Democrats Are Hauling In Unprecedented Funds for the Midterms

Thirty Democratic House candidates raised $2 million or more in the last three months.

Democratic House candidate Abigail SpanbergerAP Photo/Steve Helber

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

As Democrats continue to wring their hands over whether they can turn out voters on Election Day, yet another candidate is reporting a remarkable multi-million dollar fundraising haul, adding to the arguably historic numbers reported by a number of campaigns already. One such candidate is Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer running to upset Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who announced on Sunday that she raised $3.6 million between July and September.

To put that in perspective, the average amount raised by a House Congressional candidate over the entire 2016 electionā€”from January 2015 until December 2016ā€”was just $1.1 million, according to OpenSecrets.org, the non-partisan campaign finance data website. And only nine Democratic House candidates raised $3.6 million or more in that time. There’s no word yet on how much Spanberger’s opponent or most other Republicans have raisedā€”filings are due on Mondayā€”but since the end of September, Democrats have been bragging about huge fundraising totals in a number of races and as a party.

According to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, at least 60 Democrats have raised $1 million or more in the last three monthsā€”prior to these numbers, the average amount raised so far this election by a candidate, Republican or Democrat, was just $920,000. And, the DCCC announced, 30 Democratic House candidates raised $2 million or more in the last three months, and eight candidates raised more than $3 million since July. Spanberger is presumably included in those totals, which were announced on Oct. 4, but her numbers had not previously been released. 

Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic Senate candidate for Texas, says he has raised a record-breaking $38 million in the third quarter, but it’s not clear if other Democratic Senate candidates have done as well. We won’t know the Republican numbers until they are released tomorrow, but the numbers are likely to not be as largeā€”totals like Spanberger’s and O’Rourke’s are rare. According to Politico, just 21 candidates from either party raised more than $1 million during the same time frame in 2016.  

Historically, the candidate who raised the most money has usually been the winner, but with the emergence of outside groups, like super-PACs that have the ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money, the dynamic has changed. By intervening in a close race with multi-million dollar ad buys, outside groups have been able to successfully sway a close race and obliterate any advantage one candidate might have in campaign fundraising. However, candidates with multi-million dollar war chests, like Spanberger now has, can blunt the impact of the outside spending.

Still, Spanberger’s race has already been flooded with large chunks of outside spending: in the last two weeks alone, outside groups have spent $2.2 million on ads targeting both Spanberger and Brat. 

In terms of indicating enthusiasm for a candidate, the numbers bode well for the Democrats who are reporting big fundraising numbers. Unlike a super-PAC, which might have a multi-million dollar budget funded entirely by one donor, campaigns can’t accept donations larger than $2,700. It’s not yet clear if Spanberger and other Democratic candidates are benefitting from the kind of small-dollar donations that candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump tapped into in 2016, but they do indicate that an unusually large number of donors, who may also be voters, are tuning into the race and are willing to support the candidate. 

Brat himself is no stranger to facing an opponent with big fundraisingā€”he rose to national prominence in 2014 when he defeated then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Republican fundraising juggernaut, on a shoestring budget. Through the end of June, Brat had raised a healthy $1.3 million. The Congressional district was long thought to be a safe Republican seatā€”Brat won reelection by 14 points in 2016ā€”but is currently rated as a “toss-up” largely on the strength of suburban voters irritation with President Donald Trump. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate