Bloomberg Vs. Musk

• Sam Wilson
• 22.10.2026, 16:51

A major financial race is underway in the U.S. ahead of the election.

There are less than two weeks left until the midterm U.S. congressional elections. Early voting has already begun in many states, so there is very little time left to influence voters’ preferences. Campaign finance reports submitted to the Federal Election Commission for the third quarter provide additional insight into the candidates’ prospects.

U.S. law requires the disclosure of a significant portion of information regarding campaign financing. Information regarding the sources of donations and the expenditure of funds raised must be disclosed. These requirements were established primarily as a tool to ensure election transparency and combat political corruption.

Money for the Senate

A fairly obvious pattern emerges in Senate elections: the fiercer the political competition, the more money candidates’ campaigns raise. Texas leads in total spending. There, Democrat James Talariro is vying for a Senate seat against Republican Ken Paxton. Judging solely by the funds raised directly by the candidates, Talalico’s lead appears overwhelming.

The Senate race in Texas has not yet set an all-time record, but it has already become one of the most expensive in American history. Democrat James Talalico has managed to raise nearly $130 million—compared to $20 million for his Republican opponent. Talarico received a significant portion of his funds from small donations by private individuals, whereas large donors play a noticeably greater role in financing Paxton’s campaign. Total spending on the Texas election campaign is already approaching half a billion dollars.

An equally intense race is unfolding in Ohio for the Senate seat vacated by J.D. Vance after he was elected Vice President of the United States. Democrat Sherrod Brown has raised nearly three times as much money as Republican John Hasted: about $60 million versus $20 million. However, Brown’s financial advantage is offset by independent political organizations that are spending huge sums to support Hasted and criticize his opponent. According to public opinion polls, the race is far from over: the gap between the candidates is small and comparable to the percentage of undecided voters.

A third Senate race worth watching is unfolding in Michigan. Here, a representative of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Abdul el-Sayed, is facing off against Republican Mike Rogers. The candidates’ financial resources differ significantly: El-Sayed has raised about $45 million, compared to $20 million for Rogers. As in Texas and Ohio, the Democrat is significantly ahead of his opponent in terms of individual donations. This advantage is evident both in absolute amounts and in the share of such contributions to the overall campaign budget. At the same time, independent political organizations are spending significantly more to support the Republican and campaign against his opponent.

At the same time, a pattern has emerged in the most competitive Senate races: Republican candidates receive significantly more financial support from national Republican Party organizations. Unlike donations to the candidates’ own campaign funds, these funds are spent by independent committees to support Republicans and campaign against their opponents. Thus, the Democrats’ advantage in individual donations is largely offset by spending from large political organizations operating at the national level.

Musk vs. Bloomberg

A similar pattern can be observed in House of Representatives elections: the most competitive districts attract more funds, as both parties seek to give their candidates a financial advantage.

There are notable differences in approaches to campaign financing. Democrats are more successful at raising small individual donations, including through crowdfunding platforms. Republicans rely more heavily on large donors and the centralized distribution of funds through national party organizations and independent political action committees. Thus, the financial competition is unfolding not only between individual candidates but also between two different models of campaign organization.

The largest Republican donor is Elon Musk. This is not the first time the billionaire has directed huge sums to support the Republican Party. According to October’s financial reports, his donations during the 2025–2026 election cycle exceeded $350 million. A significant portion of these funds was channeled through political action committees to support Ken Paxton in Texas. Large sums were also received by organizations that finance the campaigns of other Republican Senate candidates. This distribution of funds suggests that maintaining the Republican majority in the Senate has become a higher priority for Musk and the Republican Party than the battle for control of the House of Representatives.

Musk’s political stance in the Republicans’ internal struggle remains ambiguous. On the one hand, he channels significant funds to major political organizations, primarily so-called political action committees. These organizations independently determine which candidates to support with the donations they receive. Texas provides a telling example. During the Republican primaries, one of the largest committees supported incumbent Senator John Cornyn, a representative of the traditional party establishment. However, after Ken Paxton—who has close ties to the MAGA movement—won the primary, the committee shifted its focus to funding his campaign.

The Democrats have a figure comparable in political influence—billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City. He has been funding the Democratic Party for many years, and in 2020 he himself attempted to run for president. Bloomberg spent over a billion dollars on his own campaign, which lasted only a couple of weeks. After dropping out of the race, he promised to do everything in his power to prevent the reelection of Donald Trump.

But in the 2026 midterm elections, Bloomberg’s financial contribution is significantly more modest than Musk’s: $80 million. And Bloomberg is focusing much more attention on the House of Representatives elections.

The billionaires’ approaches to political financing also differ. Bloomberg acts primarily as an institutional donor to the Democratic Party. Musk’s political activism is largely tied to his personal support for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, although traditional Republican organizations also receive his donations.

Bloomberg also has distinct intra-party preferences. He leans toward the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and is significantly less willing to fund progressive candidates. Thus, both billionaires not only support their respective parties in elections but also potentially influence the balance of power among various factions within them.

Sam Wilson, The Moscow Times