Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

2022 midterm election spending on track to top $9.3 billion

money in politics
SOPA Images/Getty Images

The total cost of 2022 midterm elections is projected to exceed $9.3 billion, according to an early, conservative estimate by OpenSecrets. More than $4.8 billion has already been spent on 2022 midterms, setting federal election spending on track to surpass the inflation-adjusted 2018 midterm record of $7.1 billion.

“We’re seeing much more money, more candidates and more political division than we did in 2018,” said OpenSecrets Executive Director Sheila Krumholz. “Spending is surging across the board this midterm cycle, fueling a polarization vortex that shows no signs of slowing.”


That $4.8 billion figure includes spending disclosed to the Federal Election Commission by candidates, political parties, political action committees and other groups during the 2022 midterm election cycle as of Sept. 20, 2022. Total spending will likely jump in mid-October, as most third-quarter filings are not due to the FEC until Oct. 15, the first disclosure deadline for most federal candidates since mid-year disclosures were filed.

While OpenSecrets’ $9.3 billion estimate is slightly less than the $9.9 billion – adjusted for inflation – spent on U.S. congressional races in the 2020 election cycle, 2022 election spending is on pace to exceed the $8 billion in inflation-adjusted spending on congressional and presidential races during the 2016 election cycle.

During the so-called “ Blue Wave ” of 2018, voters flipped the U.S. House to Democratic control in apparent reaction to the first two years of former President Donald Trump ’s administration, although Republicans maintained control of the Senate. Democrats outspent Republicans in the 2018 midterms, and Republicans are spending big this cycle for what they hope will be a “ Red Wave.”

Republicans are still slightly favored to win the House, but Democrats are currently favored to keep control of the Senate, according to FiveThirtyEight, the polling opinion website affiliated with ABC News.

Over half of the $4.8 billion spent has come from Republican candidates and the groups supporting them as they seek to flip the U.S. House and Senate. Democrats currently control the 100-person Senate by a narrow 50-member majority – including two independents that caucus with the Democrats – with Vice President Kamala Harris as the tie breaking vote.

Spending is up across the board from the same point during the 2018 election cycle. House candidates are spending around 30% more than they spent at this point in 2018, and Senate candidates have more than doubled their 2018 spending through the same period. The Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee have spent about $163 million more this election cycle than they had at this point in the 2018 cycle, and outside spending groups have shelled out $280 million more – a 40% increase.

Democrats head into the general election with bigger war chests

While Republican candidates, committees and the outside groups supporting them reported spending more money than Democratic political actors as of Sept. 20, those Democratic candidates and committees have outraised Republican political actors. Democrats have bigger war chests heading into the final weeks before the general election, with $1.3 billion combined on hand compared to $1.1 billion in the coffers of Republican candidates, committees and outside groups.

“One big element here is that Senate Republican primaries were incredibly expensive,” said Sarah Bryner, research director at OpenSecrets. “There's just been a ton of money at the beginning of the election, prior to even getting to the general.”

The top 10 most expensive congressional races tracked by OpenSecrets this election cycle are all U.S. Senate contests in battleground states, and three of the top 10 are considered toss-ups by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Political candidates and the outside groups supporting or opposing them have poured over $856.2 million into these races so far during the 2022 midterm election cycle.

In two of the most expensive Senate races – Georgia and Nevada – Democrats and the groups supporting them are outspending Republican candidates and outside groups. The races in Georgia and Nevada could determine control of the chamber in 2022 midterms, a New York Times analysis of polling data found, likely driving up spending in the states.

Some Republican primaries attracted significantly more spending than in 2018. Previous top spending Senate primaries saw outside spending in the teens, but nearly $40.4 million flowed into the 10-person GOP Senate primary in Ohio. An endorsement from Trump and the large influx of outside spending supporting U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance in Ohio was the “one-two-punch” that Bryner believes helped him secure the GOP nomination.

Outside groups also poured $37.8 million into the Pennsylvania GOP primary. GOP primaries in Missouri and Alabama saw outside spending top $20 million.

“It’s hard to predict anything, impossible to predict anything, because of Citizens United,” Bryner added, referring to the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision that removed restrictions on spending by corporations that paved the way for massive outside spending. “If that didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have these conversations. It would be much more predictable.”

Democratic candidates also have a cash advantage heading into the general election despite fielding fewer candidates, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of federal campaign disclosures. Among the six national party committees, Democrats reported $59 million more cash on hand as of Aug. 31 than their Republican counterparts.

Small and megadonors drive fundraising in the 2022 midterm elections

Democrats and committees supporting them received more than $640 million of the $1.2 billion raised from small individual donors who gave $200 or less, while Republicans and political groups supporting them received $533.6 million in contributions from small-dollar donors.

Individual donors contributing $200 or less account for a greater share of money raised during the 2022 election cycle than in recent midterm cycles. Those small donors make up 21% of all funds raised by candidates and political committees at this point in the 2022 election cycle, up from about 17% during the entire 2018 midterm election cycle and almost 16% during the 2014 midterm cycle.

The top seven GOP megadonors have contributed nearly $222.7 million to Republican candidates and outside groups. Of the $185.8 million given by the top three Democratic megadonors, $128 million has come from Democratic megadonor George Soros, the top individual donor this election cycle and a frequent target of anti-semitic attacks from conservative pundits and politicians. Fund for Policy Reform, a 501(c)(4) funded by Soros, has given an additional $25 million to super PACs during the 2022 election cycle.

“There are still very active megadonors – George Soros, Ken Griffin, Richard Uihlein – and then also new ones like Sam Bankman-Fried from industries on the rise like cryptocurrency,” Bryner said.


Bankman-Fried, the billionaire founder of the cryptocurrency trading platform FTX, quickly spent his way onto OpenSecrets’ top individual donor list, mainly by contributing $27 million to his Carey committee, Protect Our Future PAC, which aims to support Democratic candidates that could prevent the next pandemic including Generation Z candidate Maxwell Frost in Florida’s 10th Congressional District.

FTX co-CEO Ryan Salame and his wife also topped the individual donor list in part by bankrolling his own Carey committee, American Dream Federal Action, which boosts conservative candidates. The Salames also made large contributions to Defending Main Street PAC, which typically aims to elect moderate Republicans, and GMI PAC, which launched in fall 2021 to support candidates who support a “more secure, competitive, and innovative digital marketplace.”

The crypto industry ramped up its political contributions during the 2022 midterm election cycle as Congress weighs regulations.

This article was researched and reported by OpenSecrets.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less