Huge contributions from ultrawealthy donors to U.S. election campaigns mean billionaires are largely steering the campaign, while the candidates themselves are almost like passengers, political marketing specialist Stephanie Grasmick, who is affiliated with the Democrats, told PAP. New players in the campaign include AI and gambling companies.
Although a few intense days remain before Tuesday’s congressional elections, filled with rallies and political ads in every possible form, the current U.S. campaign has already set a record for the amount of money spent.
Presidential-year campaigns are usually more expensive than those run during the midterms. Even so, the record sums spent on campaign ads in 2024 have already been surpassed this year, according to data from the firm AdImpact. Total spending on ads and ad reservations in the current cycle has exceeded $11.2 billion.
These enormous sums result in part from the steadily growing role of so-called megadonors, meaning billionaires who spend fortunes on campaigns. As in the previous cycle, the top campaign sponsor is the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who according to the latest available data has spent more than $750 million. Somewhat smaller megadonors also back the Democrats, including former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and George Soros.
Most of the billionaires’ money flows not to party campaign committees but to formally independent, though allied, committees known as Super PACs.
These structures allow unlimited sums to be raised and are often controlled by the billionaires themselves. The law prohibits Super PACs from coordinating with candidates and parties. All of this stems from the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The decision also increased the role of “dark money,” meaning money funneled through nonprofit organizations that do not have to disclose their donors. As a result, many of the real donors remain anonymous to voters.
This trend has long raised concern, including among those who profit from the growing sums spent on campaign ads. Stephanie Grasmick, a partner at Rising Tide Interactive, one of the largest digital advertising firms working with the Democrats, said the influence of megadonors and Super PACs raises questions about who is actually running election campaigns.
She told PAP that candidates funded by billionaires are almost “passengers” in campaigns run by the superrich.
“Most of the spending in this election is not actually controlled by the candidates, so they are not really the ones directing the message or the campaign strategy. They are passengers, and it’s the funders who are driving the bus,” she said. “This raises questions about the candidates’ accountability, especially if some of these billionaire-funded candidates win. Who will they feel obligated to? Whose interests will they represent?” the specialist asked.
Although billionaires are active on both sides of the campaign, Grasmick said the Democrats have an advantage in the form of an extensive network of small donors, while small donations on the Republican side go almost exclusively to Donald Trump and his Super PAC. That matters to some extent, because the law guarantees candidates and parties the lowest rates for advertising on broadcast television.
Asked why donors are spending more and more, she pointed in part to upcoming key decisions in Congress on regulating AI and cryptocurrencies.
“The rules that will be written over the next five years will set the course for the next 50,” she said.
Besides billionaires, AI companies, gambling companies and cryptocurrency firms are for that reason becoming increasingly big players in election campaigns. Grasmick said these industries split their donations roughly evenly between the two parties to secure influence over Congress’s decisions no matter who wins. She also noted that AI companies were especially active in the Democratic primaries, backing moderate candidates against left-wing supporters of more regulation.
According to Grasmick, the massive campaign spending, in which Republicans hold the advantage this year, has only a limited effect on election results. She added that the money matters especially in lower-profile races, but in many of them an arms-race logic applies:
“When one side sees the other’s advantage, it has to make it up. As a result, the net effect is small,” she said. “Generally speaking, the companies (funding campaigns) are less trying to decide the outcome than to predict it and end up on the right side,” she said.
In the view of the PAP interviewee, the influx of outside money has also made the campaign more negative, because independent committees can afford a harsher tone than the candidates themselves. But she noted that such ads work only when they tap into concerns voters already have, such as the cost of living, energy prices or data centers. Those based on sentiments that people do not share are usually ineffective and provoke backlash.
The expert also described how precise ad targeting has become, including on streaming services. Campaigns can match lists of voters from voter rolls, such as people who voted in three of the last four primaries, to specific devices and user accounts through data brokers, companies such as LiveRamp.
In get-out-the-vote campaigns, this makes it possible, for example, to show a viewer an ad reminding them which elections they voted in and which they skipped. She noted, however, that different platforms have different rules on targeting ads at individual voters.
Asked about Trump’s role in the elections, Grasmick said his “magic” has so far worked only when he himself was on the ballot, and that voter energy may not carry over to candidates in congressional or state races.
She called it telling that in the final week of the campaign the president is visiting strongly Republican states such as Mississippi, Texas and Kansas. She acknowledged, however, that in Texas and Kansas the mobilization of his supporters could make the results different from what is expected.
Although Trump’s unpopularity, especially because of the war with Iran and the resulting rise in prices, gives the Democrats a significant advantage in the upcoming elections, polls also show that the Democratic Party does not enjoy a good reputation among voters either.
According to Grasmick, this does not have to affect the result at the ballot box. She stressed that the party’s candidates have used the same strategy for decades: running as individual candidates rather than as party politicians.
“An old rule applies here: nobody likes Congress, but everybody likes their congressman,” she said.
Even so, and despite polls suggesting the opposition will take control of both chambers of Congress, Grasmick said she does not expect her party to win the Senate. She pointed out that almost all the races that are key to deciding the Senate are in strongly Republican states.
She takes polls with a grain of salt, she explained, because half of a poll is modeling the composition of the electorate, which is very difficult in states such as Texas.
“I remember when Democrats were sure they would win in Texas in 2014. And in 2018. And in 2022. They never won, so eventually you lose hope,” she said.
In the Nov. 3 elections, Americans will choose all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 senators. Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress, holding 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
From Washington, Oskar Górzyński (PAP)
