement that it is powered by small-dollar donors and refuses money from corporate PACs and federal lobbyists. Other campaigns declined to comment. Despite the influx of outside cash, past races suggest that high fundraising totals do not guarantee victory, as candidates like Amy McGrath and Beto O'Rourke lost despite raising substantial funds from out-of-state sources.
