Money isn’t everything in politics — just ask Thomas Massie and John Cornyn

Skip to content

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

The 2026 primary season has delivered yet another lesson that political pundits, campaign finance regulators, and losing candidates seem stubbornly unwilling to learn.

Money doesn’t buy elections.

Consider two recent, headline-making races.

In Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District, Rep. Thomas Massie lost the most expensive House primary in American history, to Ed Gallrein. Pro-Gallrein forces outspent pro-Massie forces roughly $18 million to $14 million. Massie himself was quick to blame outside money, particularly from pro-Israel groups. But as University of Kentucky political scientist Stephen Voss put it, it was Massie’s “already waning support from Trump voters and President Donald Trump himself” that likely cost him his seat.

Still, a $4 million disparity in a House race is no small matter. Surely, this proves that money determines who wins, right?

Not so fast. In Texas, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and groups supporting him poured extraordinary resources into his Senate primary against Attorney General Ken Paxton. Cornyn’s allies spent a whopping  $45 for every vote he received, while Paxton’s side spent $8.

The result? Paxton won by 28 points.

Cornyn joins a long list of candidates who lost to more modestly funded opponents. Mike Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion of his own money on a roughly 100-day presidential campaign in 2020, winning only a single contest (American Samoa) and earning 55 delegates that “cost” him roughly $18 million apiece. Jeb Bush burned through nearly $130 million in 2016 and barely made it to South Carolina. Elon Musk personally invested more than $21 million to defeat Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford last year. She won by 8 points.

More recently, Tom Steyer spent more than 20 times what his nearest rival spent on advertising in the California governor’s race — more than $200 million. That represents the most expensive political advertising campaign in the country this year. Steyer finished third.

The pattern is relentless and remarkably consistent across party lines, offices and election cycles. But none of this is surprising.

Despite critics’ claims to the contrary, beyond a threshold amount to introduce a candidate to voters, the effect of big campaign spending is quite limited, and it’s certainly no guarantee of victory. Railing against “money in politics” remains an easy target for those looking to blame something for whatever they think is wrong with our government.

But the focus on campaign spending is not just misguided. It reflects a deeply cynical view of democracy and the everyday Americans who show up to vote every two and four years.

Consider what a candidate actually buys when spending money on a campaign. Television ads and mailers. Phone banks, digital ads and staff. Gas to drive across the state making speeches, holding rallies, and shaking hands. What do all of these things have in common? They are about communicating a message and introducing the candidate to the voters.

And ultimately, it is those voters who cast every single vote in an election. So when critics complain about money “buying” elections, what do they really mean? That the voters were manipulated into voting for the wrong candidate? That ordinary people cannot be trusted to make good decisions if they see too many commercials?

No one wants to say that part out loud. So instead, after being outspent in his record-setting House primary, Massie ended election night with a joke about looking for his opponent in Tel Aviv. But almost 60,000 people in Massie’s district voted against him. How many of those thousands of voters does he think are unwitting stooges of Israel?

None of this means that money doesn’t matter — it certainly does. A candidate with no resources can’t introduce himself or herself to voters and stands no chance against a well-known incumbent who has spent years building name recognition with constituents. But money is simply the megaphone, and amplifying an unpersuasive message doesn’t produce victory. That’s why candidates like Bloomberg and Bush can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a campaign that never goes anywhere.

The real lesson from Kentucky, Texas, Wisconsin, California and countless other examples isn’t complicated: voters are not for sale. They’ll hear your message, weigh it against the alternative, consider what matters to them, and vote accordingly.

All the money in the world can’t change that, and treating money as a guarantee of victory insults voters and reflects a lack of trust in democracy.

Brett Nolan is a senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech.

Tags

2026 primary races

Bush

Campaign finance

Donald Trump

Elon Musk

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush

John Cornyn

Ken Paxton

Mike Bloomberg

Mike Bloomberg

political spending

Susan Crawford

Thomas Massie

Tom Steyer

Tom Steyer

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.