By Anna Massoglia and Jimmy Cloutier for OpenSecrets.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Kentucky News Connection reporting for the OpenSecrets-Public News Service Collaboration

Kentucky’s 2023 gubernatorial race set a nominal state fundraising record, with candidates in the primary and general election raising more than $44.6 million, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of campaign finance reports. 

Independent political groups spent an additional $45.3 million, mostly on negative ads targeting incumbent Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear or his Republican rival, Attorney General Daniel Cameron. The latest campaign finance filings cover political spending through Oct. 23.

When adjusted for inflation, the gubernatorial race ranks among the most expensive in Kentucky history — and is the latest high-profile state election to be awash in cash. Virginia state legislative races this year also broke state fundraising records, OpenSecrets found. 

Beshear, who won reelection in the Republican-leaning state, raised more than $23.1 million — three times as much as Cameron, reports show. 

Cameron, who became Kentucky’s first major-party Black nominee for governor following an expensive primary contest, raised about $6.5 million. 

While the race tightened in the final weeks of the campaign, Beshear won a second term on Nov. 7 by a comfortable margin, defeating Cameron with 53% of the vote, according to the Kentucky Secretary of State. 

Since this will be Beshear’s second consecutive term as governor, he must wait at least one election cycle before running for governor again. Kentucky is one of 26 states that allow governors to serve an unlimited number of four-year terms.

Beshear’s top funder was the Kentucky Democratic Party. 

Both the Kentucky Democratic Party and Beshear are now under civil investigation by state campaign finance regulators for allegedly accepting political contributions over the legal limit from Randall Weddle, the mayor of London, Ky. 

In June, after reporting by the Kentucky Lantern, Beshear announced that his campaign and the Kentucky Democratic party inadvertently took $202,000 in “excess” contributions from Weddle but noted the money was refunded. A Kentucky Registry of Election Finance notice sent Monday confirms an investigation is ongoing. 

Beshear also received substantial support from labor unions, which accounted for most contributions to his campaign from political action committees. 

Like Beshear, Cameron’s biggest donors were also party committees, with the Kentucky Republican Party topping the list. 

While Beshear topped campaign fundraising, Cameron benefited from more outside group spending on independent expenditures. 

The attorney general benefitted from over $25 million in spending by outside groups while Beshear benefitted from about $20 million. The bulk of that paid for negative advertising with $19.4 million on ads attacking Cameron and $18.2 million on anti-Beshear ads.

The top two spenders were Defending Bluegrass Values and Kentucky Values — political action committees affiliated with the Democratic and Republican governors associations, respectively. 

Defending Bluegrass Values reported more than $4 million in contributions in campaign finance filings this year and made $13.7 million in ad buys supporting Beshear’s reelection campaign in the first week of September — more than every other PAC spending on the race combined, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. It spent nearly $16.8 million in total on the election, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Kentucky Values reported spending more than $12.4 million, mostly on independent expenditures opposing Beshear’s reelection. 

A PAC called Bluegrass Freedom Action also ranked among the top outside spenders, pouring more than $4.9 million into the primary and general elections to boost Cameron’s campaign. Most of that money traces back to The Concord Fund, a conservative “dark money” group well known for financing efforts to reshape the federal judiciary. 

As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, The Concord Fund — formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network — is not required to disclose its donors. It has steered $3.3 million to Bluegrass Freedom Action, as of Oct. 23. 

Another top spender boosting Cameron was the School Freedom Fund, an out-of-state super PAC allied with the conservative Club For Growth. The super PAC has yet to report any new donors this year, but in 2022 it was bankrolled by billionaire Jeff Yass, the founder of Susquehanna International Group, according to federal campaign finance reports. 

School Freedom Fund spent around $3 million opposing Beshear, records show. Multiple ads from the super PAC about Beshear’s decision to release some prisoners early during the COVID-19 pandemic were debunked. 

Club for Growth, a pro-free market conservative group active across the country, spent another $2.2 million boosting Cameron in the gubernatorial race.


Anna Massoglia and Jimmy Cloutier wrote this story for OpenSecrets.

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


get more stories like this via email

Early voting for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race starts next week and, although the seat is technically nonpartisan, both candidates have clear political alignments and backers that are being heavily scrutinized. The topic prompted some of the sparks in last night's heated debate.

Republican billionaire Elon Musk has poured millions into backing Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel in the April Supreme Court race. Musk's company Tesla is suing the state for denying its request for dealers licenses - a case that could reach the high court.

University of Wisconsin-Madison mass communications professor Michael Wagner said the state's rule about justices making their own decisions about when to recuse themselves from cases makes the election outcome that much more consequential.

"It's in a presidential swing state, it's on a swing court," said Wagner, "and the cases that are going to come before the court are going to be cases where the donors in the election, most notably Elon Musk, have a clear interest and a clear path they want the winning judge to take."

Judge Susan Crawford of Dane County has been called out for receiving campaign money from Democratic billionaire George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Spending on this race is expected to top the historic $56 million spent on the last state Supreme Court race.

Millions have been spent on ads to sway undecided voters. A recent Marquette University poll found many say they still don't know enough about each candidate. Wagner said he doesn't think they'll have a dramatic impact on the election outcome, and predicted party allegiance will drive most voters. But he notes some of the ads egregiously misrepresent the candidates - such as a Schimel campaign ad that featured the wrong Susan Crawford - which speaks to today's contentious political climate.

"We live in this environment where it's just easier to take the shortcut that feels good in the moment," he said, "even if it's not true, even if it isn't good for the long-term 'project' of living together and governing together as citizens."

The April 1 election is already in the national spotlight, as it will determine the political influence of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Early voting begins next Tuesday.

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S., including Montana, have signed a statement expressing how they feel the Trump administration's actions are threatening American democracy.

The letter, signed by experts at colleges and universities in both red and blue states, highlights six specific concerns. They include the administration's actions to cancel spending approved by Congress.

Montana State University Professor of Political Science Sara Rushing noted that while cutting expenses may be a good business strategy, democracy is not a business.

That's why, she said, there are checks and balances.

"We have these procedures and practices built in to slow things down, build consensus, abide by processes, and make sure that things are fair and transparent," said Rushing. "Efficiency has never been the preeminent value of democracy."

She encouraged her fellow political scientists not to strike a tone of neutrality because, as she put it, democratic procedures and stakes "shouldn't be up for debate."

In defense of its actions, the White House says it's ensuring all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

More than 29% of Montana's land base is public land managed by federal agencies.

Montanans who previously worked for those agencies were some of the first to be directly affected by federal cuts, after an initial round of firings in mid-February.

Rushing said she worries the government's commitment to efficiency will "break" the systems that protect public lands.

"So, you can break Yellowstone and make it function terribly," said Rushing, "and then you can make an argument for privatizing it and running it like a business. And that would be a massive loss - not just to Montanans, but to Americans as a whole."

According to a 2024 University of Montana survey, 95% of Montanans said they visited national public lands in the past year, and about half of those said they paid more than ten visits.

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




get more stories like this via email

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S. have signed a letter, saying American democracy is under threat based on the early actions of the new Trump administration. A North Dakota expert is among those speaking out. Those who added their names to the statement work for colleges and universities in both "red" and "blue" states. They highlight six specific areas of concern, including the administration acting unilaterally to cancel spending approved by Congress. They say moves like that undermine checks and balances.

Mark Jendrysik, a political science professor based in North Dakota, says he personally feels the nation is in a "constitutional crisis."

"The presidency is attempting to basically render Congress superfluous to almost every important decision, and the most important decision, which is how money is raised and spent," hew said.

He added that Congress, currently under Republican control, seems too willing to surrender that power and said this has been a crisis building for decades, with the executive branch trying to seize more control. In defending certain actions, the White House says it's ensuring that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

But Jendrysik, who isn't speaking on behalf of the University of North Dakota where he teaches, says the arguments he's seen from the Trump administration don't hold up. He says he realizes some people choose not to pay attention to what's happening, but he thinks both Congress and citizens should be worried, too.

"Someone else smarter than me [once] said, 'When citizens stop saying "the public affairs aren't my concern," then the republic is lost,'" he continued.

The authors behind the statement say Trump fairly won last fall's election, but add that his
victory doesn't grant him the right to overturn the nation's constitutional and legal order. Other political observers say longtime dysfunction in Congress in addressing the nation's problems has allowed too many voters to consistently view the legislative branch as ineffective, giving rise to an administration willing to push legal and ethical boundaries.


get more stories like this via email