SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
super pacs
As Americans Head to the Polls, Here Are the Billionaires Trying to Buy the 2026 Midterms
"Elon Musk and other billionaires want to make sure that Trump and his Republican Congress works for them—not working families," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "We can beat them."
Nov 03, 2026
People across the United States are heading to the polls on Tuesday to cast their ballots in the 2026 midterms, which are projected to rank as the most expensive congressional elections in the country's history thanks to massive spending by a few billionaires—with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk leading the pack.
Musk, the richest man in the world, has spent nearly $446 million—a minuscule fraction of his net worth—on the 2026 elections to help Republicans cling to their narrow majorities in the House and Senate. Nearly half of Musk's election spending has flowed toward Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's US Senate bid against Democratic candidate James Talarico, who is leading in recent polls.
While Musk is far and away the biggest spender this cycle, an OpenSecrets analysis published on Monday highlights the spending of 14 other billionaires and their spouses.
Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, longtime Republican megadonors, have spent roughly $150 million this cycle to help the GOP. Jeff Yass, a billionaire financier who heavily backs school privatization schemes, has poured over $110 million into the 2026 midterms on the Republican side.
"Elon Musk and other billionaires want to make sure that Trump and his Republican Congress works for them—not working families," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote this past weekend in response to massive billionaire spending. "We can beat them. Organize. Organize. Organize."
The only Democratic donor in the top five list of individual contributors this cycle is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has spent more than $83 million.
OpenSecrets observed that "as in past cycles, these megadonors took advantage of campaign finance rules allowing unlimited contributions to independent outside groups such as super PACs, which can spend without limit to support or attack candidates so long as they do not coordinate directly with campaign committees."
According to OpenSecrets, total spending on the 2026 midterms is expected to hit $11.9 billion—surpassing the 2024 elections as the most expensive congressional contest in US history.
While super PACs are required by federal law to disclose their donors, the entities often receive money from organizations that don't face the same disclosure mandates.
Judd Legum, author of the Popular Information newsletter, reported Tuesday that federal filings show $1.4 billion in midterm spending "has come from non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors."
"This includes both donations from these non-profits to super PACs and money spent directly by the non-profits on electioneering," Legum wrote. "Dark money spending in 2026 dwarfs previous cycles. Spending from organizations with secret donors is more than six times higher this cycle compared to 2018."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Led by Elon Musk, 515 Superrich People Have Donated $4.2 Billion to Super PACs for 2026 Elections
"Until something is done, like overturning the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision, the wealthy’s stranglehold on our political system will continue to tighten."
Oct 28, 2026
The "almost cartoon-villain level of political spending" by SpaceX CEO and former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk has reached a fever pitch ahead of the midterm elections, with the right-wing billionaire's donations of $445 million to super political action committees accounting for 10% of the $4.2 billion the PACs have brought in.
As an analysis released Tuesday by the government watchdog Public Citizen found, Musk has led the way in contributing huge sums to super PACs. The PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates and causes and have increasingly influenced elections following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which said the government cannot restrict political spending by corporations.
But excluding Musk, just 514 donors have contributed about $3.8 billion to super PACs this election cycle, as Republicans attempt to hold onto control of the US Senate and House of Representatives despite President Donald Trump's plummeting approval rating and his record of raising the prices of gas and other essentials with his illegal war on Iran and his tariff policy.
Altogether, the donations from the 515 contributors account for 73% of all super PAC funding from individuals, corporations, and nonprofits this election cycle, according to Public Citizen.
"The figures add to a growing body of evidence that unlimited political spending has concentrated influence over elections among a tiny number of wealthy individuals and corporations," said the organization, noting that Musk's contributions come two years after he poured nearly $300 million into the 2024 elections, boosting Trump and other Republicans and spending close to $120 million more than the next closest donor.
The report follows an earlier Public Citizen analysis that found more than 100 super PACs that have raised at least $1 million received the majority of the funding from just a single donor, collectively gathering more than $1 billion to boost the candidates of their choice.
The Senate Leadership Fund has the most donors contributing at least $1 million each, with 61 people contributing $496 million.
“When 500 donors account for more than 70% of super PAC contributions, we should be asking whose voices our political system is prioritizing.”
MAGA Inc., the super PAC affiliated with Trump, has taken $405 million from 102 contributors ahead of the crucial midterms, while the Senate Majority PAC has received $244 million from 44 people or groups.
Fifty-three donors have sent $231 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, while 31 donors have contributed $183 million to the House Majority PAC.
“Super PACs have helped create a political system where a small number of wealthy interests can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections and shape the choices voters face,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “When 500 donors account for more than 70% of super PAC contributions, we should be asking whose voices our political system is prioritizing.”
After Musk, GOP megadonors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have been the second-largest contributors to super PACs this year. The Uihleins own the packing company Uline, and have pushed for years for government deregulation and against labor unions.
Other top contributors include multiple dark money groups, right-wing megadonor Jeffrey Yass—a longtime funder of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and anti-public school campaigns—and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who said earlier this year that he would prefer to use artificial intelligence in his business rather than hire human workers.
As The Washington Sun reported Tuesday, dark money groups, which don't have to reveal the source of their contributions, have poured more than $392 million into the four congressional leadership PACs this year.
The Public Citizen report stresses that the hundreds of top donors to super PACs this year gave amounts of money that "most Americans could not fathom donating to a political cause."
More than 85% of the money raised by super PACs ahead of the midterms came from donors who gave at least $20,000—"nearly a quarter of the median household income," said Public Citizen.
"Until something is done, like overturning the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision," said the group, "the wealthy’s stranglehold on our political system will continue to tighten."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is Right-Wing Dark Money Funding an Ohio Socialist for US Senate?
"After years of using socialism to frighten voters away from Democrats, political interests with apparent Republican connections are trying a remarkable reversal: selling voters on a socialist," said one news site.
Oct 13, 2026
A mysterious right-wing political action committee has spent nearly $400,000 promoting a socialist running for the US Senate in Ohio, raising questions about an apparent effort to siphon progressive votes from Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown in a key midterm contest, according to reports published Monday.
The Columbus Dispatch and Cleveland.com are among the media outlets reporting that the newly formed Enough Promises Ohio PAC has financed mailers urging voters to support Greg Levy, an independent candidate affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), whose working-class platform includes implementing a $30 hourly minimum wage, ending the "US war machine" and "war on Black America," and working to "save the planet from capitalism."
The mailers were not produced by Levy's campaign. Federal campaign finance filings trace the spending to a printing vendor with connections to President Donald Trump's political network. Seven Farms shares a business address with Whistlestop Strategies, a direct mail operation associated with Big Dog Strategies, a Republican consulting firm that has worked with Republican candidates and has ties to MAGA Inc., Trump's principal super political action committee (PAC).
"After years of using socialism to frighten voters away from Democrats, political interests with apparent Republican connections are trying a remarkable reversal: selling voters on a socialist," Cleveland.com reported, noting what some are calling a "cynical attempt to turn growing interest in socialism into a weapon against Sherrod Brown."
The connections raise questions about whether the spending is part of a Republican strategy to divide Democratic-leaning voters. Enough Promises Ohio has not disclosed its contributors, leaving the source of the money unclear. The PAC and the involved companies have yet to explain the spending.
"The Greg Levy for Senate campaign team has recently discovered, through messages circulating on social media, that mailers falsely impersonating our campaign are being sent out to voters across Ohio," Levy said on X. "The Greg Levy for Senate campaign has no ties to the entities circulating the mailer, and we condemn this attempted deception of voters."
"There is a well-established record of both Republican and Democratic Party operatives using their financial resources to try and trick voters," he continued. "This is a highly undemocratic practice and does a disservice to voters in Ohio and throughout the country."
"Our campaign is historically rooted in Black and working-class communities throughout our state, and our message of fighting for working people against the biggest banks and corporations is resonating with voters all over Ohio," Levy said. "We reject and condemn the dirty tricks and racist impersonation of our campaign by entities working on behalf of those same capitalist institutions."
"This racist caricaturing of our candidate, a form of digital blackface, is a cheap, cowardly attack that is meant to demean the communities we represent and scare voters away from policies that put the needs of working families ahead of corporate profits," he added. "The Greg Levy for Senate campaign is considering taking legal action against the operatives behind this crude impersonation."
The murky mailers come as Brown, a former US senator seeking to reclaim his seat, faces Republican Sen. Jon Husted in a closely watched race that could help determine control of the Senate. Numerous recent polls indicate a low- to mid-single-digit lead for Brown.
Progressives who eschew Brown in favor of Levy cite the latter's pro-working-class economic agenda, Brown's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, and general frustration with the two major parties.
In an opinion piece published Tuesday by Common Dreams, Ohio Peace Council Chair Werner Lange argued that Levy's candidacy risks being a "spoiler," particularly among younger and pro-Palestinian voters dissatisfied with Brown's record and his acceptance of campaign contributions from pro-Israel interests—including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—which have given more than $1.2 million to the former senator since 1990, according to the campaign finance tracker OpenSecrets.
"The danger is that Levy may do to the 2026 Senate race in Ohio what Ralph Nader did to the 2000 Presidential race in Florida—snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for progressive forces," Lange wrote, repeating the controversial, and, according to some experts, false claim that the consumer advocate's Green Party run tipped the highly contentious contest in favor of Republican nominee George W. Bush.
That does not mean that Levy can't divert enough votes from Brown to deliver a win for Husted and, possibly, control of the narrowly divided Senate to Republicans.
The right-wing funding in support of Levy underscores how outside groups can spend enormous sums to influence voters while keeping their own donors hidden, at least until disclosure deadlines require them to reveal more, largely as a result of US Supreme Court rulings, chiefly 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Recently, Democrats including former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, and comedian/commentator Jon Stewart have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics.
Last year, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led the introduction of the We the People Amendment, which rejects corporate personhood and would enshrine that "the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Payback: Corporations That Enjoyed Enforcement Rollback Plowed $200 Million Into Pro-Trump Super PAC
"Allowing corporations to make political payments in order to make enforcement go away is hardly a model for governing that supposedly prioritizes 'law and order,'" said one researcher.
Oct 08, 2026
The Trump administration's canceled enforcement actions against at least 205 corporations accused of wrongdoing have been cases of powerful companies "getting what they paid for," according to a new report by government watchdog Public Citizen.
Building on an analysis it released earlier this week regarding hundreds of canceled investigations and dismissed lawsuits against companies, many of which have ties to the administration, the group on Thursday published a follow-up report detailing just how much some of the corporations paid to have their legal troubles wiped away.
Companies that have benefited from the cancellation of enforcement have given $210.5 million in contributions and pledges to MAGA, Inc. and other super political action committees (PACs) that worked to elect President Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2024 and are continuing to back right-wing candidates in the midterms.
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has benefited from at least eight canceled actions, with lawsuits filed against the former company by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and the National Labor Relations Board dismissed and an investigation into data center pollution presumably closed. Tesla has avoided three investigations that the National Highway Traffic Safety had begun and one that the Department of Labor has opened into contract compliance.
The cancellations didn't come for free, Public Citizen said. Musk—who also served in the administration last year and is now helping with a Pentagon project—donated $5 million to MAGA, Inc. and has pledged to spend $100 million to help elect Republicans this year.
“Corporations and ultrawealthy executives with enormous financial interests before the federal government are pouring extraordinary sums into the president’s political operation,” said Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman. “Once the check is cashed, the administration is pulling back enforcement actions meant to punish corporate misconduct. It’s a great deal for the corporate wrongdoers—at the expense of their victims and the American people.”
Crypto.org is another top beneficiary of Trump's favorable treatment of the cryptocurrency industry, Wall Street, Big Tech, and large corporations that have pledged to help push his far-right agenda in the elections.
The Securities and Exchange Commission had been investigating allegations that the crypto platform was trading unregistered securities. The probe was abruptly closed in March 2025, after the company gave $35 million to MAGA, Inc. and $2 million to Keep America Great, another super PAC aligned with the president.
“Once the check is cashed, the administration is pulling back enforcement actions meant to punish corporate misconduct."
Gemini, co-founded by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, had been facing a similar investigation, but it was also closed after the company gave $20 million to MAGA, Inc.—on top of $10 million each that the two founders personally donated.
"Allowing corporations to make political payments in order to make enforcement go away is hardly a model for governing that supposedly prioritizes 'law and order,'" wrote Rick Claypool, research director for Public Citizen, in the report. "On the contrary, it is indicative of a profoundly unjust and arbitrary mode of enforcement organized around the principles of rewarding insiders, punishing outsiders, and concentrating power in the hands of an increasingly authoritarian president."
He noted that while the Trump administration has demonstrated little interest in addressing corporate wrongdoing, "enforcement personnel and resources are being channeled toward punishing immigrants, activists, and perceived political opponents."
"Restoring the rule of law will be a challenge for the future," wrote Claypool, "and the path forward will require a rebalance of priorities that ensures that corporations and the powerful cannot pay to protect themselves from federal enforcement that holds them accountable when they break the law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Swapping One Illegal Scheme for Another, Trump Says Super PAC Cash Will Now Fund Propaganda Ads
"Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," noted one campaign finance expert.
Oct 06, 2026
Facing widespread backlash, President Donald Trump said late Monday that he would stop unlawfully funding political ads with taxpayer dollars and instead use money from a pro-Trump super PAC—a scheme that watchdogs said would also be illegal.
Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that he has "decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." The president's announcement came amid growing outrage over his administration's use of more than $10 million in taxpayer funds for political propaganda, a violation of federal law.
But Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), said Trump's new scheme to finance the ads with super PAC cash would also run afoul of federal law.
"After charging taxpayers $10 million for thinly-veiled campaign ads, Trump now says he'll have his super PAC pay instead. One problem: Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," said Fischer, who noted that his organization "has already filed a complaint" against the president for directing MAGA Inc. spending.
CLC's complaint, filed last month, notes that Trump and his allies have openly indicated that he controls MAGA Inc., in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
“President Trump’s repeated assertions that he controls a super PAC show that he has committed a clear-cut violation of campaign finance law,” said Saurav Ghosh, CLC's director of federal campaign finance reform. “Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC. President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
The recent ads launched by the Trump White House just weeks ahead of the November midterms were funded by money from the Department of Homeland Security. Major networks, including CNN and MS NOW, faced intense backlash for airing the ads even though they were financed illegally.
"These campaign ads never should have run on the taxpayer’s dime to begin with. Clearly wrong. Clearly illegal," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) said following Trump's announcement on Monday. "But there’s a lesson here: We can’t underestimate the difference that citizens can make in our country when they speak out and hold their leaders to account."
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that donors to the MAGA Inc. super PAC include:
- Twenty crypto companies and executives who contributed $88.2 million;
- Four artificial intelligence (AI) and data center donors who contributed $37 million;
- Six fossil fuel companies and executives who contributed $29.75 million;
- Two health insurance and benefits companies who contributed $6 million; and
- Forty-seven nursing home companies and executives who contributed nearly $10 million.
"President Trump first ran for office promising to drain the swamp—a catchall phrase that meant rooting out corruption, conflicts of interest, and other insider dealing—but large wealthy and corporate donors to his super PAC appear to be benefiting from the official actions he is taking as president," the analysis stated. "As Americans’ screens are flooded with misleading and fearmongering advertisements in the weeks ahead, they should ask themselves who is funding those ads and how are they benefiting."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Says Trump Control of $400 Million Political War Chest a 'Clear-Cut Violation of Campaign Finance Law'
"President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption."
Sep 25, 2026
An election spending watchdog on Friday accused President Donald Trump of committing a "clear-cut violation of campaign finance law" through his stated control over spending decisions made by the MAGA Inc. super political action committee.
Citing decades of legal precedent, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) argued that federal office holders are prohibited from directing spending for super PACs, which raise money outside the scope of federal campaign laws.
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at CLC, noted that Trump has stated publicly on multiple occasions that he will decide where MAGA Inc.'s $400 million war chest will be deployed in the 2026 elections—which Ghosh said would be flatly illegal.
"Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC," said Ghosh. "President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption."
Last week, CLC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that cited statements Trump made to reporters, whom he told funds raised by MAGA Inc. were "my money that I control."
This statement alone, the group said, was "a remarkable admission of a serious campaign finance violation."
The complaint then asked the FEC to seek "appropriate sanctions for any and all violations" of campaign finance law committed by Trump and MAGA Inc., "including civil penalties sufficient to deter future violations and an injunction prohibiting the respondents from any and all violations in the future."
While MAGA Inc. has a formidable stash of campaign cash at its disposal, it is unclear how much of an impact it will have on the 2026 midterms given that polls show the president and his party are in a deep hole with voters.
A report from The New Republic published last week revealed that the pro-Trump super PAC is plugging significant money into at least 17 districts that the president won by more than five points in 2024, and six districts that he won by more than 10 points.
David Wasserman, elections analyst for Cook Political Report, told The New Republic that this spending in pro-Trump districts is "an acknowledgment that things have shifted in a huge way since 2024."
"Republicans have hemorrhaged support among independent voters, they’ve got a real enthusiasm problem," said Wasserman, "and as a result, districts that ordinarily would vote handily for Trump and Republicans are now in play."
A Friday report in The Washington Post examined the states where Trump is preparing to campaign in the coming days, and found the president is being deployed in deep-red states such as Alabama and Oklahoma.
"Oklahoma is a state Trump won in 2024 with 66% of the vote—and won all 77 counties," the Post reported. "In Alabama, Trump won with 65%."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Must Be Done': Sanders Calls for Ban on Super PAC Spending in Democratic Primaries
"I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries. The time to act is now."
Aug 10, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged national Democratic leaders to impose a total ban on super PAC spending in primary contests, a change that the progressive senator said is necessary to prevent corporate interests from heavily influencing the party's electoral outcomes.
In a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote that "what is particularly obscene is not only the outrageous amount of money coming into Democratic primaries from billionaire-funded super PACs, but the reality that these special interests have no particular desire to see Democrats win."
Sanders, who caucuses with the Democratic Party, cited as a telling example the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's $30 million intervention in the Democratic primary for a critical US Senate seat in Michigan. The organization, known as AIPAC, spent heavily to boost Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and attempt to tear down her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed—who went on to win the race despite being massively outspent.
AIPAC is now reportedly planning to spend big in support of El-Sayed's Republican general election opponent, Mike Rogers.
"It is absurd that they spend tens of millions of dollars to try to determine who the Democratic nominee is and, if they fail, then proceed to support the Republican candidate in the general election," Sandres wrote. "That is not democracy. That is not what Democratic voters want."
Sanders emphasized his support for passage of a constitutional amendment to repeal the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for the establishment and proliferation of super PACs—entities that can raise and spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing political campaigns.
"BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT," Sanders wrote in all caps. "Right now, the Democratic Party has the power to prohibit super PACs from participating in its primaries. That can be done. That must be done. I urge you to take action and make clear that the Democratic Party will no longer maintain this corrupt system."
"While there are ideological differences of opinion within the big tent of the party, I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries," the senator continued. "The time to act is now."
The DNC has repeatedly faced calls in recent years to curb or eliminate the influence of super PACs in Democratic primaries—but has yet to take concrete action.
Earlier this year, the DNC Rules Committee rejected a proposed resolution that condemned the "growing influence" of AIPAC and other organizations pumping huge sums into Democratic primaries. The rules panel instead advanced a resolution broadly condemning dark money and expressing the DNC's "commitment to campaign finance practices that align with the party’s core values."
Nearly a third of all corporate political spending on elections since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling has come during the 2026 election cycle, according to a June report by Public Citizen.
"Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle, reflecting a strategic move to spend directly on political action committees to influence federal elections," the report found. "These corporate super PAC political contributions make up 57% of the $517 million that corporations have reported spending on the 2026 midterms so far."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sports Betting Giants Join Unprecedented Corporate Efforts to Buy 2026 Midterms
Democratic Rep. Summer Lee said the new spending was yet another reason “it’s time to get money out of politics.”
Jul 29, 2026
As corporations spend record sums to influence this November's elections, new campaign finance data shows a powerful new interest fueling the trend: sports gambling companies.
FanDuel, DraftKings, and others in the sports betting industry have spent $72 million seeking to influence the upcoming election cycle, according to a report from Reuters on Tuesday.
The industry's historic spending blitz faces growing scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, and seeks to protect its turf against rising competitors in the prediction market business, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, which are financially tied to the Trump administration.
Sports gambling companies have become the third-largest corporate election donor in the country during this cycle behind just the technology and cryptocurrency sectors, according to a June report by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. These two industries have spent over $100 million promoting their interests in the upcoming midterms.
That same report found that the 2026 election cycle has been influenced by more corporate money than any since 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for companies to spend unlimited sums promoting their preferred candidates via super political action committees (PACs).
These groups are not legally allowed to coordinate with candidates or give them money directly, but are allowed to advocate on their behalf, sometimes spending tens of millions of dollars to run ads aimed at influencing a single race.
As of last month, the report found that corporations have spent $517 million, mainly through super PACs, to influence the 2026 election, accounting for nearly one-third of all corporate election spending since 2010.
According to Reuters, major sportsbooks have channeled their money into the super PAC Win For America, which launched last year, and distributed it to affiliated PACs: the Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and the Democrat-focused American Future.
DraftKings has given at least $34 million to Win for America, FanDuel has given at least $27 million, and Fanatics and the UK-based bet365 have given $5.5 million apiece.
Separately, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and BetMGM created the Sports Betting Alliance in 2021 to lobby Congress and state legislatures.
Since 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring sports betting in most states, at least 39 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized it in some form.
While crypto and tech have directed more attention to federal races, the battles over sports betting are raging mostly at the state level, and that’s where most of Win for America’s focus is going.
According to Reuters:
The money's impact is already evident in some state races.
Win for America spent more than $12 million in Georgia state races through two smaller PACs—Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and Democrat-focused American Future—as the legislature there weighs bills that would legalize gambling, state campaign finance records show.
The money went into 34 legislative races ahead of the primary. All but two of the candidates supported by the industry won, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in May...
Win for America is also spending heavily on races in Pennsylvania, where there was a push to raise taxes on the online sports betting industry to boost state aid for public transportation, election records show.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who introduced legislation in May that would apply the same contribution limits to super PACs that already apply to direct donations, argued that the huge sums spent by the sports betting industry were yet another reason that "it's time to get money out of politics."
"Crypto. Big tech. Now big sports betting," she wrote on social media Wednesday. "Another industry pouring tens of millions into our elections to protect its profits. Democracy shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
$60 Million 'Crutch' From Super PACs Is Proof That Stevens Isn't Actually 'Electable,' Says El-Sayed
In the final debate before Michigan's pivotal Democratic Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayed continued to hammer on the idea that his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, is "bought off" by AIPAC and corporate-funded super PACs.
Jul 28, 2026
Progressive US Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed spent Monday night's final Democratic primary debate in Michigan continuing to hammer on his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens' backing from big money donors.
With just a week before Michiganders head to the polls, Stevens has emphasized her supposed electability against presumptive Republican nominee former Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat, which could decide the balance of power in the Senate.
While El-Sayed has consistently dominated in fundraising from individual contributors, particularly small-dollar donors, he is still dramatically outgunned by Stevens in terms of overall financial support.
Six aligned super PACs have reserved roughly $60 million to run ads boosting her—more than half of which comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-affiliated super political action committee (PAC) the United Democracy Project.
This tidal wave of outside funding has appeared to help Stevens remain competitive with El-Sayed after initially trailing him. But on the debate stage Monday, former Detroit public health official El-Sayed—who has made removing big money from politics a central campaign plank—argued that the spending cuts against Stevens' claim that she is more "electable" than him.
Along with the Senate filibuster, which he said would allow Republicans to stymy ambitious agenda items like Medicare for All and labor protection bills like the PRO Act, El-Sayed argued that "money in politics" was among the biggest "risks to our democracy."
He pointed to the super PAC-funded "attack ads that you've seen, probably in the last commercial break itself" that "change our political system." He then called out Stevens directly.
"When you ask $60 million to come into a race for you, and then say that somehow you're electable, I think you don't quite understand what electability means," El-Sayed said. "If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can't be elected on your own terms."
Both El-Sayed and Stevens are shown to be slightly ahead of Rogers in polls for a hypothetical November matchup.
While Stevens has claimed that Rogers views El-Sayed as an easier opponent, one aggregate of four recent polls by 270ToWin shows El-Sayed leading the Republican by about 2.5 percentage points on average compared to Stevens, who leads by about 1.3 points on average.
El-Sayed, who has made a point of swearing off corporate backers, hit on the idea that Stevens was "bought off" repeatedly throughout the night.
He noted the $45,000 in direct support her campaigns had received since 2019 from the increasingly loathed Michigan energy monopoly DTE, as well as her support from super PACs backed by donors in the health insurance and tech industries.
Responding to Stevens’ message about the need to lower prices for ordinary people, El-Sayed said, “I don’t take money from the corporations who are jacking up your prices in the first place.”
He also pointed to her vote last week to preserve $3.3 billion in military aid for Israel while more than half of her Democratic colleagues voted for an amendment that would have cut off the support.
El-Sayed said it showed that AIPAC, which has grown overwhelmingly unpopular with Democratic voters disgusted by Israel's actions, had dumped at least $30 million behind Stevens because “they know she’ll be a reliable vote."
Stevens largely sidestepped questions about her super PAC support, instead hitting back at El-Sayed for campaigning with "senators who’ve come in here from the coast," like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who she said lack an understanding of "what makes our state tick."
She emphasized her "experience" over El-Sayed as a four-term congresswoman and as “Michigan’s manufacturing geek” who'd bring a "unique understanding" of the state's issues to Congress.
"I don't think there's much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me," Stevens said, ignoring that outside spending to back Stevens throughout the primary outpaces the amount supporting El-Sayed by about 18-to-1, according to the latest totals from AdImpact.
While polling for next Tuesday's primary has been all over the map, showing leads for both El-Sayed and Stevens in recent weeks, an unscientific online poll from Fox 2 Detroit indicated that El-Sayed was viewed overwhelmingly as the winner of Monday's debate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Tina Smith Endorses El-Sayed as He Continues to Dominate With Small-Dollar Donors
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory," Smith said.
Jul 24, 2026
With less than two weeks left before Michigan’s Democratic primary, Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed earned support from another US senator on Thursday, with Sen. Tina Smith praising the progressive as "a fighter."
The endorsement comes as El-Sayed's opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, rakes in massive support from large super PACs but continues to be massively outraised by him among small donors.
Smith (D-Minn.), who is not seeking reelection in 2026, is nevertheless the fourth member of the chamber to endorse El-Sayed, following Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
"I've been a United States senator for nearly nine years. And in that time, I have seen there are basically two kinds of senators," Smith said in a video posted to social media. "There are the ones who go along to get along, that hoard their power, and do everything they can to pacify big money. And then there are the fighters—the ones that are ready to challenge the status quo and fight a system that too often seems like it's rigged for the rich and the powerful."
El-Sayed, she said, was one of the latter, crediting his support for Medicare for All, his longtime union membership, and his refusal to accept corporate PAC money.
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November," Smith said, "because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory."
The endorsement comes as new Federal Election Commission filings released Thursday showed El-Sayed's grassroots fundraising advantage. Between July 1-15, he raised over $2.3 million from individual donors compared to about $921,000 for Stevens during the same period.
The divide is even starker among small donors, where El-Sayed leads Stevens by nearly 9-to-1.
Stevens still has the vast funding advantage thanks to the intervention of powerful outside groups. According to OpenSecrets, the United Democracy Project, the political spending arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has poured nearly $20 million to push her over the line.
Another super PAC, known as A Stronger Michigan, has spent an additional $14 million on ads promoting Stevens. The dark money group that provides nearly all of its funding, Center Forward, has not disclosed its donors and won't be required to do so until after the August 4 primary.
This wave of outside money has helped Stevens remain competitive against El-Sayed. But her struggles to raise money from voters have raised concerns about her ability to perform in the general election against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, who would be expected to suck up the AIPAC funding currently going to Stevens.
While Smith may not have the star power of other Democrats who have backed El-Sayed, journalist Zaid Jilani argued that her endorsement “is a big one” and “a sign [Democrats] think Abdul has a good chance of winning.”
"AIPAC is bailing [Stevens] out right now," he wrote. "But I don’t see why they’d spend on her in a general when Mike Rogers is even friendlier to them."
Journalist Ryan Grim asserted that without AIPAC money for a potential Stevens general election campaign, the Democrats could be forced to pull funding from "Ohio, and Iowa, and Alaska, and so on."
"El-Sayed, meanwhile, has a built-in fundraising base, because he has regular people supporting him, not a super PAC that doesn’t care about Michigan or the Democratic Party," said Grim.
Recent polls show El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than the one enjoyed by Stevens. Recent polls for next month's Democratic primary, however, have been more challenging to parse, with some showing El-Sayed far in front and others showing leads for Stevens.
David Dulio, a political science professor at Oakland University, described the race to OpenSecrets as a “battle for the future of the Democratic Party” between powerful donors and the grassroots.
"The story right now… is that Stevens is dominating with outside funding,” Dulio said. “El-Sayed has momentum, and Stevens has money.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy