Since the Supreme Court handed down its infamous Citizens United ruling in 2010, billionaires have poured ever larger sums into candidates aligned with their interests. They now have American politics in a chokehold: In 2024, the top 300 billionaire donors spent over $3 billion on the federal elections, accounting for nearly 20% of all contributions made that year. By comparison, in 2008, the last election before Citizens United, they accounted for a mere 0.3%. This is a sixtyfold increase — exactly the outcome predicted by the decision’s critics.

This year’s midterms continue the post-Citizens trend. According to the advertising intelligence firm AdImpact, federal ad spending on this year’s elections is set to exceed 2022 midterm spending by billions, and may even surpass 2024’s record of $11.2 billion. More than ever, the ultra-wealthy will make up a disproportionate share of this spending. The most recent data from the Federal Election Commission shows that the top 50 billionaire megadonors have already poured nearly $1.8 billion into the upcoming midterms, with the majority going to pro-Republican super PACs.

The pattern is also deepening with corporate political spending. A recent report from Public Citizen found that corporations have spent $646 million as of June — 40% more than the previous record-breaking 2024 election . “This means the 2026 total so far is already more than one third (38%) of the $1.7 billion that corporations have spent since the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC to allow direct corporate spending in federal elections,” notes the report’s author, Rick Claypool. The biggest spenders by far have come from the crypto, online gambling and artificial intelligence industries, which account for more than half of documented spending by corporations.

Corporations have spent $646 million as of June.

These figures almost certainly understate the numbers. Corporations and billionaires have unknown millions more flowing through “dark money” groups that are not required to disclose their donors. In a review of advertising data, tax records and campaign-finance filings published last month, The New York Times identified around $1 billion in anonymous dark money “sloshing through the political landscape,” with the reporters noting a “pervasiveness [that] has reached industrial scale in 2026.”

Megadonors are seeking not only to expand their influence, but also to defend the gains they’ve made against populist candidates channeling rising public anger against corporate greed and the billionaire class.

This was apparent in this summer’s Democratic primaries. Across the country, outside groups funneled enormous sums into elections to boost corporate-friendly candidates against progressive and leftist opponents. But while this money bought corporate and billionaire donors an almost perfect track record in Republican primaries, it wasn’t enough in Democratic races where their involvement became a liability for their chosen candidates.

The most high-profile example of this came in the Democratic contest for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat. More than $60 million in outside money flooded into the race between progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed and his centrist opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, with nearly all of that money in support of the latter. Despite being outspent by enormous margins in the most expensive congressional primary in the party’s history, El‑Sayed narrowly beat Stevens by spotlighting her unpopular financial patrons and running hard against money in politics.

In a string of other notable losses in the Democratic primaries, progressives posted their best results in years. This has forced big donors to turn to the general election in hopes that Republicans can knock out populist candidates in the toughest political climate for the GOP since 2018. To fight the strong political winds, GOP groups backed by billionaire megadonors have ramped up their spending nationwide. According to data from AdImpact, Republican candidates and groups have reserved over $200 million more in ads than Democrats for the nine most competitive Senate races this November. Altogether, Republicans and their super PACs have nearly $900 million in planned ads for the closing weeks of the midterms versus a little over $650 million for Democrats.

This ad blitz might be too little, too late. Republicans continue to trail Democrats in the fight for the House and look increasingly vulnerable in the Senate. It’s also possible that large outside money spends will backfire, as they did in the primaries.

American voters are increasingly aligned on the question of money in politics.

Again, the Senate race in Michigan is illustrative. El-Sayed’s Republican opponent, Rep. Mike Rogers, has already benefited from over $50 million in spending commitments from the GOP’s main Senate super PAC, while President Donald Trump ’s billionaire-funded MAGA Inc. and Elon Musk’s America PAC have committed tens of millions more to support the candidate. This outside support has given Rogers a significant cash advantage over El-Sayed but also made him vulnerable to the type of attacks that sank the Stevens campaign. El-Sayed has quickly moved to highlight the outside groups funding his opponent’s campaign, portraying the Republican as a puppet to his billionaire and corporate donors.

Rogers knows how unpopular his biggest donor groups are. He has reportedly asked AIPAC — one of the cycle’s biggest outside spenders — to keep a lower profile in the general election after the pro-Israel lobbying group dropped $30 million trying to stop El-Sayed in the primaries. The Republican candidate has also attempted to distance himself from the president on some of the core issues fueling this year’s populist revolt, including opposition to data centers , the Iran war and concerns about affordability and the influence of Israel.

The populist energy that helped progressives overcome better‑funded opponents in the primaries may prove just as consequential for Democrats in November. Along with the issues mentioned above, American voters are increasingly aligned on the question of money in politics. Recent polls show overwhelming, cross‑party agreement that there’s too much money in politics and that it should be reined in — including nearly 8 in 10 who support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

In 2018, Democrats rode a blue wave powered mostly by partisan anger against Trump. Today, the president is far more unpopular than he was at any point during his first term , dragging Republicans down in the polls. But this year’s backlash is different. It is animated less by party‑line outrage than by populist frustration with the economy and a sense that Washington has been captured by billionaire interests. As super PACs continue to pour millions into the elections, the Democratic path to victory is clear: Make this year’s midterms a referendum on oligarchy.

The post The Megadonor Midterms appeared first on Truthdig .