字号·· | 护眼
time

中期选举广告支出已突破100亿美元,资金从何而来?Midterm Ad Spending Has Surpassed $10B. Where Is the Money Coming From?

点「原文对照」整页切到原文,或双击某段只看那段的原文。

盖蒂图片社图片编号2300191030(1).jpgGettyImages-2300191030 (1).jpg

今年中期选举周期的政治广告支出已达到历史最高水平,截至上周已超过100亿美元。媒体追踪机构AdImpact预测,到选举日将达到116亿美元。该机构此前报告称,2022年中期选举的支出纪录为89亿美元,而2024年总统选举周期在广告上的支出约为112亿美元。

Political advertising spending for the midterm election cycle this year has reached a record high, surpassing $10 billion as of last week. It is projected to reach $11.6 billion by Election Day, according to the media tracking group AdImpact. The previous midterm spending record was set in 2022 at $8.9 billion, the organization reported, and the 2024 presidential cycle saw some $11.2 billion spent on ads.

该数字未包括其他竞选开支,如人员费用、差旅和选民接触。但它确实衡量了政治竞选中更具影响力的工具之一:《美国政治科学评论》2021年发表的一项研究估计,一名参议院候选人若在电视广告上比对手多花200万美元,可能获得约1万票——这可能足以扭转一场胶着的竞争。然而,专家告诉《时代》杂志,支出最多并不保证选举成功。

The figure does not capture other campaign expenses, such as staffing, travel, and voter outreach. But it does measure one of the more influential political campaign tools: Research published in the American Political Science Review in 2021 estimated that a Senate candidate with a $2 million television advertising advantage over an opponent could gain about 10,000 votes—potentially enough to tip a close race. Spending the most, however, does not guarantee electoral success, experts tell TIME.

“重要的是要记住,拥有最多资源和花费最多并不能保证胜利,”研究机构OpenSecrets的洞察主管布伦丹·格拉文说,该机构追踪资金对美国政治、政策和选举的影响。“你需要有足够的资金来竞争,需要能够让自己的名字被人知晓,让人们知道你是谁。但这并不总是关于谁拥有最多。”尽管如此,两党在此轮选举中仍不遗余力地动用储蓄——尽管他们的支出存在不均衡。

“It is important to keep in mind that having the most, and spending the most, does not guarantee you wins,” says Brendan Glavin, the director of insights at the research group OpenSecrets, which tracks money’s effect on U.S. politics, policy, and elections. “You need to have enough to compete, and you need to be able to get your name out, and people need to know who you are. But it’s not always about having the most.”That has not deterred both parties from digging deep into their piggy banks this cycle—although their spending has been uneven.

根据AdImpact的数据,共和党在参议院选举中的支出明显高于民主党,上个月在九场最激烈的上议院竞选中的电视广告支出分别为2.33亿和1.21亿美元。在《Cook Political Report》将其归类为“摇摆选区”的竞选中,AdImpact数据显示,共和党广告支出为9.47亿,民主党为6.25亿,其中包括尚未播出的广告。大部分资金来自少数几位深 pocketed 个人,他们通过向超级政治行动委员会(super PACs)提供资金来支持竞选。

Republicans have significantly outspent Democrats in Senate races, at $233 million to $121 million on broadcast television ads across nine of the tightest upper-chamber races last month, according to AdImpact. In races categorized as “toss-ups” by the Cook Political Report, AdImpact data attributes $947 million to Republicans and $625 million to Democrats, including ads that have not yet been aired. A large portion of the funding comes from a small number of deep-pocketed individuals bankrolling super PACs.

众议院选举中的支出差距要小得多,共和党在21个摇摆选区的支出超过了民主党1400万美元。

The spending gap is much narrower in House races, where Republicans have outspent Democrats by $14 million across 21 toss-up races.

然而,民主党参议院候选人在许多竞争激烈的选举中已经大幅领先于共和党对手的筹款额。以下是部分资金的来源及其使用情况的概述。

Democratic Senate candidates, however, have substantially outraised their Republican opponents in many competitive races. Here’s where some of that money has come from and a look at how it’s being spent.

德克萨斯州参议院选举:5亿美元 德克萨斯州是备受关注的参议院选举之一。10月的民调显示,詹姆斯·塔拉里科有望成为自1993年以来该州首位民主党参议员。若他在州内获胜,将对共和党在国会上院的控制构成关键打击。根据CBS/YouGov在10月8日至16日的民调,他以51%的支持率领先于共和党候选人肯·帕克斯顿。

Texas Senate race: $500 million Texas is one of the most closely watched Senate races. October polling shows that James Talarico has the chance to become the state’s first Democratic Senator since 1993. A win in the state would deal a critical blow to Republicans’ grip on the upper chamber of Congress. He’s at 51% against Republican Ken Paxton according to CBS/YouGov polling from Oct. 8-16.

根据AdImpact的数据,合并的广告支出和播出时段预订已超过5亿美元,使其成为仅次于总统选举的第二个突破该门槛的非总统选举。2024年俄亥俄州参议院选举的支出达到5.427亿美元。

Combined ad spending and airtime reservations have surpassed $500 million, according to AdImpact, making it only the second non-presidential race to cross that threshold. The Ohio Senate race in 2024 reached $542.7 million.

埃隆·马斯克自2025年初以来已向共和党捐款3.69亿美元,是本轮联邦选举中最大的个人捐款人。他上个月向参议院领导基金捐款1.58亿美元,该基金又向支持帕克斯顿的德克萨斯州政治行动委员会转移了等额资金。马斯克在8月又向孤星自由政治行动委员会额外捐款1000万美元以支持该候选人。

Elon Musk, who has given $369 million to Republicans since the start of 2025 and is the biggest individual donor to federal elections this cycle, gave $158 million last month to Senate Leadership Fund, which transferred matching amounts to Texas PAC, the group supporting Paxton. Musk gave an additional $10 million to Lone Star Liberty PAC in August to support the candidate.

格拉文表示,尽管这些捐款并未直接流入帕克斯顿的竞选活动,但“实际上直接用于支持帕克斯顿”,看来“帮助他稳住了局面”。

Glavin says that these donations, although not funneled to Paxton’s campaign directly, “essentially went directly into supporting Paxton” and appear to have “helped stabilize things” for him.

塔拉里科从7月至9月的筹款额大约比对手多5000万美元——但大额捐款人和超级政治行动委员会为帕克斯顿在广告投放方面提供了优势。

Talarico has outraised his opponent by roughly $50 million from July through September—but large donors and super PACs have given Paxton the edge when it comes to broadcast ads.

俄亥俄州参议院选举:4.6亿美元 根据AdImpact的数据,俄亥俄州参议院选举的合并广告支出已超过4.5亿美元。

Ohio Senate race: $460 million Over $450 million in combined ad spending has gone toward Ohio’s Senate race, according to AdImpact.

共和党人为支持约翰·赫斯特(Jon Husted)已花费近2.7亿美元,而民主党人为支持谢罗德·布朗(Sherrod Brown)已花费超过1.8亿美元。根据ActiVote的民意调查,截至周日,赫斯特以不足一个百分点的优势领先,俄亥俄州为民主党人提供了另一个翻转共和党持有席位的机会。

Republicans have spent nearly $270 million to support Jon Husted, while Democrats have spent over $180 million in support of Sherrod Brown. Ohio gives Democrats another chance to flip a Republican-held seat, with Husted leading by less than a point as of Sunday, according to an ActiVote poll.

赫斯特于2025年被任命接替副总统JD·万斯(JD Vance),这意味着此次特别选举的获胜者需要在2028年再次获胜,才能完成一个完整的六年任期。

Husted was appointed to replace Vice President JD Vance in 2025, meaning that the winner of this special election would need to win again in 2028 to serve a full six-year term.

截至9月,共和党人在播出的选举广告上的支出比民主党人多4100万美元,在九个被确定的摇摆州中,这是共和党的第二大金额优势,仅次于得克萨斯州,这一数据来自AdImpact。缅因州参议院竞选:2亿美元缅因州是本轮选举中人均参议院竞选费用最高的州,广告支出总额约为2亿美元。

Through September, Republicans spent $41 million more than Democrats in aired election ads, making it the second-largest GOP dollar advantage among nine identified battleground states, behind Texas, according to AdImpact. Maine Senate race: $200 million Maine is home to the most expensive Senate race per capita this cycle, with a combined ad spend of roughly $200 million.

在缅因州,民主党人正竞争翻转一个共和党持有的席位。共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯(Susan Collins)正寻求连任第六届,但她正受到伐木工人和前缅因州参议院主席特罗伊·杰克逊(Troy Jackson)的紧密竞争。

In Maine, Democrats are vying to flip a red seat. Republican Sen. Susan Collins is seeking her sixth term, but she’s closely contested by logger and former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson.

根据AdImpact的数据,自1月以来,共和党人在广告上的支出或承诺金额近1.14亿美元,而民主党人为近8100万美元。

Republicans have spent or committed almost $114 million on advertising since January, compared with almost $81 million for Democrats, according to AdImpact.

政治行动委员会(PAC)和超级政治行动委员会(super PAC)的捐款限额是多少?《联邦选举竞选法》为国会选举中的个人捐款设定了限额。

What are the donation limits for PACs and super PACs? The Federal Election Campaign Act sets limits for individual donations to congressional races.

个人向候选人竞选活动捐款的限额为2025-2026选举周期每次选举3500美元。该上限每两年根据通货膨胀进行调整。

The limit for an individual donation to a candidate’s campaign is $3,500 per election for the 2025-2026 election cycle. These caps are adjusted for inflation every two years.

传统政治行动委员会(PAC)汇集捐款以支持或反对候选人。个人每年向传统联邦PAC的捐款上限为5000美元。向全国性党委员会的捐款上限更高,为每个委员会每日历年44300美元。

A traditional political action committee (PAC) pools contributions to support or oppose candidates. Individuals may contribute up to $5,000 to a traditional federal PAC per year. The limit is higher for contributions to a national party committee, at $44,300 per committee per calendar year.

超级政治行动委员会(Super PACs)不同于传统的政治行动委员会,它们不能直接向候选人竞选捐款,也不能与这些竞选协调广告。这些限制旨在防止无限额的外部捐款成为规避对候选人捐款限制的途径。

Super PACs, unlike traditional PACs, cannot donate directly to candidates’ campaigns or coordinate their advertising with those campaigns. Those restrictions are intended to prevent unlimited outside donations from becoming a way around limits on contributions to candidates.

符合条件的个人或实体向超级政治行动委员会捐款的金额没有上限,正如马斯克在德克萨斯州的巨额捐款所示。

There is no limit to how much an eligible person or entity can donate to a super PAC, as demonstrated by Musk's steep contributions in Texas.

其他几位亿万富翁也向共和党超级政治行动委员会捐款:航运业巨头伊丽莎白和理查德·乌赫莱因在当前选举周期捐款1.38亿美元,而创立苏斯奎哈纳国际集团的杰夫·亚斯及其妻子珍妮捐款1.1亿美元。向民主党超级政治行动委员会捐款最多的捐助者是乔治·索罗斯,他与负责向他2019年创立的民主政治行动委员会(Democracy PAC)捐款1.02亿美元的实体有关联。

Several other billionaires have also contributed to Republican super PACs: Shipping industry moguls Elizabeth and Richard Uihlein donated $138 million in the current election cycle, while Jeff Yass, who founded Susquehanna International Group, and his wife, Janine, contributed $110 million. The top donor to a Democratic super PAC is George Soros, who is linked to the entities responsible for contributing $102 million to Democracy PAC, which he founded in 2019.

2010年的两项法院裁决帮助建立了如今的超级政治行动委员会制度。最高法院的“公民联合”裁决保护了企业和工会的独立政治支出,而随后的联邦上诉法院裁决则取消了对仅进行独立支出的团体的个人捐款限制。

Two court decisions in 2010 helped establish today’s super PAC system. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling protected independent political spending by corporations and unions, while a subsequent federal appeals court ruling removed limits on individual contributions to groups making only independent expenditures.

批评者认为,该制度使富裕捐助者获得了不成比例的政治影响力,并允许资金通过隐藏其原始来源的非营利组织流动,即所谓的“暗钱”。超级政治行动委员会必须披露其捐助者,但这些捐助者可能包括不披露自身资金来源的组织。

Critics argue that the system gives wealthy donors disproportionate political influence and allows money to flow through nonprofits that conceal its original sources, using what’s referred to as “dark money.”Super PACs must disclose their donors, but those donors can include organizations that do not identify their own funders.

允许无限额捐款的法律依据在于,禁止个人或实体直接向竞选捐款可以防止腐败。

The legal rationale for allowing unlimited contributions rests on the premise that prohibiting individuals or entities from contributing directly to campaigns prevents corruption.

阅读媒体原文 ↗