Eve is here. Graham Platner may be dead as a political candidate, but the debate about his candidacy and what will become of his campaign for the Senate seat currently held by Susan Collins is very active. Like Bernie Sanders, Platner’s funding came overwhelmingly from small donors. Despite the Maine Democratic Party’s fervent claims that new candidates will be chosen to reflect Maine’s interests, the fact is that the Maine Democratic Party receives very large contributions from outside the state, funding the idea that it can operate independently.
Written by Thomas Ferguson, Research Director, Institute for New Economic Thinking, Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Boston. Paul Jorgensen, Associate Professor, Department of Interdisciplinary Programs and Community Engagement, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Jie Chen, University of Massachusetts statistician; Originally published on the New Economic Thinking Institute website
The insurrection in Maine’s Senate race has put candidates and party leaders in the spotlight. Although it has received little attention, campaign finance data reveals the state’s Democratic Party’s structural dependence on national organizations and large out-of-state donors.
Just two weeks ago, Maine’s Senate race exhibited all the hallmarks of a classic David vs. Goliath showdown. This behemoth was played by incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, backed by large amounts of foreign funding from major donors, including nearly 100 billionaires and their spouses. Her challenger was Democrat Graham Platner, who had already forced the withdrawal of Maine Governor Janet Mills, who was seeking the nomination. Mr. Platner’s campaign finance profile was the opposite of that of Mr. Collins and establishment leaders of both parties. There are essentially no large donations, which is exactly the same characteristic profile of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders that we previously analyzed. See Figures 1 and 2, and Figure 4 for Sanders.
Figure 1: Big bucks in the first round of Maine Senate races.
Source: Ferguson, Jorgensen, Laris, and Chen, 2026.
But that was then. This is now. As blockbuster movies about legendary Greek heroes begin to engulf America’s cultural landscape in the middle of summer, Maine is suddenly one-upping Hollywood. This state borrowed the words of another famous Greek sage, Heraclitus. A scandal broke out, and suddenly everyone knew that they could not participate in the same Senate race twice.
The heated debate sparked by Platner’s 11th-hour sending off has dominated media coverage ever since. Meanwhile, the New York Times and other media outlets have reported that the Maine Democratic Party is determined to reject efforts by out-of-state leaders of the national Democratic establishment, such as Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, to influence the election of new candidates. But what interested us was that, like in another famous case in 2024, the party leadership decided against a quick “firehouse” primary in order to leave the decision to voters. Instead, leaders chose to elect new candidates at a 601-member convention, including 101 Maine Democratic Party committee members.
We have no particular insight into the thinking of Maine’s Democratic leaders. But after seeing the Times article about how Sen. Schumer is said to be unwelcome, we thought it might be worth taking a closer look at the Maine Democratic Party’s fundraising. As always, we’re making moves that other political finance analyzes don’t make. Add donations from the same people or organizations to show the true shape of your donor profile. At a glance, you can see how much control big money and small money have.[1]
Parties differ somewhat from the campaigning of individual candidates. The former, for example, is likely to see at least small donations. But virtually every case we review also shows a truly huge influx of money from in-state and out-of-state donors. The size of these contributions varies depending on the situation and immediate need, and money from national party organizations is often very important, especially in peripheral states like Maine that don’t have much of their own Wall Street, casinos, or high technology to draw on.
So we are not at all surprised to find that the two largest inflows of money into the Maine party come from organizations associated with the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. See Figure 2.
Figure 2: Donations by donor size – Maine Democratic Party 2025-2026 election cycle
Source: Author’s calculations from the Maine Democratic Party’s Federal Receipts for the 2026 Cycle (FEC Committee C00179408), covering January 1, 2025 to May 31, 2026. Bars indicate net donations per donor. Refunds will be deducted from the donor’s total amount. Eight donors who contributed less than $0 are excluded. The entire $100,000-plus bin is made up of two national party committees: the DNC ($272,687) and the DSCC ($211,758). Total: $1,847,198.72.
Of course, these, like the rest of the big money from the party, are essentially out-of-state donations, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Giving by donor size and origin – Maine Democratic Party 2025-2026
Source: Author’s calculations from the Maine Democratic Party’s Federal Receipts (FEC Committee C00179408), covering the 2026 cycle, January 1, 2025, to May 31, 2026. Bars show net donations per donor, broken down by donor state. This includes party committees. A donor is coded as Maine if any of their records list a Maine address. The $0-$200 bin is excluded because it is dominated by $522,582.52 in a unified currency with no region. So the state division of that bin only explains that small itemized piece and is misleading. Of the $1,306,772.21 donated by donors of $200 or more, Maine accounted for $441,305.75 (33.8%) and out-of-state donors accounted for $865,466.46 (66.2%). Shares change depending on size. A nearly two-to-one ratio of trash cans priced between $201 and $999 are operated within Maine, while the entire trash cans priced $100,000 or more are located outside the state, namely DNC ($272,687) and DSCC ($211,758).
It is clear that the party relies far more heavily on big donors than Platner, even if that reliance pales in comparison to parties in other wealthy states. The dependence on out-of-state funding is equally evident.
But it also shows that donations from small donors are actually coming in. We’re not dealing with Northeastern brethren like, say, Sen. Mitch McConnell or Sen. Schumer himself. See Figure 4 from a previous analysis of both party leaders in 2016. Similar to Donald Trump in 2016, the Maine Democratic Party’s campaign finance profile exhibits a “barbell” structure, with a mix of large and small donations stacked at either end of the dollar scale.
Figure 4: Domination of big money
Donations by American political leaders in 2016
Quoted from “Structural Change and Economic Dynamics in 2022” by Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen.
The bottom line is that any talk of the party distancing itself from the NDP establishment must be about pouring salt into the bucket, not the grain. The state party’s dependence on big foreign capital is structural, and there is a lack of candidates who can capture the imagination of the Maine public. As with the Odyssey, poetry and truth are mixed in public debate, with the difference that while Homer was blind, American journalists and voters need not be.
1. For methodology, see discussion in Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen, “How Money Drives US Congressional Elections: Linear Models of Money and Outcomes,” Structural Change and Economy Dynamics 61, No. 2, 527-45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X19302012?via%3Dihub For data in this article, see also Ferguson, Jorgensen, Lalisse, and Chen, “Big Money and the Maine Senate Race: A Tale in Two Pictures,” Institute for New Economy Thinking, June 30, 2026. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/big-money-the-maine-senate-race-and-us-party-competition-a-tale-in-two-pictures
Source link
