Democrats fight back as big spending scrambles their primaries

Outside Money Floods Democratic Primaries, Sparking Party Tensions

Democratic candidates are finding themselves increasingly sidelined in their own primary races as outside groups pour unprecedented amounts of money into campaign advertising, transforming these contests into proxy battles that often overshadow the candidates themselves.

As the Democratic Party fights to regain control of Congress, organizations affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), cryptocurrency interests, and artificial intelligence companies have dominated the airwaves with campaign messaging. The influx of outside spending has scrambled Democratic primaries and exacerbated tensions within the party.

“It’s definitely a brave new world,” said Democratic pollster Zac McCrary. “We’re not talking about doubling of campaign expenditures. We’re talking about 10 times or 20 times more.”

The Democratic National Committee is now taking action, advancing a resolution at its New Orleans spring meeting to condemn the surge in spending. A final vote is expected on Friday, marking a significant step in addressing what many see as a growing crisis within the party’s primary process.

Candidates who lost their primaries have pointed to special interests as the reason for their defeats. Those still in the running are appealing to voters by denouncing these deep-pocketed outside groups. Even candidates who have benefited from the spending have expressed concern about its implications for democratic processes.

The impact has been particularly pronounced in districts that lean heavily Democratic, where primary winners are likely to prevail in the general election. In Illinois alone, outside groups spent more than $125 million across five open Democratic primaries. In all but one of those races, outside spending exceeded what the candidates themselves spent.

According to tracking firm AdImpact, the top three spenders in Illinois House races were groups affiliated with AIPAC, followed by Fairshake, a cryptocurrency-affiliated organization. AIPAC’s involvement has proven especially controversial as tensions rise within the Democratic Party over Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

Dan Sena, former executive director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, warns that this trend could have long-term consequences for party unity. “All that’s been completely smashed now,” Sena said of the traditional party organizations’ influence in promoting favored candidates. Even if Democrats regain control of the House, he cautioned, “You’re going to hand [House Minority Leader] Jeffries a caucus that is divided.”

The phenomenon shows no signs of slowing. Almost 40 congressional seats have already seen more than $1 million in outside spending, according to Federal Election Commission filings—and the primary season is still in its early stages.

The debate over outside money has reopened longstanding divisions between progressives and the party establishment. Progressive leaders are pushing for the party to adopt official language requiring all Democratic presidential contenders to reject support from “dark money” groups—super PACs that aren’t required to disclose their donors.

“It’s necessary that we actually have the party do something on this issue, not just say something,” said Larry Cohen, co-chair of Our Revolution, a progressive group founded by independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

However, some Democrats warn against unilateral disarmament when facing Republican opponents. Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona cautioned, “If the Republicans are going to use dark money in general elections, we should be using our money in general elections, too.” He emphasized the need for an even playing field while supporting reforms in primary contests.

Representative Ro Khanna, a progressive and potential future presidential contender, took a stronger stance: “We should eliminate any super PAC in a Democratic primary. And I think every presidential candidate in 2028 should pledge that they will not have any super PAC spending in a Democratic primary.”

While the DNC resolution would not legally prevent outside groups from funding primary contests, it represents an important statement of principles for a party grappling with the influence of money in politics. As the 2024 election cycle continues to unfold, the tension between electoral pragmatism and democratic ideals remains unresolved—a reflection of broader debates about campaign finance in American politics.