When millions in outside spending flood local races, do voters actually follow the money or rebel against it?

Question

Accepted Answer

Voters do both, but the evidence suggests they do not simply obey big spending. Outside money often matters most by making a candidate look viable, raising name recognition, and saturating low-information races with ads. Political scientist Danielle Thomsen’s research points to early fundraising as a key signal that tells voters, media, and party actors who is “serious,” even if money alone does not decide the outcome. The Upper Midwest primaries show those limits clearly. In Minnesota, roughly $10 million in outside spending aimed at helping Angie Craig did not stop Peggy Flanagan from winning. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed overcame a major spending disadvantage in one of the most expensive primaries in the country. Those results suggest that once voters know the candidates and have strong feelings about issues, authenticity, grassroots organizing, and anger at the status quo can outweigh financial advantages. That does not mean spending is powerless. In crowded or lower-visibility races, heavy ad buys can define opponents early and shape perceptions of competence, trustworthiness, and electability. Wisconsin’s governor’s race illustrated that advertising still matters, especially when candidates are less well known and the field is fragmented. So the practical answer is that voters often follow the money indirectly, because money helps determine what they see and hear. But they can also rebel against it when they view outside spending as an attempt to buy the race, especiall…

Democrats Face 3-Month Midterm Test After Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan Primaries

Sources

Sources

Democrats Face 3-Month Midterm Test After Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan Primaries

Summary

Sources

Insights

Related Stories

Sources

Related Stories