Allen.G/Shutterstock
In most ways, the 2022 midterms are looking pretty bad for Democrats. Inflation and high gas prices, among other issues, have seemingly led many voters to grow disenchanted with President Joe Biden, whose approval rating has been negative for months now. This could result in a lot of Democrats, even ones in seats previously regarded as safe, losing reelection. With the narrow margins in the House and Senate, it’s looking likely, if not certain, that Republicans will take over at least the House—if not both chambers of Congress.
But Democratic donors aren’t resigned to failure. Instead they’ve invested furiously in defending their majorities. This includes sending money by the boatloads to the major party committees, which have been racking up record-setting fundraising months. It also includes giving in large quantities to prominent Democratic incumbents like Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, who raised $26 million in 2021, a staggering sum that came nearly equally from small and large donors. Even many lesser-known incumbents have had little difficulty raising money, like Pennsylvania Representative Susan Wild, who raised $2.1 million as of the end of 2021 (by comparison, she raised $3.2 million total when she first won the seat in 2018).
In the 2021 off-year elections, we saw a gap between donor enthusiasm and votes. Most prominently, in Virginia’s gubernatorial race Terry McAuliffe edged Republican Todd Youngkin in fundraising, $68 million to $67.9 million—but that’s including $20 million Youngkin loaned to his own campaign. And Democratic candidates in Virginia’s House of Delegates swamped their opponents, $28.79 million to $15.65 million. But Republicans took over the House of Delegates despite this gap, and Youngkin beat McAuliffe by 2 points. (Notably, Youngkin raised more money from Virginians, while McAuliffe got more from out of state.)
This could be a preview of the midterms. Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock had raised $42 million and spent $47 million as of January, which will likely give him a big-money lead over whoever comes out of the Republican primary. But Warnock is currently polling behind former football star Herschel Walker. If the country as a whole is turning against Democrats, it may not matter how much money Warnock, or Kelly, or anyone else raises.
One question facing donors this cycle is to decide when to hold off on giving to a candidate who is already well funded. At a certain point, more money doesn’t help a campaign. What is that point? It’s hard to say, and differs from race to race based on how expensive it is to run a campaign in that locale. But it’s clear that a lot of Senate and House campaigns are going to push past that point this year.
Senate campaigns runneth over
This is clearest when it comes to the Senate. Maintaining control of Congress’s upper chamber should be priority number one for Democrats, and there are just six to eight competitive races (depending on how competitive you think Florida and North Carolina are going to be). In nearly all of these cases, Democrats have raced out to fundraising leads. As of the end of 2021, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly had raised $27.5 million, Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto had raised $17.4 million, and New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan had raised $17.3 million—in the latter two cases, that’s nearly as much as Hassan and Cortez Masto raised total in the 2016 cycle. Florida Representative Val Demings, challenging Republican Senator Marco Rubio in what looks like a very difficult race, raised $20 million. John Fetterman, who has become the progressive standard-bearer in Pennsylvania’s primary, had brought in nearly $12 million as of 2021, a substantial sum for a candidate who hasn’t even gone on the general yet. Recent fundraising tallies reveal that each of these candidates has continued to pull in large sums of money in 2022—for instance, Kelly raised $9 million in the first three months of this year, while Warnock raised $13.6 million.
With the exception of Cheri Beasley, running for the open seat in North Carolina, the relevant Senate candidates are doing exceptionally well when it comes to fundraising. (Beasley raised $3.6 million in the first three months of 2022.) This is good news—for all of the difficulties these campaigns will have, at least they won’t have money troubles. But donors concerned with getting the most value for their giving probably shouldn’t give to these Senate races, as high-profile as they are. (See our brief: Winning Senate Races: Options for Democratic Donors.)
The House is also flush with cash, for the most part
There are a lot more House races that promise to be competitive, but here too Democrats are looking pretty healthy financially. Incumbents facing tough reelection campaigns nearly all had more than $2 million in cash on hand as of the end of 2021. The generosity and focus of Democratic donors has lifted up all Democratic candidates and committees.
This generosity, however, has helped mostly well known House candidates. This includes Michigan Representative Elissa Slotkin, who had raised $3.8 million, and New Jersey Representative Josh Gottheimer, who had raised $4.1 million. Both candidates have continued their strong fundraising in 2022—Gottheimer, for example, reported having $13 million in cash on hand at the end of March, while Slotkin had $5.5 million.
One quirk of the 2022 midterms is that redistricting has resulted in a number of Republican-held seats becoming Democratic pickup opportunities, while some newly created or redrawn districts lack incumbents. This means that there are Democrats who don’t have the name recognition or fundraising infrastructure of incumbents, but badly need money as they emerge from primaries. One example of this is Colorado State Representative Yadira Caraveo, who is the only Democrat to get on the primary ballot in Colorado’s new 8th District. This is going to be one of the most competitive House races in the country, but because Caraveo hasn’t been in Congress and isn’t in the national news, she had raised less than $600,000 as of March 31.
That number will likely rise quickly as Caraveo starts getting attention and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sends her donations and features her in emails. But at the moment, she’s an obvious target for giving. As the primary season continues, we’ll be seeing more cases like Caraveo, candidates who are emerging as important figures in this cycle but who haven’t yet gotten much hype, or the money that comes with it. (See our brief: Winning House Races: Options for Donors.)
Where else donors can look
At Blue Tent we’ve spent a lot of time telling donors to look at down-ballot candidates and grassroots organizations this cycle. The reason for this is partly that these groups and campaigns need money, but it’s also true that right now a lot of Senate and House candidates do not. In all likelihood, every vulnerable Democratic member of Congress will have sufficient funds to defend themselves against Republicans. (See our brief: Giving to Build Progressive Power and Win Elections in 2022.)
The real problem is, that money may not be enough. No amount of money may be enough for some of them, because as much as Democratic donors want to keep them in office, voters may be turning against the party as a whole this cycle. That’s not to say it’s hopeless, or donors should write off Senate and House candidates. In particular, there may be some House candidates who need cash infusions as they come out of primaries. If Democratic incumbents lose as anticipated, their losses could be offset by hard-fought victories over Republicans who have been redistricted into Democratic-leaning seats. But overall, most Senate and House candidates don’t need a lot more money, they need a different political environment.