Big Money, the Maine Senate Race and the US Party Race: A Tale in Two Pictures

0 25 6 minutes read

Big Money, the Maine Senate Race and the US Party Race: A Tale in Two Pictures

What can one Senate race reveal about the hidden machinery of American politics? In Maine, donor patterns reveal how campaign funds can shape party contests, political issues, and the choices voters are asked to make long before votes are counted.

Only one signer of the Declaration of Independence came from what is now Maine and the area itself was still part of Massachusetts. But as America enjoys Thomas Jefferson’s most famous rivalry, the Senate race in the Pine Tree State offers a different perspective that reveals the true nature of American politics.

Two figures tell a story.

The first is taken from a previous paper by the three of us that was published some years ago. It tracks the actual size of the distribution of political donations to key political leaders during the 2016 election cycle. Amounts that lump together contributions from the same donors often appear to be very small. The numbers are a far cry from the media’s foggy calculations of total donations made by famous billionaires or horse-race comparisons of campaign spending for reasons beyond the anonymous “dark money.”

They are the closest thing to an X-ray of real big money electoral governance. Therefore, they do not appear in social science debates or in the mainstream media, both of which draw much attention to polls.

Figure 1: The Dominance of Big Money: Size of Contributions of US Political Leaders 2016 Cycle

Source: Adapted from Ferguson, Jorgensen and, Chen Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 2022

Each leader line is colored; the length of the vertical line on the left shows the percentage of donations they received from donors of various sizes along the bottom axis.

The message – for 2016 – is clear. One person, Senator Bernie Sanders, raised almost all of his money in the two lowest bins – under $200 and under $250.

In contrast, all other leaders of both parties raised the highest percentages of their funding in the top bracket. Congressional leaders at the time of both parties – Senators Schumer and McConnell; Nancy Pelosi and Paul Ryan in the House – they did not depend on big donors, but they are giants – usually more than $ 100,000. So did both presidential candidates – Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with the most interesting twist that Trump also raised large sums from small donors (a unique “barbell” pattern).

We used data from the Federal Election Commission to create similar statistics for the much-discussed Maine Senate race. Incumbent Senator Susan Collins is running on the Republican ticket, and Graham Platner is her Democratic challenger. Our totals count from money from Super Pacs and other outside organizations that spend on behalf of candidates or against one (which we count as opponent spending).[1]

Democratic candidate Graham Platner’s statistics show his primary campaign contributions this year. Susan Collins, the Republican incumbent, did not face a primary challenger, but has been raising money at a rapid pace in the general election for a long time. Senators run for office only every six years and can use the money they have accumulated over time. We also believe that past contributions are often very revealing.

So our total includes contributions from his last tenure, in 2020. Assembling a complete team requires a lot of effort: This year seven different committees are raising and spending money on his behalf, as well as seven other Super Pacs, which are said, therefore, to be working outside of his campaign. Some only spend against Platner; we count those, too.

Figure 2: Big Money in Maine Senate Elections

Source: State Election Commission Numbers, See Text

Platner, famously, forced his opponent into the Democratic primary — the incumbent governor of Maine — long before the primary, despite a series of controversies about his past.[2] Platner is widely supported by Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressives, while many Democrats dislike him. Major media outlets continue to publish articles questioning his character. In contrast, Collins’ somewhat controversial legal history attracts less coverage. Most conversations revolve around the mantra that he works more across party lines than any other Republican senator, regardless of what the party shutdown might mean for many Republican senators in these figures.

Our race list shows that Collins is very close to the typical Republican pattern (or, if applicable, the Old Guard Democratic leaders in Figure 1) in one important respect: the size of his donor profile. We’ve run the numbers for both of his earnings including the 2020 and 2026 campaigns alone. Their shape is almost the same as Figure 2 shows.

The Republican Senator from Maine is heavily dependent on very large donors. In contrast, Platner is remarkably similar to Sanders: he doesn’t really attract big money. Recently the number of billionaires supporting candidates has come up as an issue. Very few supported Platner in small numbers. Nearly a hundred (counting married couples) have made donations of various sizes to Collins. The overall configuration is as shown in Figure 2 and is completely transparent.

Our analysis also revealed something else. When you set aside contributions below the $200 disclosure threshold, the percentage of money received from Maine donors varies widely among candidates. Senate elections have been national for a long time. Contributions from Maine itself make up about 20% of Platner’s total income; in contrast, Collins’ average is slightly less than 3%. (Not a fine print.) His major donors include a Who’s Who of prominent private equity and hedge fund donors, including BlackRock’s Steve Schwarzman, Citadel’s Ken Griffin, and other well-known Republican donors, including Oracle’s Larry Ellison.

The outcome of the Maine Senate race may very well determine the balance of power in the Senate, so it’s reasonable to expect a lot more money to come in. That might change the shape of the distribution, of course. Or he can convince them. For now the conclusion should be that the Maine election offers a bright window into American political participation: Not just a partisan divide in the Senate, but a different future for Democrats.

______

1. Federal Election Commission bulk data downloads are updated at lightning speed. There is a period of time before each electronic filing is entered into those files. In this case, the bulk data collection is missing the 12-Day Pre-Primary (12P) report (filed before the June 9 primary) and contains contributions to the campaign’s central committee up to and including May 20, 2026. The bulk collection is also missing private expenditures spent on election day. We obtained the electronic files of the candidates’ campaign central committee and private expenses to fill the gap in the bulk data collection. We downloaded this electronic filing June 12-14. Collins uses several committees to raise and spend money, and these committees have different application dates. Pine Tree Results PAC has filed a 12P and reported donations through May 20. Lead Maine Committee has donations through April 28. Stronger Maine Super PAC has donations through March 31, Collins Victory Committee has March 31, and Susan Collins of Maine JFC has March 31. Her campaign for leadership committees and her leadership committees by raising funds for Collins (JFCs). These are shared accounts that allow several candidates or party committees to raise money together. One donor writes a “parent” check to the JFC, which is divided among the participating committees. When Collins clearly benefits from such arrangements, such as the Collins Victory Committee, we count the parent’s check in full as part of his donation distribution. If Collins is one of several candidates involved in the JFC, such as One Team Senate Majority, we only count the classified portion given to Collins directly as part of his donor distribution and not the parent’s full check. Counting the parent check for the committees they control but only the itemized check for the committees they just join allows us to give Collins the true true contribution of each donor once without double counting the same dollars or deducting money raised on behalf of other people.

2. We do not take any position against any candidate or issues in this post; disputes about Platner’s past, his tattoos, and more are easy to follow in the mainstream media, unlike the difference in political capital between the candidates. The same is true of Senator Collins’ record, although his habit of voting one way in committee and opposing legislation in a low public vote seems to have gone unnoticed in the media. For example, the day after the Super Pac he supported received a $2 million donation from a private official who, according to media reports, stands to benefit more from President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, he cast the crucial vote to get the bill out of committee. He then voted up against it down. See discussion of reports at Rolling Stone and elsewhere in Stephen Prager, Common Dreams, September 4, 2025.