Money Can't Buy You Votes

By Yiannis Damellos and Mars Strangelove Jr.

November 7, 2026

"Organized People Can Still Defeat Organized Money" 

says Robert Reich

Elon Musk poured enormous sums into the 2026 elections, hoping to protect Republican power in Texas and beyond. But James Talarico's victory over Ken Paxton delivered a reminder that when democracy is on the line, money can't buy you votes.

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich had a pointed observation after Democrat James Talarico defeated Republican Ken Paxton in the Texas Senate race. “The richest man in the world spent more money than most people will see in a lifetime, only to lose a Senate race in Texas by double digits,” Reich wrote on November 4. He then made a broader argument: the result was another reminder of why the United States needs to overturn Citizens United, but also proof that “organized people can still defeat organized money.”

It was a good moment to remember that elections are supposed to be about voters, not the size of the cheque book. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, had invested heavily in the effort to keep Texas in Republican hands. Yet Talarico won, breaking a Democratic statewide losing streak that had lasted more than three decades. The victory was not simply another seat changing hands. It was a political earthquake in a state Republicans had come to regard as their reliable stronghold.

The financial figures were extraordinary. Republican groups mounted a massive rescue operation for Paxton, including a $188 million advertising effort led by the Senate Leadership Fund, funded almost entirely by Musk. The billionaire also put millions into pro-Paxton groups and directed at least another $47 million through his America PAC. Trump's MAGA Inc. added tens of millions more. Across the primary and general election, the Texas Senate contest generated nearly $590 million in television, radio and digital advertising, making it the most expensive non-presidential race on record, according to the Texas Tribune. Apparently, there was no shortage of people willing to spend a small fortune explaining to Texans why they should vote the way wealthy donors preferred.

But the spending did not produce the desired result. Talarico defeated Paxton by more than twelve percentage points, despite Republicans nearly doubling Democrats' outside spending on advertising during the general election. The Democrat also proved to be a formidable fundraiser in his own right, bringing in approximately $146 million, compared with Paxton's $22.3 million. His campaign's fundraising advantage, combined with the lower advertising rates available to candidates themselves, helped narrow the gap created by Republican outside groups. Money was certainly part of the contest. It simply did not settle it. Texas Tribune 

There were also political reasons why the Republican investment failed. Paxton was not an ordinary candidate enjoying universal enthusiasm within his own party. His legal controversies, personal scandals and long-running divisions among Texas Republicans made him vulnerable. He had defeated Senator John Cornyn in the Republican runoff, but the bitter primary had left the party divided. Talarico, meanwhile, built a campaign around the cost of living, corruption and the idea that working Texans deserved a greater share of political power. He attracted Democratic enthusiasm, made inroads with independents and benefited from Republican voters who were unwilling to rally behind Paxton. The national political climate, including dissatisfaction with Donald Trump's economic record, added to the pressure on the Republican ticket.

This is where the lesson extends beyond Texas. Political advertising can introduce a candidate, repeat a message and saturate television screens. It can also make voters thoroughly tired of seeing the same face. But it cannot automatically create trust, erase a candidate's record or make an unpopular political agenda attractive. At some point, the people watching the advertisements have to decide whether they believe them. And apparently, Texans were not prepared to accept that a sufficiently expensive campaign could make their doubts disappear.

The wider argument brings us back to Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that expanded constitutional protections for independent political spending by corporations and unions. The ruling did not legalize unlimited direct contributions from corporations to candidates; it protected independent expenditures made without coordination with campaigns. But in practice, it helped open the door to an enormous political spending ecosystem in which super PACs and wealthy donors can pour vast sums into elections. The question is not whether money should have any place in politics. Campaigns cost money. The question is how much influence a handful of extremely wealthy individuals should be able to exercise over the democratic process. (Source)

Musk's political spending in 2026 was not confined to Texas. He contributed an estimated $474 million to political groups during the election cycle, according to reporting cited by Benzinga. That figure covers political activity beyond the Paxton campaign and should not be confused with his Texas contributions. His involvement nevertheless illustrates the extraordinary reach that concentrated personal wealth can acquire in American politics. A billionaire can finance political organizations, flood the airwaves and help shape the national conversation. What he cannot do is cast millions of votes himself. (Benzinga) 

And that brings us to the larger political movement emerging across the country. From Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Zohran Mamdani and a new generation of progressive candidates, the argument for economic fairness, affordable housing, better wages, accessible healthcare and political accountability is gaining ground. These politicians do not all belong to the same organization or share identical positions. But they are part of a broader debate about whose interests government should serve: the people who work, pay taxes and keep communities running, or the people who can afford to finance the political machinery.

The Texas result does not prove that money has lost its power. It has not. Nor does one election settle the argument over campaign finance. But it does demonstrate that enormous spending can meet its limits when voters are organized, motivated and offered an alternative they believe in. Musk and his allies had the resources to make their case almost everywhere Texans looked. They still could not make the electorate agree.

Robert Reich's closing observation deserves to be remembered. Organized people can still defeat organized money. It is a simple proposition, but one that should make every billionaire who regards democracy as another investment opportunity pause for thought. The ballot box is not a vending machine. And no matter how much money you feed into it, you are not guaranteed to get the result you ordered.