Elon Musk, the world’s richest person and already the biggest single donor this election cycle, poured even more money into midterm campaigns on behalf of Republicans in early October. The $445 million he has allocated this cycle makes him a unique force in American politics — but he’s not the only deep-pocketed power. A slew of Republican megadonors, super PACs and other sources of outside spending are aligning to dwarf the amount that Democratic-aligned groups have on hand in the campaign’s final week.

As stunning as the amounts are, there are drawbacks to the GOP’s reliance on big donors. The ways that money is being spent and for whom — especially on contests in historically red states — speak to long-term issues for the Republican Party. These factors appear to be keeping this enormous infusion of money from fatally damaging Democrats.

Much of Musk’s spending has gone to his super PAC, which The New York Times says has built “a sprawling canvassing program to try to turn out hard-to-reach Republican voters.” Musk’s America PAC is active in almost three dozen House campaigns and seven Senate battlegrounds, the Times reports. Musk has almost single-handedly helped keep Texas in play for Republican Senate nominee Ken Paxton. Musk’s $158 million donation to the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC that backs senatorial candidates, got passed on to Texas PAC and has helped keep Paxton afloat amid a bruising campaign against Democratic state Rep. James Talarico.

As many beneficiaries of these GOP funding boosts are realizing, late money is often inefficient.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC has finally begun spending its massive reserves. In federal disclosure forms published last week, the group reported $300.5 million in disbursements this election cycle. The Federal Election Commission documents include data through Oct. 14 and show that $75.5 million of MAGA Inc.’s total spending came during the first two weeks of the month. The group reported having $164.3 million on hand.

It’s a political axiom that campaigns should never have money in the bank at the end of the race. But as many beneficiaries of these GOP funding boosts are realizing, late money is often inefficient. The earlier that spending can be directed toward strategic outlays such as ad buys in larger markets, door-to-door canvassing and other field infrastructure, the more likely it is to pay off down the line. Floods of last-minute cash don’t go as far as earlier contributions would have.

Although the Supreme Court struck down limitations on coordination between national and state party committees and federal candidates, the firewall between campaigns and super PACs remains in place. The first part has helped Democrats only slightly amid lackluster fundraising by the Democratic National Committee this cycle. But some individual Democratic candidates have been drawing in buckets of cash. (It must be noted, though, that Democrats have also benefited from the largesse of billionaires including George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.)

The result is evident in 10 competitive Senate races, Politico recently noted, where “the Democratic campaigns raised more than five times as much as the Republican ones. Put another way: Talarico alone raised more than all those Republicans combined.” As it stands, many of the closest races, including the Senate contest in Texas, wouldn’t have needed pallets of cash airdropped in during most campaign cycles.

The disparity in fundraising by individual campaigns has made Republicans reliant on outside spending for broadcast ads, Politico reported last week, often one of the biggest campaign expenses:

In Ohio’s Senate race, Republican groups make up 63% of the $218 million spent. But in spite of their nearly 2-to-1 spending advantage over Democrats, they make up just over half of ads that are on the airwaves, according to data from the tracking service AdImpact. In Texas, Republicans have outspent Democrats by a 3-to-1 margin but have aired just 58% of the ads. And in Michigan, the GOP accounts for 60% of the spending but just over half of the ads.

A large part of this discrepancy comes down to the mechanics of broadcast advertising. Candidates, and now political parties thanks to a recent Supreme Court ruling, are entitled to significantly lower rates. That has allowed Democratic candidates — who have posted bonkers fundraising hauls — to offset much of the GOP advantage in super PACs. Republican Senate candidates, on the other hand, struggled overall with their fundraising. And some GOP outside groups bought their ad time later, when it was even more expensive.

Historically, Republican congressional candidates have relied more on big donors than Democrats have, but Trump’s fundraising operation has upended norms on multiple levels. Although the MAGA Inc. reserves mostly came from the president pressing big donors for seven-figure checks, his past campaigns were financed largely by a wide swath of loyal supporters, sometimes via questionable means, such as fine print saying that donations would be converted into recurring payments. In 2024, there was already evidence that well was running dry, and donor fatigue has since increased among GOP small-dollar supporters.

The economic fallout from Trump’s tariffs and war against Iran, including higher prices on a range of goods and services, also helps explain the decline among ordinary GOP donors. If enough Republicans continue to feel alienated from politics, that could be disastrous for the party’s long-term electoral outlook.

If enough Republicans continue to feel alienated from politics, that could be disastrous for the party’s long-term electoral outlook.

The DNC, by contrast, is reporting a late surge of small donors as the cycle finishes. The hope among Democrats is that this support translates into voter turnout and possibly also volunteers. (And while new research dims the shine on small donors as the saviors of democracy, it still beats the rich trying to buy the Congress they want to see.)

However unlikely campaign finance reforms are in the near term to stanch the flood of megadonor money into politics, there is still reason to be optimistic about what money can, and cannot, buy Republicans. In 2025, Musk poured $20 million into a Wisconsin Supreme Court race and even promised million-dollar checks to two voters — and his preferred candidate still lost. If history is any guide, Musk can try to buy his preferred outcome, but there are limits to what even his vast fortune can accomplish.

The post The bright side of the GOP’s big-spending midterm bailouts appeared first on MS NOW.

Federal agents took possession of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s laptop and personal cellphone when they raided her Washington home last week. While some members of the GOP leadership team have taken potshots at the Minnesota Democrat, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., ought to stand up for her rights as a congresswoman — now.

Pay no attention to the flimsy allegations driving the Trump administration’s investigation into Omar’s immigration paperwork. (The Washington Post reported said allegations were investigated and abandoned years ago.) What we have is the executive branch raiding a member of Congress’s home because of her race and politics. And yet, Politico reported Wednesday that Johnson had not instructed the House’s top lawyer, Matthew Berry, to intervene on Omar’s behalf.

What we have is the executive branch raiding a congressmember’s home because of her race and politics.

MS NOW host Chris Hayes, who interviewed Omar for “All In” on Thursday, raised her attorneys’ claim that the Justice Department violated her rights as a member of the House. Article I, Section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution protects all members of Congress from being prosecuted for “any Speech or Debate in either House.” Supreme Court rulings and other precedents have extended that protection to almost all “legislative acts” federal lawmakers undertake when drafting laws and ruled that it shields their staffers and any documents produced as part of their official duties.

Omar said the agents who searched her home asked her to sign a document essentially waiving her rights under the speech and debate clause.

“That was obnoxious,” she said. “I just I couldn’t understand why they would think that I would sign such a thing.”

The legislative branch has an incentive to call out what happened to Omar. Lawmakers need the freedom to openly debate ideas and policies, especially those the president favors, without the threat of the chief executive jailing them for disagreeing. That’s why the House as an institution has often intervened and fought to protect its members from executive overreach — even if it means lawmakers crossing the aisle.

Federal investigators seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., in August 2022 as they investigated President Donald Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Perry was one of the House Republicans most involved with Trump’s attempt to discard enough Electoral College votes to triumph after losing the 2020 election.

The House filed a motion in early 2023 to access sealed material case to ensure that Perry’s speech and debate clause rights were protected. Soon after, Berry, the House’s general counsel, filed an amicus brief arguing that the speech and debate clause applied to the contents of Perry’s phone and any “informal fact gathering” he might have been doing. Though Perry’s early involvement with Trump’s scheme to overturn the election made him a valid target for investigation, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and House Minority Whip Kathleen Clark, D-Mass., signed off on the House’s intervention. According to the rules of the House, their support wasn’t necessary, but a bipartisan front sent a powerful message to the courts.

It’s because of Perry’s case that personal phones are now considered an extension of lawmakers’ offices. Accordingly, Omar is within her rights to review the materials seized to ensure any legislative work stays out of the DOJ’s hands.

Republicans have spent four years hammering special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, especially his subpoenas of some members’ phone records (though not the actual contents of those calls). Just last month, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee accused Smith and the Biden-era DOJ of violating the speech and debate clause in the process.

The House GOP should keep that same energy for Attorney General Todd Blanche and the seizure of Omar’s devices. But House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, a fellow Minnesotan, told Fox News that he was all for the investigation without raising any separation of powers concerns. And with a potentially rocky midterms looming, Johnson may be afraid that coming to Omar’s defense will cost him his leadership over the GOP caucus.

But no matter how useful Omar is to the GOP as a foil, Johnson should instruct Berry to ensure that Omar’s rights as a legislator are being protected. Even if Emmer and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise disagree, Johnson voting with Jeffries and Clark would be enough to set the ball rolling. While he may seem to act like a member of the White House staff, Johnson’s responsibility to protect the rights and privileges of Ilhan Omar, House representative, should supersede any misgivings he holds against Ilhan Omar, Democrat.

The post Mike Johnson needs to speak up for Ilhan Omar appeared first on MS NOW.