Follow the Money: How much goes into U.S. elections and who is behind it?

Political spending has exploded in the past decade.

The capital flowing into presidential campaigns alone has more than doubled since 2016, before adjusting for inflation. Where is it all going and who is signing the checks?

Ahead of Election Day next week, NBC followed the money.

We talked to U.S. senators, campaign finance experts and OpenSecrets, an organization that tracks political spending.

Here is what we found.

How much money is in U.S. elections?

In the 10 years leading up to the 2026 midterms, $60 billion was spent on federal elections.

“If you spend $100,000 every day, it would take you over 1600 years to get up to that $60 billion,” said Brendan Glavin of OpenSecrets.

If someone had started spending at that rate during the Roman Empire, they would still be at it today.

In 2016, spending in the presidential election hovered at $2.4 billion and crossed $5 billion by 2024.

The recent surge in funding has been catalyzed by two industries: cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. They have collectively poured $160 million into this year’s midterm elections.

While these sectors have solidified their behemoth status in terms of both financial and cultural capital, issues tied to emerging technology and its potential regulation have been top of mind for voters and candidates this cycle.

Why is there so much money in elections?

According to University of Southern California professor and political analyst Dan Schnur, the largest expense by far is advertising. As the attention of the American public has grown increasingly elusive, a need to flood the zone has emerged.

“Very few people like TV ads,” Schnur said. “Very few people like digital ads of any type… It becomes worth it for campaigns to spend millions and millions of dollars just to catch those voters attention for the smallest period of time.”

Corporations have not always been allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns.

In 2010, the Citizens United case set a precedent that has shaped the spending landscape. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations’ independent political spending was protected by the First Amendment and its limitation was a violation of free speech.

Not everyone in Washington is on board.

“I’m all for overturning the Citizens United decision,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland. This sentiment was echoed by other prominent members of his party, like Sen. Alex Padilla of California, who called for reigning in “out of control” super PAC spending.

Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida voiced his support for the ruling.

“I think it’s part of our First Amendment rights,” he told NBC. “The people ought to be able to, you know, go out and campaign and get their message out.

Schnur questioned whether the ability to “drown out” competing voices in the political conversation should be protected speech, regardless of party.

“If you’re giving a speech in the town square, and I pull up behind you with a huge sound truck, and I download these huge speakers, and I crank the volume up to ten, and I drown out everything you’re saying. I’m just not using my First Amendment rights. I’m interfering with yours,” he said.

Who is paying big money in politics?

Anyone who has watched cable TV in the last few years would have likely seen political ads that end with “paid for by X.” This disclosure may seem straightforward, but it does not convey the full story of who funded the ad and why.

A super PAC is required to report its donors. These reports are publicly accessible through the Federal Election Commission or OpenSecrets. Sometimes, these donors are individuals, like Elon Musk, who was identified as the largest known individual contributor to political campaigns in 2024 and 2026.

When the donor is a group, however, the money becomes harder to trace. Nonprofits are not required to disclose the identities of their donors. This makes it harder to determine the motives behind a particular ad.

“The donor may be a dark money group,” Glavin said. “And so there you kind of run into a dead end.”

“The dark money in politics is confusing because people don’t know where it’s coming from,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, told NBC. “They don’t know what interests are being represented.”

For example, a Facebook ad that appeared to support Kamala Harris linked out to a website called Progress 2028, but what appeared to be a Harris website was actually delivering an anti-Harris message.

When OpenSecrets looked into business records, it found that Progress 2028 was a name registered by Building America’s Future, a nonprofit supporting President Donald Trump. Further digging tied the money to a familiar name.

“Through looking at these nonprofit reports and other journalists investigation, we were able to connect all the dots and find out that the money was flowing from Elon Musk,” Galvin said.

According to Schnur, this system can obfuscate a candidate’s true intentions, even if these groups are following all the rules. Who is checking if these nonprofits are operating independently of campaigns, as they are required to be? That is where the Federal Election Commission comes in.

The agency votes on whether to open investigations or impose penalties, which requires four people to agree. Currently, only two of the six seats are filled, making the oversight impossible.

Trump fired the FEC’s Democratic chair Ellen Weintraub last year. Two other commissioners later resigned. Trump subsequently nominated two replacements in February 2026, but the Senate has yet to confirm them.

Can money buy an election — and influence what happens after?

“Money doesn’t mean you’re going to win,” Scott told NBC.

“People power can overcome money,” said Padilla.

Schnur, who has worked on presidential and governor’s races, compared campaign money to poker: In order to join a poker game, you have to be able to front a certain amount to get into the game. But no matter how much money you have, victory is never guaranteed.

While OpenSecrets found a correlation between big spending and winning, that does not necessarily mean money is the cause of wins. A popular candidate may attract both more donations and more votes. When a candidate is relatively unknown, however, money can be undeniably pivotal.

“You can guarantee that your voice will be heard, in other words, but you can’t guarantee that people will listen to it,” said Schnur.

So what do the people writing the checks get out of their candidate winning?

According to Schnur’s USC colleague, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy Christian Grose, research has shown that politicians are much more likely to meet with a donor than someone who did not donate.

President Bill Clinton invited major Democratic donors to dinner and overnight stays at the White House. Perks and meetings are just the beginning.

Grose pointed out that Musk wanted a government position and after contributing eye-watering sums, he got his wish. Musk became a top Trump adviser and spearheaded the Department of Government Efficiency, which is now defunct.

A blank check can only get you so far.

“TV ads cost a lot of money,” said Schnur. “Digital ads cost a lot of money. But your vote isn’t for sale.”