Jon Husted has represented Ohio in the U.S. Senate for nearly two years, and even political junkies might still struggle to pick him out of a lineup. Nevertheless, according to data from AdImpact, the defense of his seat is the most expensive race in the country in terms of advertising. A staggering $400 million or more has either already been spent or is reserved for ad time between now and election day. Another $239 million of that is being spent on Husted’s behalf, compared to $168 million on his Democratic opponent, former Sen. Sherrod Brown. Yet while President Donald Trump won Ohio by 11 points in 2024, Brown leads in polls by an average of nearly 4%.
In many ways, the Ohio Senate race highlights the story of the midterm elections: Republicans are spending almost unfathomable amounts on advertising, including in red-leaning states and districts, and the money isn’t working as they hoped.
The reasons aren’t hard to discern. The first is that almost everywhere, Democrats just have better candidates.
That doesn’t mean money doesn’t matter at all. With campaigns more expensive than ever, every candidate would rather have more cash than their opponent. And the anything-goes campaign finance world the Supreme Court has given us gives billionaires a greater opportunity than ever to purchase the loyalty of politicians. But even with an inattentive electorate, the GOP appears to be hitting the limits of what campaign dollars can buy.
Ohio is a perfect example. Just two years ago, the crypto industry dropped $41 million to defeat Brown. When he lost, the industry got the credit: “Thank you to all of y’all for getting rid of Sherrod Brown,” Sen. Tim Scott told a crypto convention last year. The industry is trying to do the same this year, with far less to show for it.
Look at the other key races, and the pattern repeats: Republicans have the spending advantage, but Democrats are clinging to leads — sometimes small, sometimes large. In Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa, Maine, Republicans are spending more, yet the polls haven’t changed much.
The reasons aren’t hard to discern. The first is that almost everywhere, Democrats just have better candidates. In North Carolina, the Senate Leadership Fund, a key Republican Super PAC, spent $30 million in support of Michael Whatley against Democrat Roy Cooper. Whatley was Trump’s choice to chair the RNC, who has never held elective office; Cooper, on the other hand, is a former two-term governor and four-term state attorney general. With more than a month to go, the SLF decided Whatley was a lost cause, and pulled out of the state. In Texas, Republicans have spent double what Democrats have on ads in the Senate race, but it hasn’t helped their hapless candidate Ken Paxton, who still trails James Talarico in the polls.
A small financial advantage — or even a good-sized one — may not amount to much when there are clearly diminishing returns for stratospheric spending.
But it’s not just the candidates themselves. It’s also that money can’t overcome worries about the cost of living and the drag of a deeply unpopular president. In Texas, for instance, Paxton is an incredibly weak candidate, but Gov. Greg Abbott is a deft politician who has comfortably won three elections in a row. When the race began, almost no one gave Democrat Gina Hinojosa much of a chance (the last Texas Democrat to win a governor’s race was Ann Richards, 36 years ago). Abbott has buried Hinojosa in spending: As of the latest filing, Republicans have spent $141 million, including $74 million just in the last three months, to Hinojosa’s $12 million. And yet, polls have the race narrowing into a dead heat.
There is another factor mitigating the Republicans’ money advantage: They rely more on ultra-wealthy donors and super PACs, while Democrats get more small-dollar donations directly to campaigns. That matters because under the law, candidates are entitled to the lowest rate broadcast stations charge for ads, while the stations can charge super PACs as much as the market will bear. The price only goes up as Election Day approaches and everyone is searching for precious ad time.
That means a million dollars in a candidate’s account will buy more airtime than the same money from a Super PAC. As of Sept. 30, AdImpact reports that Republicans outspent Democrats by 26% in a group of Senate battleground races but only got 7% more airtime for their money.
And a small financial advantage — or even a good-sized one — may not amount to much when there are clearly diminishing returns for stratospheric spending. If both candidates are getting their message out, the one forcing viewers to see their ads 100 times rather than 75 times won’t have accomplished much.
Nevertheless, Republicans are still hoping that money can save them. Elon Musk has already spent over $36 million on the campaign, including $13 million on Paxton alone, with much more on the way. President Trump’s super PAC has already reserved almost $200 million in ad time, and Trump has said his Super PAC will spend as much as $500 million.
No one could say that this is how democracy should work, with billions of dollars spent to impugn every candidate for office, bury viewers in AI slop, and overwhelm voters to such a degree that by November, all they want is for the campaign to be over. But at least we can say that if the ruling party has a poor enough record, gobs of money won’t fool the electorate into thinking otherwise.
The post This eye-wateringly expensive Ohio Senate race is the story of the midterm election appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply