Campaign Finance Estimates and the 2022 Elections
link to page 2 
INSIGHTi
Campaign Finance Estimates and the 2022
Elections
December 5, 2022
How campaign finance activity is defined, and how reliable estimates are, varies by source, time period,
and methodology. This CRS Insight reviews some recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) data and
secondary estimates, and provides links to related CRS products on campaign finance policy and law.
Several campaign finance proposals are included in bil s addressing multiple areas of elections and voting
policy during the 117th Congress. No bil s that have advanced beyond introduction would substantial y
affect the campaign finance data topics discussed below.
Interpreting Campaign Finance Estimates
Data sources vary not only in which methodologies they use, but also in how thoroughly they explain
those approaches. These variations can affect how Members of Congress and staff might choose to assess
different sources for legislative, oversight, or informational purposes. Data from the FEC, the independent
agency responsible for enforcing civil campaign finance law, can be more precise than unofficial
estimates because the former rely on methodology rooted in statute and regulation. Estimates from
secondary sources are general y similar to FEC figures and can be useful before the commission releases
official data, or if they contain interpretations not included in FEC data releases.
No single “official” aggregate campaign finance figure exists for a given election cycle, partial y because
campaign finance data are never truly final. Changes are common as filers amend campaign finance
reports; the commission audits political committees; campaigns retire debt and issue refunds; or a
combination thereof. Summary amounts that are available wary widely by source and based on which
entities, activities, and time periods are included. The reporting calendar also affects which data are
available and when. “Cleaned” FEC data take longer to become publicly available than some secondary
sources.
Recent Federal Election Commission Data
FEC data summarized in Table 1 show that through November 30, political committees—which include
candidate campaigns, parties, and political action committees (PACs)—raised approximately $13.0 bil ion
and spent approximately $7.5 bil ion during the 2022 cycle. The table excludes nonpolitical committee
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12058
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
groups, such as tax-exempt 501(c) organizations regulated primarily under tax law rather than under the
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
Table 1. Political Committee Fundraising and Spending, 2022 Federal Election Cycle
Data from January 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022
Fundraising
Spending
Candidate Committees
$3,011,272,258
$2,789,255,229
Political Action Committees (PACs)
$7,977,921,788
$3,209,778,862
Party Committees
$2,017,324,563
$1,512,928,459
Total for Political Committees
$13,006,518,609
$7,511,962,550
Source: CRS adaptation from Federal Election Commission “Cumulative amount raised by
committees” fundraising graph, https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=raising; and “Cumulative
amount spent by committees” spending graph, https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=spending.
Notes: Table does not include activity by nonpolitical committees. Data are current as of December 1,
2022.
Also according to FEC data, 2022 Senate candidates spent approximately $1.4 bil ion, compared with
approximately $1.7 bil ion for House candidates.
As is expected, a relatively smal number of states and races accounted for a large portion of overal
financial activity. According to FEC data, Democratic Senate campaigns in Georgia, Arizona, Florida,
Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, and New York represented 7 of the 10 campaigns that raised the most
money. Republican candidate campaigns in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida were also among the top
10 Senate fundraisers. House candidates typical y raise and spend less than Senate campaigns. Of the 10
highest-raising House candidates, 5 were Republicans and 5 were Democrats.
Secondary Sources and Selected Estimates
Campaign finance estimates produced by nongovernmental research or advocacy groups, or media
organizations, general y rely on FEC data but interpret those data in ways that the FEC does not. Some
media estimates also rely on reports received directly from campaigns and other political y active groups.
Importantly, secondary sources often use terms that are popular shorthand but whose meanings are
unclear without additional context (e.g., the generic term “cost” rather than “contribution” or
“expenditure,” which have specific meanings in law, regulation, and FEC reports). Selected 2022
examples of these approaches include the following.
Whether estimates include only federal or also state and local activity—and which kinds
of activity—provides important context for understanding campaign finance estimates. In
November 2022, the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)—a research and advocacy
organization on which media reports frequently rely—estimated that federal political
candidates and committees would spend $8.9 bil ion and that the “total cost” of state and
federal campaigns in 2022 would be approximately $16.7 bil ion. As of this writing,
substantial campaign finance activity continues in Georgia, where a runoff Senate
campaign remains underway.
Some secondary sources supplement FEC data with commercial data, especial y for
political advertising analyses. Because these analyses rely on multiple data sources and
are often customized for different audiences, the data reported and methodologies
employed can vary substantial y. For example, in July 2022, the AdImpact tracking firm
projected $9.7 bil ion in 2022 “political ad spending.” Separately, in the closing weeks of
Congressional Research Service
3
the 2022 cycle, the Wesleyan Media Project, a scholarly research group that relies on
commercial tracking data from the Kantar/CMAG firm, identified advertising frequency
and cost information across different media. (Another CRS product discusses political
advertising disclosure requirements based in telecommunications law. This topic is
separate from campaign finance reporting requirements discussed in this Insight.)
Secondary sources often attempt to summarize total financial activity (e.g., spending)
across differently regulated entities. For example, a CRP analysis found that “outside
groups” outspent candidates in 67 federal races in 2022. In the CRP analysis, “outside”
spenders included both political committees and nonpolitical committee 501(c) political y
active tax-exempt groups. Whether in this example or others, distinctions between
political committees and other political y active organizations, and relevant reporting
requirements in campaign finance law and tax law, al affect available data.
Author Information
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN12058 · VERSION 1 · NEW
INSIGHTi
Campaign Finance Estimates and the 2022
Elections
December 5, 2022
How campaign finance activity is defined, and how reliable estimates are, varies by source, time period,
and methodology. This CRS Insight reviews some recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) data and
secondary estimates, and provides links to related CRS products on campaign finance policy and law.
Several campaign finance proposals are included in bil s addressing multiple areas of elections and voting
policy during the 117th Congress. No bil s that have advanced beyond introduction would substantial y
affect the campaign finance data topics discussed below.
Interpreting Campaign Finance Estimates
Data sources vary not only in which methodologies they use, but also in how thoroughly they explain
those approaches. These variations can affect how Members of Congress and staff might choose to assess
different sources for legislative, oversight, or informational purposes. Data from the FEC, the independent
agency responsible for enforcing civil campaign finance law, can be more precise than unofficial
estimates because the former rely on methodology rooted in statute and regulation. Estimates from
secondary sources are general y similar to FEC figures and can be useful before the commission releases
official data, or if they contain interpretations not included in FEC data releases.
No single “official” aggregate campaign finance figure exists for a given election cycle, partial y because
campaign finance data are never truly final. Changes are common as filers amend campaign finance
reports; the commission audits political committees; campaigns retire debt and issue refunds; or a
combination thereof. Summary amounts that are available wary widely by source and based on which
entities, activities, and time periods are included. The reporting calendar also affects which data are
available and when. “Cleaned” FEC data take longer to become publicly available than some secondary
sources.
Recent Federal Election Commission Data
FEC data summarized in Table 1 show that through November 30, political committees—which include
candidate campaigns, parties, and political action committees (PACs)—raised approximately $13.0 bil ion
and spent approximately $7.5 bil ion during the 2022 cycle. The table excludes nonpolitical committee
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12058
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress
Congressional Research Service
2
groups, such as tax-exempt 501(c) organizations regulated primarily under tax law rather than under the
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).
Table 1. Political Committee Fundraising and Spending, 2022 Federal Election Cycle
Data from January 1, 2021, to November 30, 2022
Fundraising
Spending
Candidate Committees
$3,011,272,258
$2,789,255,229
Political Action Committees (PACs)
$7,977,921,788
$3,209,778,862
Party Committees
$2,017,324,563
$1,512,928,459
Total for Political Committees
$13,006,518,609
$7,511,962,550
Source: CRS adaptation from Federal Election Commission “Cumulative amount raised by
committees” fundraising graph, https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=raising; and “Cumulative
amount spent by committees” spending graph, https://www.fec.gov/data/browse-data/?tab=spending.
Notes: Table does not include activity by nonpolitical committees. Data are current as of December 1,
2022.
Also according to FEC data, 2022 Senate candidates spent approximately $1.4 bil ion, compared with
approximately $1.7 bil ion for House candidates.
As is expected, a relatively smal number of states and races accounted for a large portion of overal
financial activity. According to FEC data, Democratic Senate campaigns in Georgia, Arizona, Florida,
Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Ohio, and New York represented 7 of the 10 campaigns that raised the most
money. Republican candidate campaigns in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida were also among the top
10 Senate fundraisers. House candidates typical y raise and spend less than Senate campaigns. Of the 10
highest-raising House candidates, 5 were Republicans and 5 were Democrats.
Secondary Sources and Selected Estimates
Campaign finance estimates produced by nongovernmental research or advocacy groups, or media
organizations, general y rely on FEC data but interpret those data in ways that the FEC does not. Some
media estimates also rely on reports received directly from campaigns and other political y active groups.
Importantly, secondary sources often use terms that are popular shorthand but whose meanings are
unclear without additional context (e.g., the generic term “cost” rather than “contribution” or
“expenditure,” which have specific meanings in law, regulation, and FEC reports). Selected 2022
examples of these approaches include the following.
Whether estimates include only federal or also state and local activity—and which kinds
of activity—provides important context for understanding campaign finance estimates. In
November 2022, the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)—a research and advocacy
organization on which media reports frequently rely—estimated that federal political
candidates and committees would spend $8.9 bil ion and that the “total cost” of state and
federal campaigns in 2022 would be approximately $16.7 bil ion. As of this writing,
substantial campaign finance activity continues in Georgia, where a runoff Senate
campaign remains underway.
Some secondary sources supplement FEC data with commercial data, especial y for
political advertising analyses. Because these analyses rely on multiple data sources and
are often customized for different audiences, the data reported and methodologies
employed can vary substantial y. For example, in July 2022, the AdImpact tracking firm
projected $9.7 bil ion in 2022 “political ad spending.” Separately, in the closing weeks of
Congressional Research Service
3
the 2022 cycle, the Wesleyan Media Project, a scholarly research group that relies on
commercial tracking data from the Kantar/CMAG firm, identified advertising frequency
and cost information across different media. (Another CRS product discusses political
advertising disclosure requirements based in telecommunications law. This topic is
separate from campaign finance reporting requirements discussed in this Insight.)
Secondary sources often attempt to summarize total financial activity (e.g., spending)
across differently regulated entities. For example, a CRP analysis found that “outside
groups” outspent candidates in 67 federal races in 2022. In the CRP analysis, “outside”
spenders included both political committees and nonpolitical committee 501(c) political y
active tax-exempt groups. Whether in this example or others, distinctions between
political committees and other political y active organizations, and relevant reporting
requirements in campaign finance law and tax law, al affect available data.
Author Information
R. Sam Garrett
Specialist in American National Government
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
IN12058 · VERSION 1 · NEW