Billionaire Money Meets the Blue Wave
The Republican billionaires are piling up money like sandbags against a rising blue wave. My reading is that it may already be too late to save the House. The Senate is where they hope enough money can still hold the line.
Reuters reports that Elon Musk has put roughly $366 million into this election cycle. The Associated Press reports that his recent contributions include $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund and $10 million to a group supporting Ken Paxton in Texas. That is an extraordinary amount of political influence concentrated in one person. Reuters
Musk is hardly alone. A super PAC backed by billionaire Ken Griffin has spent nearly $5 million supporting Florida Republican Ashley Moody. The wealthy donors have the resources to keep buying attention long after ordinary voters are tired of listening. reuters.com
The Senate as the Last Line of Defense
The House looks vulnerable: CBS News’s October 4 model favored a narrow Democratic majority. I think the Republican problem goes deeper than a shortage of commercials. A voter unhappy with the government’s performance is not necessarily waiting for another advertisement before deciding what to do. CBS News
The Senate offers Republicans a different opportunity. Democrats need a net gain of four seats, and several necessary victories would have to come in states Trump won decisively. Reuters reports that a Democratic Senate majority remains uncertain. That makes the Senate a plausible place for wealthy Republican donors to concentrate their rescue effort. Reuters
They are already spending heavily. AdImpact found Republicans ahead of Democrats by $188 million in Senate battleground advertising through September 30. But dollars do not translate evenly into exposure: Republicans’ 26 percent advantage in broadcast spending produced only a 7 percent advantage in ad airings. Candidate advertising rates helped Democrats stretch their money further. adimpact.com
Money Does Not Buy Goodwill
For voters who already distrust Musk, learning that he is bankrolling a candidate may create suspicion rather than confidence. They can reasonably ask what policies the donor wants, what influence he expects, and whose interests the candidate will represent. A bigger check does not answer those questions.
I feel sorry for television viewers caught in the bombardment. They sit down to watch a game or the evening news, only to hear another warning that the other party will destroy the country. Repetition can wear people down, but exhaustion is not enthusiasm.
Money can matter in a close race, and Republicans may still hold the Senate. But the billionaires are making an expensive bet: that more advertising can overcome the public’s dissatisfaction. They can buy the commercial break. The voter still controls the ballot.
