In 2024, Republicans were outspent 3-to-1 in the presidential election. To make up the difference, their strategy focused on reaching the voters who would decide it.
In 2026, Republicans have the spending advantage. But where that money comes from affects how much advertising it buys.
In Impressions to Ballots #48, we asked whether the Republican money spigot had turned on.
In the 11 competitive Senate states, it has. Republicans spent 26% ($24M) more than Democrats in the first week of October.
Republican: $115M (56%)
Democrat: $91M (44%)
But spending tells only part of the story.
Who is doing the spending?
Republicans rely more heavily on outside groups, including super PACs that can raise unlimited contributions from big donors.
Democratic candidates have raised a larger share of their side’s money directly.
That distinction matters when it’s time to buy TV ads.
Why does this advantage Democrats?
Eligible candidate ads qualify for the “lowest unit rate”: the lowest price charged for comparable airtime in the same class and time period.
Independent outside groups don’t get that rate. They can pay substantially more to run an ad in the same programming.
The result: a dollar from a candidate’s campaign can buy more TV advertising than a dollar from an outside group.
How much spending goes to TV?
In the first week of October, broadcast and cable TV accounted for 74% of Republican spending, compared with 64% for Democrats.
Of that TV spending, 44% of Democratic dollars qualified for the lowest unit rate, compared with just 13% of Republican dollars.
Republicans put more money into TV, but a smaller share qualified for the lowest rates.
What did those dollars buy?
Using Cross Screen Media’s measurement product, we measured broadcast TV impressions delivered to likely voters.
Republicans spent 45% more but delivered only 11% more targeted impressions.
That works out to a 30% premium Republicans paid to reach likely voters across the 11 Senate contests.
What about digital?
According to AdImpact, Democrats outspent Republicans on digital and streaming in the first week of October.
Digital has no lowest unit rate. If both parties bought the same media mix at the same prices, Democrats’ spending advantage would translate into more impressions.
But their actual media mix, targeting and prices are less visible. Spending alone doesn’t tell us which party reached more likely voters.
Why are Republicans buying national football ads?
Viewers around the country saw ads supporting Texas Senate candidate Ken Paxton during last week’s football games.
The obvious question: why pay to reach people who can’t vote in Texas?
Because buying nationally can cost less than buying locally.
Football has limited local ad inventory. In competitive Senate states, that inventory gets expensive quickly.
According to Medium Buying, a single 30-second spot during Cowboys–Texans across Texas’ four largest markets would have cost more than $2M. El Paso alone was asking another $200K.
Compare that with $700K–$1M for a national spot.
For an outside group without access to candidate rates, the national buy could reach Texas viewers for less, even with millions of out-of-state viewers included.
What does this mean for political advertisers?
Outside groups should lean into streaming. Super PACs pay a premium on TV because they don’t qualify for candidate rates. Streaming removes that particular disadvantage. As viewers move there, more outside-group dollars should follow.
Campaigns should put their TV discount to work. Lowest unit rates give candidate dollars more buying power on TV. Use that advantage first. Outside groups can independently assess TV coverage and look for gaps.
Think Moneyball. The best buy depends on the race, the market, and who’s paying. Compare the cost of reaching likely voters across channels, and put dollars where they buy the most, not where they went last cycle.