Elon Musk’s super PAC has funneled more than $1 million into New Hampshire’s Senate race over the past two months, making the world’s richest man one of the most visible players in one of the most expensive contests of the midterms.
America PAC, the conservative political action committee Musk founded in 2024, spent $755,000 on digital media, printing, phone calls and texts opposing Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas and $265,000 supporting Republican John E. Sununu, according to federal disclosures.
It also spent more than $300,000 in New Hampshire’s two congressional races.
But Musk’s spending is a small piece of a much larger picture. Pappas has raised more than four times as much as Sununu. When it comes to corporate affiliations, Pappas’ donors are more tech-aligned while Sununu has drawn backing from investment firms. Both candidates take in more donations from New Hampshire than any other state, but it’s still a small plurality of their overall catch.
New Hampshire accounts for just a fraction of the $446 million Musk has spent in the midterm elections, which are on track to be the most expensive in history, and Musk is just one example of the flood of money into New Hampshire’s race as parties battle for control of the Senate.
When individuals, groups or industries contribute significant amounts to help someone get elected, critics often question whether those donations have a substantial or lingering influence on a candidate’s stances and actions in office.
Experts who track money in politics say it can be difficult to tell who’s influenced by campaign cash. Sometimes that plays out over time.
“It can be challenging,” said Anna Massoglia, an editor at the government transparency nonprofit MuckRock and a former editor at OpenSecrets, a nonprofit research group that tracks money in politics. “It’s a matter of looking at not just who’s funding candidates but also how those candidates are acting, what stances they are taking — not just what they’re saying publicly but also what they actually do, and sometimes that can be hard to parse out.”
Big money picks sides
The lion’s share of election spending is by PACs and super PACs, which have put a combined $57 million into this Senate race, according to data from the Federal Election Commission.
That puts New Hampshire’s Senate seat among the most expensive in this election cycle, Massoglia said. (MuckRock has been a partner of the Concord Monitor on past projects.)
In seeking the seat soon to be vacated by retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Pappas looks to build on four terms in Congress and centers his campaign on lowering the cost of living and rooting out corporate and political corruption. Sununu, who held this same seat from 2003 to 2009 and served three terms in the House before that, makes the case for a Republican to once again represent New Hampshire values in Washington.
In New Hampshire, the stars aligned for an expensive election: a retiring incumbent in a battleground state that could decide which party controls the Senate, with two candidates who both have name recognition and experience in Congress.
Still, the money pouring into the Granite State is a “drop in the bucket” compared to spending across the country, Massoglia said.
“It’s not uncommon for even hundreds of millions of dollars to pour into … elections for the U.S. Senate,” Massoglia said. “The higher the office, the more expensive elections tend to be, and they tend to attract more outside spending by groups like super PACs.”
Among the biggest PACs involved are the Democratic group WinSenate, which has spent around $16.7 million to help Pappas get elected.
Sununu has sought to distance himself from Trump, saying he will not be a rubber stamp for the president’s agenda.
“John Sununu is the only candidate Granite Staters can trust to be an independent voice who will stand up for the people of New Hampshire every single day,” Mike Schrimpf, a spokesperson for Sununu, said in a statement. He accused Pappas of aligning too closely with Democrats and the left and said Sununu “has a proven history of standing up to leaders in both parties when they are wrong.”
At the same time, a Trump-linked super PAC called No Going Back has unloaded nearly $12 million to back him. Other Republican PACs are in the hunt, too: Americans for Prosperity has spent $11.1 million, and the Senate Leadership Fund gave $9.4 million.
‘A meaningful signal’
The two candidates are drawing from different pools of money: Pappas has swept up individual donors, including tech and AI executives, while Sununu’s support, excluding Musk, leans on retirees, the financial sector and well-funded outside groups.
Where the two campaigns differ most is the kind of corporate-linked money they accept.
Federal data shows more than $75,000 has flowed to the Pappas campaign from executives at major tech companies, AI firms and investment funds that back tech and AI startups.
Some of these donors are not typical small-dollar givers. For example, Allen Blue, the co-founder of LinkedIn, and Kevin Scott, the chief technology officer at Microsoft, each gave $7,000 to Pappas’s campaign.
Pappas also received at least $36,000 from employees at Anthropic, the AI company behind Claude. Anthropic ranks fourth among the companies whose employees have given to Pappas’s campaign, according to OpenSecrets.
“Chris Pappas is the only candidate in this race who supports overturning Citizens United, who does not take corporate PAC money, and who has a record of working to get dark money and corporate influence out of our elections,” Jen Hughes, a spokesperson for Pappas, said in a statement. She accused Sununu of “cashing in” on corporate special interests. Sununu’s campaign did not answer the Monitor’s request for comment about that claim.
Meanwhile, Sununu gets a fifth of his money, $1.2 million, from retirees. Among those who are working, he hailed his greatest share of donations from the financial sector, according to OpenSecrets.
Equity and investment firms, including big names like Goldman Sachs, have given thousands to Sununu. Some of those donations, roughly $13,500, come from executives and employees of the company, while $10,000 came from Goldman Sachs’ corporate PAC, according to federal data.
Fowler said while candidates can still receive money from powerful donors, it’s different from corporate PAC money due to the limits on personal contributions. There are no limits on what PACs can spend, as long as they don’t coordinate directly with the candidate or campaign.
“It is still the case that some candidates don’t take corporate PAC money, and that’s a meaningful signal for voters,” Fowler said.
Donations don’t necessarily equal votes on legislation, Fowler added, but it can depend on the donor whether there are other strings attached to large contributions.
“Elon Musk must think he’s getting something for his $440 million,” Fowler said. “Donors don’t call up a candidate and say, ‘You need to vote for this vote,’ but they do expect access.”
New Hampshire dollars
Looking to election day, grassroots support — and where it comes from — matters more than the megadonors, said Linda Fowler, a professor emerita in Dartmouth College’s Department of Government, who leans Democratic in this year’s elections.
The candidates themselves have raised a combined almost $30 million, with Pappas outraising Sununu by a ratio of more than four to one. Pappas raised $23.7 million compared to Sununu’s $5.68 million, according to federal data.
New Hampshire is the largest source of money for both candidates. For Pappas, it accounts for 21%, around $2 million; for Sununu, it’s 18%, a little over $600,000.
Fowler said the more support from New Hampshire donors, the more likely that a candidate has generated excitement among voters.
Beyond the Granite State, their donor maps diverge along familiar partisan lines. Pappas received the most from California, Massachusetts and New York, all Democratic strongholds. Sununu’s top out-of-state contributors are from Florida and Texas, which typically lean Republican. Contributions from California are fourth on Sununu’s list.
Fowler said the Granite State is a “very inefficient” place to spend on advertising. The most populated, southern tiers of the state are part of the Boston media market, where rates are high and many viewers won’t even be able to vote in this Senate race.
For all the money in New Hampshire’s race, whether it’s effective remains to be seen.
