National Ads: Four Senate Races Spend $15 Million on Out-of-State Donor Appeals

More than $15 million in advertising costs were incurred by Democratic and Republican candidates in four competitive Senate races during the 2025-26 election cycle. An analysis of Google Ads data for contests in Iowa, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas shows that candidates are aggressively soliciting donors from outside their home states. Approximately three quarters of this expenditure went to ads that ran nationally rather than locally.

The messaging in these national appeals differs sharply from local television spots. In local races, candidates often avoid party labels to appeal to moderates. However, digital ads targeted at out-of-state donors frequently emphasize partisan identity. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown asks viewers to turn his state blue, while Georgia Representative Mike Collins urges supporters to make his seat red. Iowa Representative Ashley Hinson highlights her America First credentials, and Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff directly attacks President Trump in his fundraising materials.

Zachary Albert, a politics professor at Brandeis University, notes that digital platforms have lowered the cost of soliciting small donations. He explains that the reduced transaction costs make it financially viable to seek contributions as small as five or ten dollars. This economic incentive drives candidates to rely on digital ads that target a broad national audience.

For candidates like Jon Ossoff and Iowa Democratic nominee Josh Turek, more than 80 percent of itemized individual contributions have come from outside their states. The reliance on platforms such as ActBlue and WinRed has accelerated this trend. ActBlue launched in 2004, while WinRed did not begin until 2019, giving Democrats a head start in building national small-dollar fundraising infrastructure.

Michael Franz of the Wesleyan Media Project observes that the party label becomes more important in digital ads airing outside the state. This shift allows candidates to appeal to their base rather than swing voters. Daniel Hopkins, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, describes a new era of campaigning where candidates must appeal to two distinct groups: local voters and a nationwide donor base.

Sara Bryner, a director at Public Agenda, points out that donors in one-party dominated states, such as California, often send money to competitive states like Georgia or Texas. She argues that while money is a factor, it does not guarantee victory, noting that candidates who heavily rely on out-of-state funds often lose. The Ossoff campaign stated that it is powered by small-dollar donors and refuses corporate PAC money. The other campaigns declined to comment or did not respond to interview requests.

The Supreme Court’s June ruling favoring coordinated campaign spending allows more out-of-state funds to be used in elections. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has already spent three times as much on advertisements at this point as in previous midterms. Experts suggest that fund matching programs or top donor disclosure laws, similar to those in Alaska and Colorado, could help localize fundraising efforts.