By Harshawn Ratanpal for OpenSecrets.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Ohio News Connection reporting for the OpenSecrets-Public News Service Collaboration

With $11.8 million in the bank, incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has far outraised his Republican challengers, who continue to pour their own money into the tightly contested 2024 U.S. Senate race.

But Brown’s war chest may not win him reelection. A poll from Emerson College last week predicts the three-term Democrat losing in a matchup against state senator Matt Dolan (R-Ohio) by two points and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) by one point. The poll, which has a 4.5% margin of error, has Brown defeating Republican businessman Bernie Moreno by one point. 

Republicans could stand to flip the U.S. Senate if Brown loses reelection. 

Once a bellwether, Ohio has taken a recent rightward shift, electing Sen. J.D. Vance (R), who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, to the Senate in 2022. Brown is the only Ohio Democrat to be elected to a non-judicial statewide office since 2008. 

Still, Brown has retained his ability to fundraise and attract grassroots support. The incumbent Democrat raised $5.8 million from July to September, a 15% increase from the previous quarter. At least 31% of his funds came from donors who contributed $200 or less, an OpenSecrets analysis of third-quarter Federal Election Commission filings found. 

LaRose came closest to matching Brown’s grassroots support, with 21% of his funds coming from small donors. Less than half of one percent of Dolan’s funds came from small donors and small donors accounted for 3% of Moreno’s third-quarter fundraising haul. 

Moreno and Dolan each loaned $3 million to their campaigns in the last three months. Dolan raised an additional $1.1 million and Moreno raised another $1.2 million. LaRose, who began his campaign in July, loaned his campaign $250,000 and raised another $792,000. 

Brown also garnered support from 97 political action committees that contributed a total $256,000 – an average of $2,600 each. Top supporters included leadership PACs affiliated with Reps. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), which each gave $10,000. 

Brown, who joined striking auto workers on picket lines last month, received at least $43,500 from a dozen unions or PACs affiliated with unions between July and September.

Duty and Country, a super PAC that has been federally inactive since 2020, spent $840,000 in September on advertising for Brown. The group reported having just $15,000 at the end of June, and is not required to file donor information until the end of this year. 

In the 2020 election cycle, the group’s funds came from a nonprofit group called Duty and Honor, an affiliate of Senate Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC and Majority Forward, according to tax records. 

Senate Majority PAC supports Democratic candidates in Senate races and is consistently one of the highest-spending super PACs. It often supports affiliate groups dedicated to specific races, like Georgia Honor and The Georgia Way, which both supported Democratic candidates in Georgia Senate races. 

Brown’s Republican challengers in the Ohio Senate race also received PAC support. 

PACs gave $19,000 to Moreno. Most of it came from fellow Republicans, including the leadership PACs of Vance and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Flo.), who each gave $5,000, as well as local candidates and parties. 

Dolan received $23,800 from PACs between July and September. About 20% of that came from committees affiliated with party members. Unlike the PACs supporting Moreno, his third-quarter supporters were limited to PACs affiliated with state and local politicians, including former fellow Ohio state Sens. Jay Hottinger and Bill Beagle, as well as a handful of municipal politicians. The rest came from PACs affiliated with companies headquartered in Ohio. 

LaRose received $9,000 from PACs, including $7,500 from PACs affiliated with trade associations, $1,000 from a PAC affiliated with a real estate investment trust and $500 from the campaign committee of Ohio state Rep. Thomas Patton (R). 

Brown also spent more than his three challengers combined. He spent $3.2 million from July to September, with $1.2 million on digital acquisition, $540,000 on direct mail and another $27,500 on digital advertising.

Dolan spent $1.3 million, with most of it going to television advertising. Moreno spent $700,000, including $150,000 on mailing and $58,000 on digital advertising and marketing. LaRose spent just $172,000 and reported spending $16,900 on mailing. 

No prominent Democrat has challenged Brown. Primary elections are set for March 19, 2024 and the general election is scheduled for Nov. 5.


Harshawn Ratanpal wrote this article for OpenSecrets.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

A handful of Montana bills pushing for partisan judicial elections as part of a broader movement in the state were defeated this month.

Montana law has required judicial elections to be nonpartisan for 90 years, since 1935. Proponents argued partisan elections would be more transparent. Opponents said it is one move in a larger effort to curb judicial power.

Jim Manley was a district court judge in Lake and Sanders Counties until he retired in 2022. He said it is vital judges be respected for their independence.

"Destroying that independence and respect has far-reaching negative effects," Manley contended. "I don't know if some of these politicians don't care about that. But that's the concern among judges and many other people."

He argued electing partisan judges would imply bias in courtrooms and decisions. He noted it could increase electoral spending, which has already skyrocketed in recent years. The Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, created last year, brought 27 such bills to the current session. Only one has passed so far.

Interest groups have targeted judicial elections because of the hot-button issues they sometimes have to decide. Abortion and the environment are examples.

"You can't just take that authority away from the judicial branch to discipline judges or to determine what they can do," Manley stressed.

The effort to curb judicial power is unpopular. Only 20% of Montanans surveyed earlier this year said courts have too much authority.

Montana's new Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who has a conservative background, urged lawmakers in his 2025 State of the Judiciary address to keep elections nonpartisan and, quote, "reject legislation that will undermine the effective functioning of the judiciary." He said, "It will ultimately harm Montana citizens."


get more stories like this via email

Political maneuvers continue with the pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race less than a week away - the latest coming from the White House. In the weeks leading up to the April 1st election, the state has seen partisan-backed campaigns, swirling misinformation and incentives that border on bribes. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape state elections - with changes like proof of citizenship requirements - days before Wisconsin voters take to the polls.

Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs with Stand Up America, says it all reflects the climate stoked by the country's leaders.

"So, it's no surprise that they're trying that playbook again in Wisconsin," he explained. "And what it still comes down to is a really basic question. Do we want a MAGA court in Wisconsin? Do we want a Supreme Court bought and paid for by Elon Musk?"

Groups tied to Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency, have poured about $17 million into backing candidate Brad Schimel, while Susan Crawford's campaign reports a total $24 million in funding, with notable contributions from billionaire George Soros. Overall spending has surpassed all records for judicial races and is expected to reach $100 million.

Most state elections don't garner mass attention, but Edkins says in the battleground swing state, outcomes have national implications.

"Where Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. What's at stake in Wisconsin are ensuring that we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028," he added.

The high court has become the referee for some of the most hotly debated election rules, narrowly rejecting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results. And last year the court reversed gerrymandered maps and restored ballot drop boxes.

Lucy Ripp, communication director with A Better Wisconsin Together, says voters need to cut through the chaos and remember why the election matters.

"The Wisconsin Supreme Court exists to uphold and protect our constitutional rights and freedoms in Wisconsin. And so, it's really important that we pay attention to who we are electing to the court," she said.

Cases about abortion access, the rights of voters with disabilities, noncitizen voting and the legality of drop boxes are just some the high court could see - as well as a lawsuit concerning one of Musk's companies, Tesla.

After Elon Musk, a man once worth $327 billion, spent a quarter billion to elect Donald Trump, he was rewarded with unprecedented powers over the federal government.

Brandon Novick, policy coordinator with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says blatant corruption in the United States is not new. And it's legal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo ruling in 1976.

"That decision was the root one that said that 'money is speech' and that people can infinitely spend in elections. In Citizen's United, basically the court said based on this, we're saying corporations, not just individuals, can infinitely spend in elections," he explained.

To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, Novick said the nation's highest court clarified that unlimited spending to influence the outcome of an election is OK, so long as the cash is spent independently and not in coordination with a candidate's official campaign.

Billionaires are not just buying power from Republicans. Novick pointed to Reid Hoffman, who spent some $17 million on the Kamala Harris campaign. When Hoffman called for the Federal Trade Commission's chair Lena Kahn to get the boot, Harris refused to commit to keeping Kahn in her post.

"This issue is bipartisan. The establishments of both parties are not working to solve it. But the current Trump administration is the greatest example of blatant billionaire control bought through bribes in campaign spending," Novik said.

Good-government groups have long argued that in American democracy, one citizen - not one dollar - should equal one vote. Novick said there are only two viable pathways to get money out of politics. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn previous decisions, which is unlikely since many of today's Justices were involved in Citizen's United.

"The only other way to get past this is a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision and get money out of politics. Because if Congress just passes a law, they'll strike it down," he added.


get more stories like this via email