Late-Forming Super PACs Flood 2026 Midterm Races with $637 Million

Due to the timing of its formation after a campaign finance reporting deadline, the group’s first report detailing its donors is not due until December 3, a month after Election Day. This situation exemplifies a surge in late-forming super PACs, often referred to as “pop-up PACs,” injecting significant funds into races before voters can identify their backers.

While super PACs must report independent expenditures within 24 or 48 hours, donor information is disclosed less frequently through periodic campaign finance reports. This year, Republican-linked PACs have spent roughly twice the amount of those associated with Democrats.

CNBC’s analysis found that 22 super PACs registered in the final 10 weeks before Election Day have each spent at least $1 million on congressional races. Collectively, they reported approximately $637 million in independent expenditures by October 29—roughly one-sixth of all independent spending in House and Senate races this election cycle. The number of million-dollar late-forming super PACs has more than quadrupled since 2022, with spending increasing nearly 35-fold.

“The reason for this is almost entirely to avoid disclosure, even if just temporarily,” said Michael Kang, a Northwestern Pritzker School of Law professor. “Many times, if the donors were known, then it would undercut their cause.”

These groups began spending quickly, with 18 of the 22 launching spending efforts within 30 days of their formation. They now account for more than 22% of independent expenditures in congressional races, a stark contrast to less than 2% at the same point in the previous two midterm elections.

In some cases, these new PACs are linked to established political networks. For example, Lower Costs Now, formed on September 10, revealed an affiliation with Future Forward PAC, which supported former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign. A Senate Majority PAC contribution of $23 million to Lower Costs Now was not publicly disclosed until October 15. By Thursday, Lower Costs Now had spent $75.5 million across eight Senate contests, including races in Iowa, Texas, Kansas, and Ohio.

Similarly, No Going Back PAC, formed on September 1, quickly began spending and was later linked to MAGA Inc., President Donald Trump’s super PAC. Its financial report, revealing a $200 million contribution from MAGA Inc., wasn’t filed until October 20. By Thursday, the super PAC had spent roughly $242.2 million.

Many of these groups are narrowly focused, with fourteen spending all their funds in a single congressional contest. The Maine Standard, for instance, has spent $8.2 million opposing Democrat Troy Jackson in Maine’s Senate race. The Cornhusker Majority has spent about $7.1 million opposing independent Dan Osborn in Nebraska’s Senate race. Both were later revealed to be financed by Senate Leadership Fund.

Texas Forever, supporting Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico, launched on September 24 and has spent about $27.5 million. Unlike some others, its initial FEC filing identified the Senate Majority PAC as an affiliate.

“A locally branded PAC doesn’t necessarily hide where the money comes from, but it fragments the picture,” said Hilary Braseth, executive director of OpenSecrets. “Instead of seeing one national organization spending tens of millions of dollars across the country, voters see a series of different groups operating race by race.”