That’s according to an analysis released by the Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF), a progressive advocacy group, which examined Federal Election Commission data through March 1. The group found the 50 biggest-spending billionaire families had funneled $344.3 million, or about 79%, to Republican candidates and conservative organizations. 

The pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. was the single largest beneficiary, pulling in $89 million, followed by America PAC ($45.3 million), Senate Leadership Fund ($36.3 million), and Congressional Leadership Fund ($30 million), all of which support Republican candidates. 

The biggest individual donor, unsurprisingly, is Elon Musk. The world’s richest person (and first trillionaire) had committed almost $71 million to Republican midterm efforts as of ATF’s count, followed by Wall Street financier Jeff Yass at more than $55 million. Yass cofounded Susquehanna International Group and is a major investor in TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.

Musk’s total has climbed since ATF’s analysis. As of the end of June, his midterm donations have totaled at least $90 million, including multimillion-dollar gifts to the campaigns of Republican billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign for Ohio governor and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s reelection. These gifts are particularly ironic considering Musk said in 2025 he would pull back from political giving after a bruising stint as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Clearly, the pause didn’t last.

The rightward tilt in billionaire political giving isn’t new. In 2024, ATF found the top 100 billionaire families sent 70% of their political money, roughly $1.84 billion, to committees backing Republicans. 

To be sure, Democrats have their own billionaire benefactors, too. Investor and Open Society founder George Soros, alongside his son Alex, has already sent roughly $102.8 million into the 2026 cycle, mostly through the family’s Democracy PAC, according to a Washington Post analysis of FEC filings. LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg remain among the Democratic Party’s most reliable major donors. 

Still, the aggregate skew still runs right. The Post found Republican-leaning donors gave $880 million in the first half of 2026 while Democratic-leaning givers donated $290 million. 

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision paved the way, allowing this money to flow freely by allowing super PACs to raise and spend unlimited sums. AI-related super PACs have also already spent more than $50 million on 2026 races, including a $27 million proxy war between Anthropic- and OpenAI-aligned groups over a single Manhattan congressional seat.

Money usually wins—but not always

The spending matters because, historically, it tracks closely with winning. 

The higher-spending House candidate prevails more than 90% of the time, according to research from OpenSecrets, formerly known as the Center for Responsive Politics. In other words, the biggest spenders take roughly nine of 10 House races and eight of 10 Senate contests.

To be sure, that 90% figure carries a heavy asterisk. It’s inflated by lopsided races in which a heavily favored incumbent outspends a token challenger. For that reason, campaign finance experts argue money is a symptom of a strong campaign more than the cause of one.

“Money is an amplifier, not an antidote,” Caroline Welles, a former DNC staffer who now leads The First Ask, a group backing first-time female candidates for state legislatures, told Fortune. “It can’t fix a weak candidate, a poor message, or a campaign that’s out of touch with voters.” 

The statistic showing the biggest spender usually wins, she added, “reflects selection as much as persuasion,” because donors gravitate to candidates already showing strength in recruitment, polling, and grassroots enthusiasm. 

“Campaigns often attract money because they’re likely to win, not the other way around,” she added. 

Christopher Lee, a former DCCC regional political director now at Foresight Strategic Advisors, agreed money “is an indicator of viability, not a cause of it,” and the 90% figure “mostly measures how good the professional class is at picking winners.” 

Recalling his party-committee years, he said: “We didn’t fund races to make them competitive. We funded them because they already were. The money followed the polling. The polling did not follow the money.”

It’s not just Democratic campaigners who believe this. 

“Money matters immensely in campaign politics, but donor dollars are not destiny,” Maggie Paulin, vice president of client services at the Republican firm Campaign Solutions, wrote in an op-ed for The Hill in June. She noted in 2020, 2022, and 2024, Republicans were significantly outraised in marquee races and still won. Effective fundraising, she argued, “is often a signal of candidate quality” rather than the engine of victory.

None of which makes $433 million irrelevant. As Lee put it, money “puts you in the room.” It buys the ads, the data operations, and the field programs that let a campaign compete at all. What it can’t buy, they each argued, is a reason for voters to say yes.