View the entire Money in the 2024 Election series
Arizona’s congressional elections are showcasing modern trends in campaign financing. A significant portion of contributions, approximately 74 percent, comes from out-of-state or out-of-district donors this election cycle, a major increase from about half in 2010. This trend is mirrored by the involvement of national groups and the increasing presence of untraceable “dark money”.
In addition, the intersection of campaign funding and election denial is evident as certain candidates, who support claims of a “stolen” 2020 election, heavily depend on national donors.
Candidates Depend on Non-Local Donors
Much like the situations in Pennsylvania and Ohio, Arizona’s candidates are largely funded by non-local contributors. By mid-2023, $72.7 million was raised by Arizona’s House and Senate candidates, with nearly 75 percent sourced from outside the state or district.
This pattern is consistent across party lines and candidate types. Among House candidates who raised at least $100,000, Republicans Blake Masters, Abe Hamadeh, and Eli Crane sourced over 90 percent from non-local donors. Similarly, Republicans Paul Gosar, Kelly Cooper, and Andy Biggs, and Democrats Greg Stanton, Greg Whitten, Andrei Cherny, and Raúl Grijalva garnered over 80 percent of their funds from outside their districts. For the Senate, Republican Kari Lake and Democrat Ruben Gallego also relied predominantly on out-of-state funding, with Lake at 70 percent and Gallego at 75 percent.
Non-constituent fundraising has surged, increasing from 54 percent in 2010 to 83 percent in the 2022 midterms.
The increasing reliance on national funding indicates a shift where candidates may prioritize national donor interests over local constituent needs (source).
Election Denial
Arizona’s election deniers are among the most dependent on non-local contributions. The state, a focal point during the last presidential election, has seen various election denial activities including fake electors and a partisan audit.
Abe Hamadeh, who supports the Big Lie, won a primary in the Eighth District. He raised nearly $1 million, with 96 percent from non-local sources. Masters, another election denier, loaned his campaign $3.5 million, raising negligible funds locally.
Similarly, Eli Crane, the incumbent GOP nominee for the Second District, has raised $5.4 million, with 95 percent coming from outside sources. His initial support of election conspiracies played a role in his electoral success.
While not all election deniers heavily depend on national donors, Kari Lake’s 2022 gubernatorial bid, which relied on election denial, raised $2.5 million after Election Day. However, her Senate campaign has struggled with national donor support compared to Gallego, who has raised $29.9 million against her $8.7 million. Independent expenditures have also overwhelmingly supported Gallego.
National Groups and Dark Money
Independent expenditures from national groups have significantly impacted Arizona’s elections. In the Senate race, national groups like Protect Progress and WinSenate PAC have spent $31.7 million. Similarly, the Democratic primary for the Third Congressional District saw $5.3 million in independent expenditures.
“Dark money” groups, which do not disclose their donors, have also been influential. On the Democratic side, LCV Victory Fund spent $2.8 million supporting candidates, mainly Gallego. On the Republican side, National Interest Action and Americans for Prosperity Action spent nearly $1 million and over $780,000 respectively.
Impact of National Donations
The influx of national donations raises concerns about candidates’ responsiveness to wealthy national donors over their local constituents.
This analysis used campaign finance data from the FEC, processed by Eric Manning and Open Secrets.
Methodology
The Brennan Center’s analysis compares contributions reported by candidates’ campaign committees with transactions reported by the fundraising conduits ActBlue and WinRed. Campaign committees report donations as itemized contributions when the contributor has given more than $200 to the candidate within the election cycle and as aggregated unitemized totals for smaller amounts. The fundraising conduits report transactions as itemized contributions regardless of amount. By comparing these reports, eliminating duplicate transactions, and identifying repeat contributors to the same candidate within the same cycle, we gain insight into the source of campaigns’ unitemized totals.
However, there remains a pool of “unknown” unitemized money that does not flow through the conduits, about which we do not know the donations’ timing, size, or source. We estimate the proportions of this pool of money contributed by small, medium, and large donors based on the observed overall proportion of known unitemized contributions coming from small, medium, and large contributors across all races for the same chamber within the same election cycle. This yields a “best-guess” estimate of how much unknown unitemized money comes from small, medium, and large donors. To assess the proportion of money that candidates raise from within their district or state, we rely on the zip codes or states disclosed by campaigns and conduits. For House races, if the donor’s zip code overlaps with the candidate’s district, we counted their contribution as in-district. A small number of transactions lack a valid zip code or state; for these transactions, we estimate that the proportions of in-state, out-of-state, in-district, and out-of-district money are equal to the proportions observed among the candidate’s total fundraising from sources with a valid zip code or state.
