Senate elections dashboard: Following the money in the 9 races that matter most

While most election watchers believe Democrats are likely to win control of the House in November, the Senate outlook is less clear. Prognosticators believe the outcome will come down to a handful of races where the candidates will need to spend to win.
The nonpartisan Cook Political Report handicaps every congressional race and has identified four Senate races that it considers “toss-ups” – competitive races that both the Democratic and Republican candidates have a good chance of winning. In addition, it has tagged three races as leaning Democratic and two that lean Republican. We are tracking the money in those contests.
As of June 30, four candidates – Democrats Jon Ossoff, James Talarico, Roy Cooper and Sherrod Brown – had banked at least $16 million. Sen. Susan Collins (R) leads Republicans in those nine races with $8.5 million on hand. She is running against Troy Jackson (D) who entered the race late after Graham Platner was forced to drop out and has yet to report his campaign finances. (Candidates running in Alaska filed updated reports covering the period ending July 29.)
Aside from Jackson, Rep. Mike Collins (R) entered the third quarter of the year with the fewest dollars in his campaign account after running in a tough Georgia primary. His $2 million pales in comparison to Ossoff’s $37.6 million.
The narrowest gap is in Michigan, where Rep. Mike Rogers (R) has $1.7 million more than Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.
Bookmark this page and check back for updates after the Sept. 30 campaign filing deadline.
Republish this article
We encourage you to republish our content. Please review our republication policy for guidelines.
Support Accountability Journalism
At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether you’re reading about 2022 midterm fundraising, conflicts of interest or “dark money” influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.

Facts Only

* Four Senate races are considered "toss-ups" by the Cook Political Report.
* Three Senate races lean Democratic and two lean Republican.
* Four Democratic candidates—Jon Ossoff, James Talarico, Roy Cooper, and Sherrod Brown—had banked at least $16 million as of June 30.
* Senator Susan Collins (R) leads Republicans in nine of those races with $8.5 million on hand.
* Representative Mike Collins (R) had $2 million in his campaign account following a Georgia primary run.
* The narrowest monetary gap was in Michigan, where Rep. Mike Rogers (R) had $1.7 million more than Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

Executive Summary

Prognosticators believe the outcome of the election will depend on a small number of competitive races where candidates must spend money to win, contrasting with general observer belief that Democrats are likely to control the House in November. The Cook Political Report identified four Senate races as "toss-ups" where both parties have a good chance of winning, and three lean Democratic and two lean Republican. As of June 30, four Democratic candidates—Jon Ossoff, James Talarico, Roy Cooper, and Sherrod Brown—had banked at least $16 million in their campaigns. Senator Susan Collins (R) leads Republicans in nine of those races with $8.5 million on hand. The financial data shows significant variation among candidates; for example, Representative Mike Collins (R) had only $2 million remaining after a Georgia primary run, while Ossoff had $37.6 million banked. The narrowest monetary gap identified was in Michigan, where Rep. Mike Rogers (R) held $1.7 million more than Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

Full Take

The structure of the analysis highlights how focusing on specific financial metrics reveals underlying political volatility rather than a clear predictive outcome. The categorization of races as "toss-ups" suggests that traditional partisan alignments are insufficient predictors; instead, competitive dynamics hinge on localized spending capacity and high-stakes individual contests. The disparity in campaign funds—ranging from $2 million to $37.6 million across the listed candidates—illustrates the uneven distribution of resources necessary for success in these closely contested environments. This financial landscape implies that the margin of victory in these Senate races is highly susceptible to immediate fundraising momentum rather than broad ideological consensus. The pattern suggests that the narrative of control over the House may be less determinative than a fine-grained assessment of competitive spending within specific electoral districts and races. What does this imply about agency: if outcomes rely on targeted spending, how do voters translate those localized financial contests into broader policy priorities? What factors influence the ability of candidates to secure necessary funds in these "toss-up" contests?