- Republicans and Democrats running for state legislature collectively raised roughly $80 million in the 2024 election
- Funding sources varied heavily not only for Democrats vs. Republicans but also based on the geography and competitiveness of the legislative district
- Competitive urban elections are becoming increasingly expensive
When it comes to legislative elections, most people have some understanding of what you need to win a race. You need a combination of a good candidate, running in a potentially winnable seat for your political party, good messaging, and money to get both your message to voters and the voters out to the polls for you. While things like good messaging and candidate quality can be subjective and dependent on the district, fundraising is more akin to an arms race.
Senate District 18 in northern Wake and Granville counties saw Sen. Mary Wills Bode spend more than $2.8 million in her election in 2022. There was a significant increase in spending for that seat this most recent election year. In 2024 it became the state’s first $4 million seat, with now-Sen. Terence Everitt spending over that amount. While Senate 18 is at the extreme end of costs, it highlights the growing costs of running in some legislative districts. (Click the links to view spreadsheets on each House and Senate candidate’s fundraising alongside the candidate’s general election vote total).
How much money was raised for legislative races in 2024?
According to data from the North Carolina State Board of Elections, state legislative candidates raised over $80 million in 2024, even if just considering those who made it to the general election.
Figure 1. North Carolina State House Total Fundraising by Party
Figure 2: North Carolina State Senate Total Fundraising by Party
Though the total fundraising for both major party candidates was significant, it’s important to understand that the way campaign finance reports are structured can obscure what the true fundraising numbers were. While political parties were significant funders of candidate committees, particularly those in competitive seats, candidate committees were also among the most prominent financiers of political parties.
This happens because political parties are not subject to contribution limits as candidates are, allowing candidates with more fundraising ability (typically members of party leadership) the power to move significant amounts of funds to candidates in competitive seats. This can be seen in committees such as those of Senate leader Phil Berger and Gov. Josh Stein. For example, Stein contributed over $13 million to the State Democratic Party (roughly 45 percent of all fundraising for the party), allowing his party to provide significant funding for key legislative and statewide campaigns.
While party financing was a significant source of money for both parties, there were some key differences in how money was raised. For candidates in both House and Senate races, Democrats were behind Republicans in the significant sources of funding other than out-of-state individuals and aggregated individuals (donors who contributed less than $100 apiece). Though Democrats typically have an advantage in individual out-of-state fundraising, it was not the case for NC Senate candidates.
Figure 3: North Carolina Senate Average Funding By Party
While Democrats fielded more candidates for legislative office than Republicans, most of their fundraising focused on key seats. Democrats outspent Republicans in many of their pick-ups in contested districts. There were several close elections, however, that were not financed well by either party. Funding decisions appear to be based on a combination of geography, competitiveness, and whether the seat was considered a pick-up or a defense.
Rural, urban, and suburban campaigns are very different
As with most states, different parts of North Carolina have vastly different social and political norms. Seasoned North Carolina campaigners will attest to a significant difference in how you campaign in a rural versus an urban district. While these terms are subjective, the rural center’s interpretation can provide a good start.
Figure 4: Number of Rural, Urban, and Suburban North Carolina Legislative Districts
| Chamber | Rural | Suburban | Urban |
| House | 43 | 35 | 42 |
| Senate | 14 | 17 | 19 |
In general, Republicans had a massive fundraising advantage over Democrats in rural areas, while the inverse was true in urban areas, at least for the state House. Democrats would have had a fundraising advantage in urban areas in the Senate were it not for Senator Berger’s district, which is counted as an urban district because most of the district’s population is in northern Guilford County. His fundraising alone spiked Republican Senate urban fundraising by over $3.2 million.
While urban districts have, on average, more capital-intensive elections, the difference is mainly found within party funding rather than individual donors. Even though statewide elections in North Carolina are generally won in the suburban areas, suburban candidates don’t seem to raise as much money on average as the other two groups.
The cost of elections in suburban areas can be due to the partisan leaning of the districts rather than geography. The Civitas Partisan Index, a measure of the partisan leanings of North Carolina legislative districts, has only one suburban Senate district listed as competitive, while there were only five competitive suburban districts for the House. All of those districts slightly favored Republicans.
Competitiveness determines funding amounts
The more competitive an election, the more capital a candidate will need to win it. Nevertheless, just because you run for a competitive seat does not necessarily mean you can raise a lot of money from individual donors, especially for state legislative races that are further down the ballot.
When taking the Civitas Partisan Index into account for the state legislative seats, we see that not only most of the party financing but also most of “out-of-state individual” and small-dollar donations went to competitive districts.
Figure 5: CPI Toss-Up and Lean House District Fundraising
Figure 6: CPI Toss-Up and Lean Senate District Fundraising
When it comes to party spending, both parties focused more money on districts in northern Wake and the nearby eastern counties, including Wilson and Nash. While many of these seats were considered highly competitive, the distribution of party funds were not always even. This can especially be seen when you compare how the parties funded Mecklenburg’s two competitive seats with how they funded those in the counties near Raleigh. Neither party provided much funding in Senate 42, and Democrats put slightly less emphasis on House District 105, two districts that take up the easternmost part of Mecklenburg county.
The movement of party money toward these particular seats shows a greater emphasis on the central media market surrounding Wake County than on the Charlotte media market. This could be because the Charlotte media market bleeds into South Carolina.
While both parties financed these competitive seats, they were not always at the same level, even though some remained extremely close on election night. These overperformances with minimal capital investment will likely draw far more attention in the 2026 election. But before either party can invest more into these districts, they will first need to see if they can maintain their income streams.
