Candidates and political action committees spent more than $66 million on political advertising in Michigan’s 7th Congressional District for the midterm election, leading the country and setting a record for a U.S. House of Representatives race.
That totals more than $16 million above the most ever spent previously, which was about $50 million two years ago in New York’s 19th Congressional District, according to AdImpact.
In mid-Michigan’s race, Democrats outspent Republicans by more than $5 million throughout the full two-year cycle. Democrats spent $35.8 million, according to AdImpact. Republicans spent $30.5 million, the national tracking service said.
Neil Thanedar, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog organization, said he was astonished at the dramatic increase in spending.
“The money is going up so rapidly,” Thanedar said. “Just four years ago, that same seat was the top nationally with about $35 million.
“We are seeing nationwide where 2026 is not just the biggest midterm ever. It’s the most expensive election ever.”
Indeed, at $66.3 million, ad spending in the 7th District represents just 2.8% of spending overall in House races. AdImpact’s preliminary numbers show spending totaled $2.4 billion. That’s $500 million more than 2024.
Add to that another $3 billion or so being estimated for ad spending in Senate races nationally and the 7th’s record total shrinks to just 1.2% of the $5.4 billion total.
The 7th District race was not alone in breaking the $50 million record for ad spending. AdImpact’s numbers show that at least five other midterm races topped that amount.
But ad spending in the 7th was by far the most. Second was the 1st Congressional District in North Carolina at $60.4 million. Democratic incumbent Don Davis defeated a Republican challenger in what was the most expensive general election House race in history.
Mid-Michigan’s 7th District race was the fourth most expensive general election House race this year. What made it the most expensive full-cycle race was ad spending in the Democratic primary, which pitted winner William Lawrence against Bridget Brink, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and Matt Maasdam, a former Navy Seal.
The Democratic primary accounted for $14.5 million. And even though incumbent Republican Tom Barrett was unopposed for the nomination, AdImpact said Republicans spent $1 million before the Aug. 4 primary election.
In the general election, Republicans outspent Democrats by $9 million. AdImpact says Republicans spent $29.3 million and Democrats spent nearly $20.3 million. (AdImpact’s numbers breaking down how money was spent on the primary vs. the general election total about $1.2 million less than the record-breaking $66.3 million figure. The larger number is more up to date, an Adimpact official said.)
The candidates’ campaigns account for a relatively small amount of the overall spending.
Lawrence’s campaign spent almost $3.7 million, about $100,000 more than the Barrett campaign.
Ahead of them were three PACs: Congressional Leadership Fund, which spent nearly $14 million supporting Barrett; House Majority PAC, which spent about $13 million for Lawrence; and Safety and Affordability PAC, which is affiliated with President Trump. It spent $7 million on Barrett, whom Trump had endorsed.
Most of the money went to broadcast television, including $27 million to Lansing’s four stations, AdImpact reported.
Lawrence and Barrett used the same word to describe spending on political advertising: “Outrageous.”
But they disagreed on what to do about it.
Lawrence supports overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations and unions. (In Montana, voters on Tuesday passed a ballot initiative limiting political spending by corporations, nonprofits and other organizations in elections that puts the state on a collision course with the Citizens United ruling.)
Lawrence also wants to establish public financing for political campaigns.
Barrett has introduced campaign finance reform proposals aimed at limiting spending and reducing the influence of outside money.
Thanedar said the electorate is the loser because much of the spending by PACs is negative — not so much for their candidate as against their opponent.
“We’re the ones being bombarded by those ads, and we’re the ones who still are left finding out our own information about those candidates,” he said.
