Dem
51
Ties
1
GOP
48
One of Donald Trump's favorite super PACs, MAGA, Inc., has $403 million in it as of July 31. A full 96% of the funds came from donations of $1 million and up, with 62% coming from donations of $5 million and up. Most of the donors want something from the President and many have already gotten it. Very few small donors would respond to the pitch: "Please donate to my slush fund so I can keep the money for myself or spend it as I wish on anything I like." Large donors don't need to have it explained to them that giving Trump free money might make him more likely to do them a favor down the road. He understands the pay-to-play concept quite well. And he applies it to things other than his golf courses. Although Trump does not technically run the super PAC, it is run by his buddy, executive director Taylor Budowich, and a hand-picked board of his cronies. In practice, they will spend money only when he directs them to or federal law requires it (e.g., pay an accountant).
What is Trump planning to do with all this money? The super PAC is allowed to spend money on election campaigns, as long as it does not coordinate too closely with a campaign, but even that rule is easy to get around. All a candidate need do is announce what he or she considers the key to winning and the super PAC will get on the ball. Besides, the Supreme Court just loosened the rules even more. Thus far this year, MAGA, Inc.'s total expenditures on campaigns are $18,000 for text messages supporting now-Rep Clayton Fuller (R-GA) for a March special election in GA-14 (Marjorie Taylor Greene's old seat).
Many Republican leaders are angry that the PAC is not spending heavily in key competitive Senate and House races. In particular, wannabe U.S. Senator from Texas Ken Paxton is not only a terrible person, he is also a terrible fundraiser. As of July 31, 2026, Paxton has raised $17 million, compared to the $72 million his Democratic opponent James Talarico has raised. Many Senate Republicans want Trump to instruct MAGA, Inc. to spend tens of millions on Paxton's behalf. After all, they could run ads calling Talarico a communist and a socialist in English and in Spanish. Or they could call him a socialist and a communist. Or maybe an extreme leftist gay lesbian transgender radical. Or maybe the very worst of all, a vegetarian.
The consequence of this spending disparity is that Talarico is outspending Paxton 200-to-1 on advertising. When Texans turn on their televisions, they invariably see Talarico talking about loving God and your neighbor in a spot made with his grandfather (Talarico's grandfather, not God's grandfather). They also see an ad with Texans complaining about the high costs in a grocery store and putting the blame on the Republicans. Paxton is nowhere to be seen or heard on the air. Republicans want MAGA, Inc. to open its checkbook and fix the problem. On the other hand, the conventional wisdom is that voters don't pay attention until after Labor Day. Still, with two non-incumbents running, the need to get your name out there is important. In Paxton's case it is especially important to fix his image because in the past, his name was out there a lot in negative ways, like stealing a $1,000 pen at a courthouse security checkpoint, being impeached on 20 articles of corruption and abuse of power, or being divorced on Biblical grounds (and not the Biblical grounds of eating a ham and cheese sandwich).
Trump is very hesitant to spend money he effectively controls, even though loss of the Senate would be a disaster for him. It would mean no more judicial or executive appointments of his flunkeys to anything. Even worse, it would mean every time the House impeached him, there would be an extensive televised trial, with witnesses, evidence and more. Republican donors are furious with him, especially about Texas. The problem is that he single-handedly gave Paxton the nomination. If he had vigorously supported Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) from the beginning, Paxton would never have won the primary.
One donor put it like this: "You broke it, now you own it. You gotta spend some of your money to defend him because we've got bigger fish to fry." Where might those fish be? Well, Mary Peltola's (D) slogan in Alaska is "fish, family, and freedom." It is not quite the same as "a chicken in every pot," which appeared in an ad for Herbert Hoover's 1928 campaign, but close enough for government work.
Another donor noted that Trump personally took out Cornyn, who was one of the Senate's best fundraisers, and replaced him with someone running a lackadaisical campaign. A third donor said: "There's a lot of people that, one, don't really like Paxton at all, they think he'd be a terrible senator or they were loyal to Cornyn—or both." Other donors said they would rather spend in Georgia, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio—anywhere but Texas. If they can win all of the above, losing Texas (and getting rid of Paxton) would be fine with them.
The NRSC is tacitly making the same decision. It is spending in eight races already, but not in Texas. To make it worse, Cornyn is expected to campaign for and raise money for all the other Republicans in tight races, but not for Paxton. It looks like the Republican Party has abandoned Paxton completely, at least for now, and is concentrating on the states mentioned in the previous paragraph. Paxton might yet win—Texas is still a very red state—but he will have to do it on his own. (V)