What can a single Senate race reveal about the hidden workings of American politics? In Maine, donor patterns reveal how campaign finance shapes partisan competition, political narratives, and the expectations of voters long before votes begin.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence were from present-day Maine, and the territory itself was still part of Massachusetts at the time. But as America retires its most famous politician in Thomas Jefferson, the Senate race in the Pine Tree State offers a uniquely revealing glimpse into the reality of American politics.
Two characters tell a story.
The first is an adaptation of an earlier paper that three of us published several years ago. It tracks the distribution of the actual size of political contributions to major political leaders during the 2016 election period. The total is the sum of donations from the same donor, but they often look much smaller individually. The numbers are very different from vague media counts about total donations by famous billionaires and comparisons of horse race campaign spending, but the reasons go beyond the notoriously elusive flow of “dark money.”
These are the closest we can get to seeing the real control of big money in elections in an X-ray. As such, they are virtually absent from either social science discussions or mainstream media, both of which focus virtually all of their attention on public opinion polls.
Figure 1: Big Money Reigns: Size of Giving by American Political Leaders 2016 Cycle
Source: Adapted from Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 2022 by Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen
Each leader line has a color. The height of the vertical line on the left indicates the percentage of donations received from donors of various sizes along the bottom axis.
The message for 2016 is quite clear. One candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, collected virtually all his money from the bottom two bins: under $200 and under $250.
In contrast, all other leaders in both parties raised very high percentages of their funding from the top. Congressional leaders of both parties at the time, Senators Schumer and McConnell. House Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan rely on large, but not large, donors, typically in excess of $100,000. The same goes for presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and in a very interesting twist, Trump also raised large amounts of money from small donors (a unique “barbell” pattern).
We created similar numbers for the highly debated Maine Senate race using data from the Federal Election Commission. Incumbent Sen. Susan Collins is running on the Republican ticket, and Graham Platner is her Democratic opponent. Our totals count contributions from Super Pacs and other outside organizations as spent on or against candidates (counted as spending on behalf of a candidate’s opponents).[1]
Democratic candidate Graham Platner’s numbers reflect contributions to this year’s primary campaign. Republican incumbent Susan Collins has no major challenger, but has been raising money at a rapid pace for a long time in the run-up to the general election. Senators can run for election only every six years and use the money they save over time. We also believe that past contributions are often highly beneficial.
Therefore, our total includes donations from her last run for office in 2020. It takes a lot of effort to put together a complete ensemble. This year, seven different committees are raising and spending money on her behalf, as well as seven more super packs, which are said to be run independently of her campaign. Some people spend only on Platna. Count those too.
Figure 2: Big money in Maine Senate races.
Source: Federal Election Commission number, see text
Despite a series of controversies over his past, Mr. Plattner famously ousted his opponent in the Democratic primary, the incumbent governor of Maine, long before the Democratic primary.[2] Mr. Platner has strong support from Sen. Bernie Sanders and other progressives, but many establishment Democrats dislike him. Major media outlets continue to publish articles that question his character. By contrast, Collins’ somewhat contradictory legislative history receives less coverage. Most discussions end with the mantra that she collaborates more across party lines than virtually any other Republican senator, with little consideration of what the partisan alignment on which most Republican senators are currently marching means for such statistics.
When we tallied the races, we found that Mr. Collins is much closer to the typical Republican pattern (to be fair, that of the Old Guard Democratic leaders in Figure 1) in one important respect: donor size. We calculated the numbers for both the amount she received including the 2020 campaign and for 2026 alone. As shown in Figure 2, their shapes are virtually identical.
Maine’s Republican Senate relies heavily on big donors. Mr. Platner, by contrast, is strikingly similar to Mr. Sanders and has essentially not raised much money. The number of billionaires who support candidates has been an issue lately. Very few people supported Platner with small sums of money. Almost 100 people (including spouses) have made donations of various sizes to Mr. Collins. The overall configuration is shown in Figure 2 and is completely clear.
Our analysis also revealed something else. Setting aside donations below the $200 disclosure threshold, candidates vary widely in the percentage of money they receive from donors in Maine. Senate elections have long been nationalized. Donations from the state of Maine itself make up about 20 percent of Platner’s total funding. By contrast, Collins’ rate is just under 3%. (Not a typo.) Her biggest contributors include profiles of prominent private equity and hedge fund investors, including BlackRock’s Steve Schwartzman and Citadel’s Ken Griffin, as well as other prominent Republican donors such as Oracle’s Larry Ellison.
There’s a good chance the results of the Maine Senate race will determine the balance of power in the Senate, and it’s reasonable to expect more money to flow in. Of course, this could change the shape of the distribution. Or you can check it. The bottom line for now has to be that the Maine election offers a great window into the stakes of American politics, not just the partisan divide in the Senate, but also the various possible futures for the Democratic Party.
______
1. Federal Election Commission bulk data downloads do not update super fast. There will be a time lag before individual electronic returns are incorporated into those files. In this case, the data bulk download is missing the 12-day Preliminary Report (12P) (filed before the June 9 primary election) and includes contributions to major campaign committees through May 20, 2026. Also missing from the bulk download are independent spending spent up to Election Day. We obtained the electronic filings of candidates’ main campaign committees and their own expenditures to fill gaps in bulk data downloads. We downloaded these e-filings between June 12th and 14th. Collins uses multiple committees to raise and spend money, each with different filing deadlines. Pine Tree Results PAC has filed a 12P, reporting donations through May 20th. The Lead and Main Committee is accepting donations until April 28th. Stronger Maine Super PAC until March 31st, Collins Victory Committee until March 31st, Susan Collins of Maine JFC until March 31st. Ms. Collins also raises funds for major campaign and leadership committees through the Joint Chest Committee (JFC). These are shared accounts that allow multiple candidates or party committees to raise money together. One donor will make a “parent” check to JFC, which will be distributed to participating committees. If Collins is the clear beneficiary of such an arrangement, such as the Collins Victory Committee, we will count the entirety of the parent’s check as part of her contribution distribution. If Mr. Collins is only one of multiple candidates involved in the JFC, such as One Team Senate Majority, only the fractional portion given directly to Mr. Collins as part of the donor distribution will be counted, not the entire parent check. By counting parent checks for committees she controls and only checks for committees she simply participates in, she can credit each donor’s true contribution to Collins only once, without double-counting the same amount or absorbing funds raised for other candidates. 2. We do not take any position on any candidate or issue within this post. Controversies over Mr. Platner’s past and tattoos are easy to follow in mainstream media, unlike the disparity in political funding between candidates. The same is true of Sen. Collins’ record, although his habit of sometimes voting unilaterally in committee and then opposing bills in more public floor votes does not seem to be well studied in the media. For example, she provided a key vote to move the bill out of committee, a day after the Super Pac backing her reportedly received a $2 million donation from a private equity tycoon who stands to benefit tremendously from President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Act. She then loudly voted against it on the floor. For discussion of Rolling Stone and other coverage, see Stephen Prager, Common Dreams, September 4, 2025.
Source link
