On 3 November, Texans will choose between Democrat James Talarico and Republican Ken Paxton in a contest that has already made history. According to the tracking firm AdImpact, spending has passed $560 million, overtaking Ohio’s 2024 contest to become the most expensive Senate election in American history. Republicans hold the Senate by 53 seats to 47, and Texas, which has not elected a Democratic senator since 1988, has unexpectedly become competitive, with a New York Times/Siena poll giving Talarico a six-point lead.
Both nominees survived bruising primaries. Talarico, a former teacher, Presbyterian seminarian and state representative from the Austin area, beat Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett by roughly 53 per cent to 45 per cent in March, in a contest strained by racial tensions after Black voters strongly favoured Crockett. On the Republican side, four-term incumbent John Cornyn narrowly led the first round against Paxton, the state’s attorney general, but fell short of a majority, forcing a runoff. That primary alone became the most expensive Senate primary on record. Trump withheld his endorsement for months while Senate Republican leaders lobbied for Cornyn, then backed Paxton a week before the 26 May runoff, complaining that Cornyn had not supported him when times were hard. Paxton won comfortably, making Cornyn the first Republican senator from Texas to lose renomination.
Each candidate carries baggage. Paxton was impeached by the Republican-controlled Texas House in 2023 over corruption allegations raised by his own staff, before being acquitted by the state Senate. A long-running securities fraud case ended without conviction after he agreed to community service and restitution, and federal prosecutors declined to charge him following a corruption inquiry. His wife, state Senator Angela Paxton, has also filed for divorce on what she called biblical grounds, amid allegations of an affair. Talarico, meanwhile, has been attacked over earlier remarks on religion and gender identity, including a suggestion that God is nonbinary, and over spliced footage from a 2019 legislative hearing. He has since admitted that some of his past comments were poorly judged.
The money reveals two contrasting funding models. Talarico’s campaign has spent almost $120 million, drawn from around 1.3 million individual donors, most giving under $200. In the third quarter alone he raised $64 million to Paxton’s $18 million. Yet outside groups have more than closed the gap: by late October, Super PACs had spent roughly $300 million supporting Paxton, compared with about $80 million for Talarico. The largest single source is Elon Musk, who gave at least $158 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a Super PAC aligned with Majority Leader John Thune, which channelled it to Texas PAC. Its advertising has concentrated on Talarico’s views on transgender issues, while Talarico has accused Musk of trying to buy the seat.
Trump’s intervention has been decisive but awkward. He has campaigned in Texas three times in a month, praising Paxton’s loyalty and record, yet his support has been laced with personal jibes. In September he suggested voters might not like the way Paxton dresses and criticised his suit, then admitted he did not much like how Paxton looks. In October he called him loyal but occasionally a nuisance, and described him as slightly controversial. Most recently, in Lubbock, Trump contrasted Paxton with Ohio’s Senator Jon Husted, whose physique he has repeatedly praised, joking that Paxton’s body might not qualify. With the president’s approval rating at 34 per cent in CNN’s poll average, his presence is not an unmixed blessing.
Institutionally, the race shows how far campaign finance has shifted since Citizens United v FEC (2010). Contribution limits still cap what individuals can give directly to candidates, which explains the modest size of Paxton’s own campaign fund. Super PACs, however, may raise and spend unlimited sums provided they do not coordinate with candidates, allowing a single donor to outspend an entire campaign. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 had tried to curb such influence, but the Supreme Court struck down its limits on independent expenditure. The race also demonstrates the informal power of the presidency: Trump’s endorsement, rather than the preference of Senate party leaders, decided the Republican nomination.
What does this reveal about campaign finance and democracy? Defenders argue that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment, and note that Talarico’s small-donor surge shows ordinary citizens can still compete. Critics counter that allowing one billionaire to fund more than a quarter of a Senate race concentrates influence in very few hands. If Talarico wins despite being outspent by outside groups, it suggests money cannot simply buy a Senate seat; if Paxton prevails, Musk’s investment may encourage other donors to follow. Texas therefore offers a revealing test of the tension between liberty of expression and political equality at the heart of American democracy.