WASHINGTON — Super PACs and other outside groups have reported spending $1.22 billion on independent expenditures in this year’s general-election races for the U.S. House, and the money is split almost evenly between the two parties, a Washington Inquisitor analysis of Federal Election Commission records shows.
Groups backing Democrats or opposing Republicans reported $609.4 million in spending, while groups backing Republicans or opposing Democrats reported $592.8 million, according to the analysis of the FEC’s bulk independent expenditure file updated Oct. 31. Another $18 million went to or against independent and third-party candidates or could not be assigned to either side.
The spending is highly concentrated. Outside groups reported spending in 277 House districts, but only 85 drew $1 million or more and 45 drew $10 million or more. The 20 most expensive districts accounted for $616.2 million, just over half the total.
The most expensive House race in the country by this measure is North Carolina’s 1st District, where outside groups have reported $45.2 million in spending in the contest between Rep. Don Davis, a Democrat, and Republican Laurie Buckhout. The two sides there are separated by less than $1 million.
Where the money is going
The 20 districts below drew the most reported outside spending in general-election races through Oct. 31. Amounts are in millions of dollars. “Pro-Dem” counts spending that supports a Democrat or opposes a Republican; “Pro-GOP” counts the reverse. Candidates are those named in the filings.
| District | Total ($M) | Pro-Dem ($M) | Pro-GOP ($M) | Largest spenders ($M) | Candidates (D / R) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC-01 | 45.2 | 22.9 | 22.2 | CLF 13.1; HMP 11.3 | Davis / Buckhout |
| MI-07 | 42.5 | 19.6 | 22.9 | HMP 14.0; CLF 11.9 | Lawrence / Barrett |
| FL-25 | 40.8 | 20.5 | 20.3 | HMP 17.1; No Going Back 13.7 | Moskowitz / Singer |
| MI-10 | 39.8 | 22.1 | 17.7 | CLF 14.8; HMP 11.3 | Hines / Bouchard |
| FL-14 | 38.4 | 16.4 | 22.0 | No Going Back 12.7; HMP 8.8 | Castor / Beltran |
| AZ-01 | 31.9 | 11.8 | 20.0 | Safety & Affordability 9.4; CLF 7.1 | Shah / Feely |
| CO-08 | 31.4 | 15.4 | 15.9 | CLF 8.4; HMP 8.1 | Rutinel / Evans |
| TX-34 | 30.8 | 13.7 | 17.1 | HMP 10.3; CLF 7.9 | Gonzalez / Flores |
| FL-22 | 30.8 | 17.5 | 13.2 | HMP 12.3; No Going Back 9.9 | Dandiya / Askar |
| WI-03 | 29.8 | 16.1 | 13.7 | HMP 8.9; CLF 5.7 | Cooke / Van Orden |
| CA-22 | 28.2 | 16.8 | 11.4 | CLF 9.8; HMP 8.6 | Villegas / Valadao |
| NY-17 | 27.0 | 7.7 | 19.3 | CLF 11.2; Safety & Affordability 5.7 | Conley / Lawler |
| AZ-06 | 26.8 | 14.9 | 11.9 | CLF 6.1; HMP 3.9 | Mendoza / Ciscomani |
| PA-08 | 25.6 | 13.6 | 12.1 | CLF 6.7; HMP 4.8 | Cognetti / Bresnahan |
| MI-04 | 25.4 | 12.0 | 13.1 | HMP 6.2; No Going Back 5.4 | McCann / Huizenga |
| IA-02 | 24.8 | 16.2 | 8.6 | Everytown 5.4; No Going Back 4.5 | James / Mitchell |
| TX-15 | 24.6 | 12.7 | 11.9 | No Going Back 7.0; HMP 6.5 | Pulido / De La Cruz |
| IA-03 | 24.5 | 13.4 | 11.0 | Everytown 6.8; CLF 5.5 | Trone Garriott / Nunn |
| ME-02 | 24.3 | 10.3 | 14.0 | HMP 9.0; CLF 7.0 | Dunlap / LePage |
| PA-07 | 23.5 | 11.9 | 11.5 | CLF 8.6; HMP 7.8 | Brooks / Mackenzie |
Several patterns stand out. In most of the top districts, the two sides are within a few million dollars of each other, a sign that both parties’ allied groups see the same short list of seats as decisive for control of the House.
There are exceptions. In New York’s 17th District, where Republican Rep. Mike Lawler faces Democrat Cait Conley, pro-Republican groups have outspent pro-Democratic groups by about $11.6 million. In Arizona’s 1st District, an open seat, pro-Republican spending leads by $8.2 million. In Iowa’s 2nd District, the balance tilts the other way, with pro-Democratic groups ahead by $7.6 million.
Florida is home to three of the top 10 districts: the 25th, the 14th and the 22nd. Michigan has three of the top 15.
Who is spending
Two party-aligned super PACs dominate the field. House Majority PAC, the main super PAC supporting House Democrats, reported $282.1 million in House general-election independent expenditures, according to the analysis. The Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with House Republican leadership, reported $222.5 million.
| Committee | Reported spending ($M) | Alignment |
|---|---|---|
| House Majority PAC | 282.1 | Democratic |
| Congressional Leadership Fund | 222.5 | Republican |
| No Going Back PAC | 158.6 | Republican (Trump-aligned) |
| Safety & Affordability PAC | 63.2 | Republican (Trump-aligned) |
| Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund | 33.7 | Democratic-leaning |
| LCV Victory Fund | 25.8 | Democratic-leaning |
| Your Community PAC | 20.8 | See FEC filings |
| AB PAC | 14.1 | Democratic-leaning |
| Ready for the Fight | 13.4 | See FEC filings |
| Progressive Turnout Project | 13.1 | Democratic-leaning |
| America PAC | 12.7 | Republican-leaning |
| Civic Renewal Fund | 12.3 | See FEC filings |
| Project 218 | 12.1 | See FEC filings |
| Club for Growth Action | 10.0 | Republican-leaning |
The third-largest spender is a newcomer. No Going Back PAC, which registered with the FEC in September, has reported $158.6 million in House independent expenditures. Its filings show it has been funded with about $200 million from MAGA Inc., the super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump.
Safety & Affordability PAC, which registered at about the same time, has reported $63.2 million. FactCheck.org reported that $25 million of the $25.1 million the group had raised as of its last report came from MAGA Inc., and that it shares a treasurer, Charles Gantt, with No Going Back PAC.
Together, the two Trump-aligned groups have reported $221.8 million in House spending, about as much as the Congressional Leadership Fund. Without them, pro-Republican outside spending in House general-election races would trail pro-Democratic spending by roughly $240 million; with them, the two sides are within $17 million of each other. The two groups have concentrated on competitive seats: No Going Back PAC is one of the two largest spenders in six of the 20 most expensive districts, including Florida’s 25th, 14th and 22nd.
Where each side leads
Pro-Democratic groups have outspent pro-Republican groups in 24 of the 45 districts that drew at least $10 million, and pro-Republican groups lead in the other 21. Among the 85 districts with at least $1 million in outside spending, pro-Democratic groups lead in 49 and pro-Republican groups in 36.
| State | Reported spending ($M) |
|---|---|
| Florida | 139.0 |
| Michigan | 113.2 |
| Texas | 100.2 |
| Pennsylvania | 91.5 |
| California | 86.1 |
| Ohio | 71.7 |
| Arizona | 70.2 |
| Iowa | 68.5 |
Florida leads all states, driven by three of the 10 most expensive districts. Iowa, with four House seats, ranks eighth, ahead of far larger states such as New York, because outside groups on both sides are contesting three of its districts. The 1st District, an open seat, drew $19.2 million in addition to the 2nd and 3rd.
Outside the top 20, seven more districts have drawn roughly $20 million or more each, including Washington’s 3rd, Montana’s at-large seat, Pennsylvania’s 10th, Ohio’s 9th, Texas’s 35th, Virginia’s 2nd and Pennsylvania’s 1st. Alaska’s at-large race, where Republican Rep. Nick Begich faces an independent challenger, drew $18.3 million.
What the numbers do not show
Independent expenditure reports capture only spending that expressly advocates for or against a candidate. They do not include so-called issue ads that avoid explicit electoral language, spending by the candidates’ own campaigns, or coordinated spending by the national party committees.
Reports also lag. Groups file 24-hour and 48-hour reports as they spend, but spending in the last days before the election, and any late or amended filings, will not appear in the file used for this analysis. The totals should be read as a floor.
How we did it
The Washington Inquisitor downloaded the FEC’s 2026 independent expenditure bulk file, which the agency last updated on Oct. 31. We kept only expenditures for House general-election races. We removed duplicate entries, which occur when the same expenditure appears in both a 24- or 48-hour report and a later periodic report, by matching on the filing committee, transaction ID, candidate, amount and date. We also excluded entries from one individual filer whose reports listed implausibly large sums that do not correspond to campaign advertising.
Some filings, including many from the Congressional Leadership Fund, do not include a candidate ID or party. For those, we matched the candidate by state, district and last name to other filings and assigned the party from those matches. Spending was classified as pro-Democratic when it supported a Democrat or opposed a Republican, and pro-Republican when it did the reverse. Spending involving independent or third-party candidates, or where the party could not be determined, was counted separately.
Readers can review the underlying records on the FEC’s independent expenditures page, including filings by House Majority PAC and the Congressional Leadership Fund.
Leave a Reply