AILSA CHANG, HOST:
The 2026 midterms are now the most expensive election in U.S. history, with nearly $12 billion spent on political ads.
(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Trusted by Trump, Cindy Hyde-Smith is 100% MAGA.
CINDY HYDE-SMITH: You have so many proteins to choose from.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #2: Pick another protein? [Expletive]. I'd rather pick another senator instead.
BILL GREEN: We're not talking about buying a cord of wood here. We're sending someone to the U.S. Senate.
TROY JACKSON: ...And the wealthy friends think I'm good enough to buy a cord of firewood from, but I'm not good enough to be the next U.S. Senator.
MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
That record sum, again, nearly $12 billion with a B. That is according to AdImpact, with whom we partner to track ads. It's even more than the cost of the 2024 presidential election. And this comes at a time when the biggest concern on many voters' minds is the cost of living.
CHANG: And a lot of those ad dollars are pouring into U.S. Senate races, including the most expensive race in the country this election season, the one in Texas.
(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)
ALAN STEELMAN: I'm a Republican...
BENNETT RATLIFF: And I'm passing on Ken Paxton.
RUSSELL THOMAS: And I'm passing...
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #3: Radical liberal James Talarico for they/them, not you.
CHANG: The face-off between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton has cost more than $600 million, with Republicans spending far more than Democrats. Actually, Republicans have outspent Democrats in all the key Senate races except Michigan.
KELLY: Now, Republicans have also spent big on ads about immigration.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
MARSHA BLACKBURN: My plan is simple. They can't stay, and they've got to pay.
KELLY: Whereas Democrats have been a little more focused on healthcare.
(SOUNDBITE OF MONTAGE)
ABDUL EL-SAYED: Money in your pocket and Medicare for all.
JOHN MANNION: I'm working to ban insurance companies from denying the care your doctor prescribes.
CHANG: So in this year of record spending on political ads, just how effective are those ads? Well, John Sides has studied this. He's a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. Welcome.
JOHN SIDES: Thank you for having me.
CHANG: Thank you for being with us. OK. Almost $12 billion were spent on campaign ads this cycle. That's a huge sum. So it begs the question, is it worth it? Let me ask you - how effective are political ads in general?
SIDES: In general, they do something.
CHANG: (Laughter) That's not exactly a ringing endorsement worth 12 billion in my mind, but go ahead.
SIDES: As best we can tell, using tools that we have in social science, comparing election outcomes to how much the candidates air on the airwaves, the balance of the ads between the two opposing candidates is correlated with how well those candidates do at the ballot box. So the candidate that airs more ads will do a little bit better at the ballot box.
CHANG: Well, I hear you saying that ads have an effect. They do something, but is it a big effect? That's what I'm still unclear on.
SIDES: This is a great question, and it really depends on what our standards are for big. If we're talking about races for, let's say, the U.S. Senate and House, you're going to need to have a pretty substantial advantage over your opponent in order to be able to say that, you know, you might have earned yourself a point or two at the ballot box. So for a lot of races, the advertising is certainly not the determining factor, either because the race isn't that competitive or maybe your advantage over your opponent isn't that great.
But when it comes down to, of course, the closest races, then the ability to outspend and out advertise your opponent could be the difference between winning and losing. But I would not say that's the typical outcome at all.
CHANG: So what you're saying is that the marginal benefit of that additional ad you're paying for may not be huge, but if you are the candidate who is in an ad deficit during this arms race, that's when a detrimental, noticeable effect might occur.
SIDES: That's absolutely right. I mean, this is why having that sort of substantial fundraising base becomes super important in American elections. A lot of that goes to advertisements. Advertising is usually the biggest item on the budget. You have to pay for your own airtime, whether it's during, you know, the nightly news or during a sports broadcast or whatever is happening in the media markets that you care about.
CHANG: How does political ad spending in America compared to spending in other Western democracies?
SIDES: Oh, it's much greater.
CHANG: That's what I thought.
SIDES: I mean, but it's a function of our campaign finance system, right? So, you know, we have, you know, constitutional doctrine, Supreme Court decisions that allow candidates to spend as much money as they would like. You know, that's part of what their free speech rights guarantee according to the court. And so there's really no incentive for candidates to take their foot off the gas and raise less money. You know, every dollar they earn is a dollar they can spend, is dollar that could help them at the margins win election or win reelection. And so I think that's one of the reasons why we see so much more advertising is that we've given candidates the green light to use the money they have to do it.
CHANG: Well, I guess my last question for you is more a question for you as an individual, not as a professor of political science. Like, does this record ad spending just feel out of touch at a time when so many people in this country say the biggest issue on their minds is the cost of living, higher prices?
SIDES: Sure. Sure. Well, it's a great question, and it's hard to know, because we have to figure out what are we comparing it to? If we're comparing advertising spending in American elections to elections in other countries, then it looks like a lot of money. If we're comparing advertising spending to commercial advertising spending, well, we spend much, much more money to advertise, you know, fast food...
CHANG: Sure.
SIDES: ...Or cars or other kinds of products than we spend on, like, who actually is going to govern our country. So by that standard, maybe we should be spending more.
CHANG: (Laughter) Well, there's a perspective.
SIDES: I think another challenge in thinking about this is there's always, inevitably, a bit of a trade-off. We want citizens to learn things about the candidates. Like, they could go do their own research but, again, most of us are not so committed to politics that we want to go out and do our own research. So we end up getting information from the advertisements that we see, and that's one of the advantages of having candidates raise money and spend it on advertising is we learn things we may not otherwise learn. I don't necessarily think that all other things we may see or hear or learn are the, quote-unquote, "right things." But nevertheless, I think I'd just ask the question - like, in the absence of advertising, like, what would replace it?
CHANG: John Sides is a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. Thank you so much for joining us on Election Day.
SIDES: Thank you very much. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
