How Money Actually Works in American Elections

The 2026 midterm cycle is shaping up to be the most expensive election cycle in US history. Candidates from both parties are raising money at a record pace, but what does this tidal wave of cash mean for voters and democracy? The sheer volume of fundraising efforts has created a landscape where even losing candidates can claim to have run strong campaigns simply by virtue of their fundraising prowess.

One recent example is Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Senate Democratic primary. Despite being massively outspent by outside interest groups, El-Sayed managed to overcome his financial disadvantage and win the nomination. This outcome highlights the paradox at the heart of US elections: money matters, but only up to a point.

According to Danielle M. Thomsen, a professor of political science at the University of California Irvine, fundraising serves as a signal of viability and strength for candidates. Rich candidates are more likely to win because they can raise early money from large-dollar donors, generating a greater return in subsequent quarters. This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing cycle where wealthy candidates with strong fundraising networks have an inherent advantage over their opponents.

As Thomsen notes, “money is money,” and early money is a prerequisite for success in congressional primaries. However, this also means that losing candidates can claim to have run competitive campaigns simply by virtue of their fundraising efforts. The consequences of this system are far-reaching: it creates a culture where politicians prioritize fundraising over policy-making, eroding trust between voters and elected officials.

The reliance on large-dollar donations from wealthy donors and special interest groups undermines the idea of grassroots politics. Voters must consider not only who is raising money but also their donor bases and networks. By doing so, they can begin to see through the façade of campaign finance laws and expose the true drivers of electoral politics.

Ultimately, the paradox at the heart of US elections highlights the need for more fundamental reform. The current system prioritizes fundraising over policy-making, creating an environment where wealthy candidates with strong networks have a built-in advantage. To break this cycle, voters must demand greater transparency and accountability from elected officials. They should also support reforms that level the playing field for grassroots candidates, such as public financing systems or campaign finance disclosure laws.

As the 2026 midterm cycle heats up, one thing is clear: money will continue to play a major role in US elections. But by understanding the paradox at its heart – that fundraising matters but only up to a point – voters can begin to see through the façade and demand real change from elected officials. The clock is ticking; will we finally take steps towards reclaiming our democracy, or will we continue down the path of partisan gridlock and special interest dominance?