A vast network of outside political action committees, many with ties to the nation’s two major parties, is quietly pouring millions of dollars into supporting more than 40 third-party and independent candidates in pivotal House and Senate races nationwide. An analysis of campaign finance filings reveals that these expenditures total more than $16.5 million—vastly exceeding the independent fundraising and spending power of nearly all the candidates they aim to lift. On average, the supporting super PACs have outspent their beneficiaries by $375,000, with more than half of the 43 boosted candidates having failed to file any financial paperwork with the Federal Election Commission.
While the total outlay represents a fraction of the billions spent overall in an intense midterm cycle, the money is poised to exert an outsized influence on contests expected to be decided by razor-thin margins. Those tight races will ultimately dictate control of Congress next year. The top spenders nationally include a pair of obscure groups formed shortly before the election, allowing them to shield their donors until after voters head to the polls.
Among them, Buckeye Freedom PAC has reported spending upwards of $3.8 million on advertisements in Ohio’s high-stakes U.S. Senate election, backing Libertarian Bill Redpath while opposing Republican incumbent Sen. John Husted, who faces a competitive challenge from former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Similarly, Alaska Values PAC has disclosed a $3.8 million expenditure backing Gerald Heikes, a self-identified Republican running on Alaska’s ranked-choice ballot alongside Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Democratic incumbent Mary Peltola. Third-party contenders in Alaska drew national scrutiny following reports that Heikes and another conservative candidate, Dan J. Sullivan, were recruited into the contest to siphon votes from the incumbent Republican by confusing voters with similar names.
Other significant expenditures reflect complex partisan crossovers. Enough Promises Ohio deployed $2.6 million to support independent Senate candidate Greg Levy, a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation who has publicly disavowed the backing. Mailers from the group urge voters to send a worker to the Senate, yet its FEC filings indicate it shares vendors with several Republican entities, including MAGA Inc. In contrast, Principled Patriots PAC has directed more than $600,000 toward digital ads supporting right-leaning and Libertarian candidates across 15 battleground races, utilizing a vendor, Movement Labs LLC, that primarily serves progressive and Democratic clients.
Several boosted candidates have expressed frustration over being utilized as political pawns. In South Carolina, Principled Patriots launched an ad buy backing Constitution Party candidate Mark Hackett. Hackett noted he has raised no money and requested no assistance, stating that he still does not know who funds the PACs supporting him. In Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District, Progressive Champions PAC spent more than $480,000 supporting independent candidate Matthew Baker, distributing mailers that highlight his liberal stances on issues such as abortion. Baker, who describes himself as a radical centrist, remarked that the mailers made him furious because the group is telling only half his story to manipulate voters.
Similar dynamics have emerged across the country. Our Heritage Matters has channeled nearly $3.7 million into supporting Libertarian and other third-party candidates in more than two dozen congressional races, positioning them as conservative alternatives to mainstream Republicans. The Nebraska Senate race has experienced an unusually high concentration of outside super PAC spending backing minor candidates, including contributions to contenders from the Working People Party and the Legal Marijuana Now Party. Meanwhile, strategic guidance documents published by major party campaign arms, such as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, have explicitly outlined messaging strategies for amplifying third-party candidates in specific competitive districts, highlighting how deeply institutional players are entwined in managing third-party dynamics.
