As Democrats Outraise Republicans in Key Races, Donor Priorities Should Change
Photo credit: Shutterstock
At the beginning of the year, Blue Tent was among the many voices calling on Democratic donors to ignore the shiny objects of Senate and governor races in favor of down-ballot contests for state attorney general, secretary of state, and state legislature. These campaigns, often overlooked by national media and major donors, tend to struggle with fundraising, but because they’re less expensive than most federal races, they’re also races where small and medium donors can make a real impact. Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock doesn’t need your $100, but for a state legislator in a close race, that kind of money can make a difference.
With Election Day closing in on us, it appears that donors have largely heeded that advice. Senate campaigns are flush with cash, including some that have a dubious chance of victory, like Val Demings in Florida. But money has also poured into these down-ballot races, giving some Democrats a major financial edge going into the home stretch. As a result, Blue Tent has downgraded several of our candidate recommendations. This should be taken as good news — money is getting into the right hands and some extremely dangerous Republicans may be defeated as a result.
The Democrats trouncing their opponents in fundraising
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford is facing one of those dangerous Republicans in Sigal Chattah, a 2020 election denier who has sued the state over COVID-19 restrictions. She won a primary over a more moderate opponent, and as a result, several prominent Nevada Republicans have crossed the aisle to endorse Ford. Chattah is also struggling to attract much money, and as of the end of June, had less than $70,000 in cash on hand compared to Ford’s $2.3 million war chest. Since June, all signs suggest that Democratic donors have become ever more keenly interested in AG races, with that office assuming greatly expanded significance in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Given his money lead, we moved Ford from a high priority rating to a low priority.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel is in a similar position, having raised more than $3.7 million and having $2.5 million banked as of early August, 20 times more than her Republican challenger had on hand. Once marked a high priority for donors, she’s now a low priority.
Also in Michigan, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a high-profile SOS who is up against a Trump-endorsed election denier, raised over $2.1 million this year and had $3.2 million in cash on hand as of August 5. Her opponent had just over $275,000 in cash on hand, so we’ve also moved Benson’s campaign from a high priority to low priority.
The last state-level election ratings change concerns Josh Kaul, the Wisconsin attorney general, who raised $1.3 million this year and had $2 million banked as of July 15, compared to his opponent's meager haul of $112,000. Here again, given the post-Dobbs donor energy around AG offices, we assume that Kaul’s fundraising has only accelerated in the past two months. This is another situation where the race is vitally important, but the Democrat’s financial advantage justifies a movement from high priority to low priority.
Finally, there are a trio of federal candidates we’ve downgraded because of their fundraising prowess. Cheri Beasley, running for U.S. Senate in North Carolina, was lagging in fundraising at the beginning of the year, but now has a lot more money than her opponent, Ted Budd. Representatives Teresa Legar Fernandez and Jahana Hayes also looked potentially vulnerable at the beginning of the cycle but now have large cash advantages. All three of these incumbents are now marked low priority.
What changed?
In several AG and SOS primaries, Republican voters chose a conspiracy-mongering crank as their nominee. It’s not surprising that these candidates would have struggles raising money compared to the well-connected incumbent Democrats they are up against. (The exception is Arizona, where the Trump-loyalist nominees have managed to raise competitive amounts of cash.)
The Supreme Court’s stunning reversal of Roe v. Wade also may have played a role, as I’ve mentioned, as donors realized that attorneys general have an enormous amount of power thanks to their ability to control (to a degree) how laws are enforced. And when it comes to secretary of state races, donors may be motivated by worries that American democracy could collapse in 2024 if enough extremist Republicans control the electoral machinery. Money has poured in on both sides in SOS contests.
Democrats aren’t outraising Republicans everywhere — in Wisconsin, GOP legislative candidates have so far brought in more money than their Democratic counterparts — but it’s clear that Democratic donors are enthusiastic and giving large sums not just to U.S. Senate candidates, but down-ballot races, including many legislative candidates. (We likely won’t have a clear picture about state legislative fundraising trends for some time.)
What could still go wrong
Though Democrats should celebrate their fundraising success, some caveats are in order:
First, there’s a lag in campaign finance reporting, so we know how candidates are doing as of July in most cases, but not what has happened since then. As more people start to tune into the elections and political advertising ramps up, fundraising will probably accelerate. We’ve already seen candidates who began the cycle with little name recognition raise huge amounts as the year goes on (Beasley, for one), and some Republicans who are cash-strapped now could get cash infusions closer to Election Day.
Second, campaign fundraising isn’t the only source of money in elections. Outside spending also plays a role, and if candidates aren’t able to fund themselves effectively, they can be propped up by dark money via super PACs. An electronics mogul’s $1.6 billion gift to a new conservative group shows just how deep the right’s pockets are. (It should be noted that Democrats have benefited more from dark money than Republicans recently.) GOP-aligned groups are going to bolster Republican Senate candidates and outside money will likely go to down-ballot races, as well.
We’ll likely make more rating changes as Election Day approaches, but Democrats should be feeling good about how much money they’ve banked already. If this cycle doesn’t go their way, it won’t be for lack of funds.