Out-of-state cash is fueling competitive Iowa House races

In the final days of the 2024 election campaign expenses increase.

Already this year, over 1.5 billion dollars it was spent only on US House elections. More than $26.5 million went into Iowawith 44 percent going to Democratic candidates and 52 percent to Republicans, according to the nonprofit OpenSecrets.

OpenSecrets is a nonpartisan organization that tracks campaign finance and lobbying with the goal of increasing transparency about money in American politics. The following analysis is based on data collected by OpenSecrets and the Federal Election Commission as of October 16.

Spending in competitive districts increased

Iowa’s representatives in the US House are back on the campaign trail, which means money is flowing across the state. All four Republican incumbents each face a Democratic challenger, but only two races are considered competitive. The amount of money raised in competitive districts is almost double the amount raised in non-competitive races.

Three of the four Republican congressional candidates have outspent their Democratic opponents so far this election cycle. Historically, incumbents tend to collect more than challengers and newcomers, so the current trend is not unexpected. But in Iowa’s 1st District, which has been labeled a “toss-up” by Cook Political ReportDemocratic challenger Christina Bohannan beat Republican incumbent Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

The match between Miller-Meeks and Bohannan is not the pair’s first rodeo. The two went head to head in the 2022 semester, where Miller-Meeks won by a six-point margin.

In District 3, which is also considered a toss-up race, Republican Rep. Zach Nunn is leading his Democratic rival Lanon Baccam, but the numbers are close. According to OpenSecrets, Baccam is about $400,000 behind Nunn. But unlike the Republican incumbent, who recently reported having just over $1 million in cash on hand, Baccam’s campaign has about $277,004 left in its coffers.

Outside spending exceeds candidate spending

In both competitive races, spending by outside groups exceeds spending by candidates own campaign committees.

Outside groups include political action committees (PACs), super PACs, Carey committees, nonprofits, and 527 organizations. Each group is subject to different fundraising rules, including contribution limits — although super PACs have no limits. Rules for disclosing information to the Federal Election Commission about exactly who contributes money also vary for each group.

These outside groups are not allowed to coordinate with candidates’ official campaign committees, but according to OpenSecrets, they are frequently run by former employees, friends or family members of the candidate for whom I am raising money.

Most of Iowa’s outside spending this cycle has been used to attack candidates. Take Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, where outside spending groups have spent more than $4.7 million in opposition to Miller-Meeks. That’s more than twice what outside groups have spent supporting the Republican incumbent.

This imbalance is even greater when it comes to spending against Bohannan. She was the target of $3.5 million in negative campaigns — about five and a half times the amount spent supporting the Democrat.

Baccam faced the largest amount of opposition funding from outside spenders, with $5.1 million spent against the first-time candidate. The money spent in support of Baccam is only $900,000.

Nunn didn’t escape negative spending either. Outside groups spent $4.8 million on ads against the Republican.

Despite nearly equal amounts charged against the two candidates, Nunn attracted more support from outside groups, bringing in about $1.8 million more than Baccam.

Where candidates get their money

Funding sources for candidates participating in these competitive races are broken down by type of contribution by OpenSecrets.

Large Individual Contributions account for the largest share of donations to Democrats running in Iowa’s 1st and 3rd Districts, followed by Small Individual Contributions. For Republican candidates, PAC contributions and large individual contributions are the main sources of funding.

According to OpenSecrets, US House candidates typically receive the majority of their campaign contributions from donors in their home state. However, in Iowa’s competitive districts, all four candidates received more from out-of-state donors than from in-state donors.

The contributions from Sector III, with Nunn and Baccam both raise about 70 percent of their donations from out of state taxpayers and about 30 percent of Iowa donors.

Miller-Meeks also attracted a significantly larger amount of support from outside of Iowa, with 64% of donations to her campaign came from out of state and 36% from the state. By contrast, Bohannan is nearly even, with 49 percent of contributions coming from Iowa and 51 percent from elsewhere.

Who is behind the PAC money?

Figuring out where all that money is coming from can be difficult to pin down. The FEC does not require full disclosure from the various groups that tend to contribute the most money to elections. PACs are required to report certain information to the FEC, including other PAC-connected organizations, and are limited by the amount of money they can receive per individual and spend per election.

OpenSecrets analyzes PAC funding, placing them into three broad categories: business interests, unions, and ideological/single issue. As far as general election expenses are concerned, Business PACs “dominate” according to OpenSecrets.

This is true for Republicans running in Iowa’s 1st and 3rd districts. Both Miller-Meeks and Nunn received far more business contributions than their Democratic challengers.

Miller-Meeks is $1.65 million, while Bohannan only collected $35,000 from the business PAC. About the same difference can be seen for Baccam, who received about $10,000 compared to Nunn’s $1.15 million.

Funding from ideological interest PACs comes second to Republicans, who receive a much larger slice of the pie. For Democrats Baccam and Bohannan, ideological PACs contributed more to their campaigns than business and labor groups.

Labor’s PAC giving is much lower, but leans towards democracy. Baccam received about $84,500 from the labor PAC, while Nunn received a fraction of that — about $7,500. The same trend is seen in District 1. Bohannan collected $117,000 from the job, while Miller-Meeks received $10,000.

OpenSecrets adds a notable caveat to the data above, noting, “individual ‘business’ contributions are based on the donor’s occupation/employer. Because almost everyone works for someone, and since union membership is not listed in FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated.”

Regardless, the data is “predominantly made up of business executives and professionals,” according to OpenSecrets.