Campaign finance filings for the second quarter of 2026 tell two very different stories depending on which line of the FEC report you read. On one side are candidates with genuine grassroots fundraising operations — hundreds of thousands of donors giving under $200. On the other are candidates whose campaigns are effectively bankrolled by a handful of super PACs, with direct fundraising serving as a fig leaf for what is, in practice, a donor-class operation. Neither model is illegal. Both have meaningfully different implications for accountability once elected.
The Super PAC Dynamic
Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts on behalf of candidates provided they don't coordinate directly with campaigns. In practice, the line is difficult to enforce: super PACs are often run by former campaign staffers, share vendors with the campaigns they support, and time their advertising to complement official spending. In the 2026 cycle, super PAC spending in competitive Senate races is running roughly three times the level of official campaign spending.
"When 80 percent of the ads running in your district come from a super PAC funded by three people, it's worth asking what those three people think they're buying."
Does It Matter?
Political science on whether contributions influence legislative behavior is extensive and contested. The most careful studies find that contributions from organized interests correlate with favorable legislative treatment but struggle to establish causation. What is clearer is that politicians are aware of who funds them. A senator who won with significant private equity super PAC support is unlikely to be an aggressive advocate for carried interest reform — the mechanism operates through anticipated future fundraising needs as much as through gratitude for past support.