Democrats in Virginia have a hefty fundraising advantage heading into November general election

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrats in Virginia have built up a hefty fundraising advantage for their effort to reclaim the governor's mansion in a November election that is seen as a bellwether for the party in power in Washington ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Democrat Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA spy turned congresswoman, has a more than 2-to-1 fundraising advantage over her GOP opponent for governor, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who has struggled to draw support from her fellow Republicans. Both were unopposed for their party's nominations and were able to focus on the fall general election without having to overcome a challenge in this week's primaries. The match-up means Virginia is all but certain to elect the state's first female governor.
Spanberger has amassed $6.5 million toward her campaign for governor over the last two months after raising $6.7 million between January and March, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project. Combined with the money Spanberger raised in 2024, she has gathered $22.8 million and still has $14.3 million in her coffers.
Earle-Sears, meanwhile, spent more than she earned between April and June, bringing in $3.5 million and spending $4.6 million. Between January and March, she also raised a little over $3.1 million. In total, she has raked in nearly $9.2 million since launching her campaign last September. Now, she has a little under $3 million in the bank, according to Virginia Public Access Project data.
In a statement, Earle-Sears' campaign said the candidate is putting forward a message for Virginians that money can't buy.
'Clearly the Spanberger campaign needs a lot of help attempting to erase Abigail's bad voting record on issues that actually matter to Virginians,' press secretary Peyton Vogel said in an email. 'This race isn't being bought — it's being built on a message that matters.'
Virginia is one of two states, along with New Jersey, that host statewide elections this year. The contests will be closely watched as a measure of whether voters in the shadow of Washington will embrace President Trump's aggressive effort to overhaul the federal government, or be repelled by it.
Democrats' outsized fundraising lead ahead of the primaries may reflect local Democratic enthusiasm and the party's ability to push people to the polls in light of Trump being in office. Mark J. Rozell, dean of George Mason University's Schar School of Policy and Government, also referenced the noticeable frostiness among leading state Republicans. The party's statewide nominees have yet to campaign together, despite securing their nominations at the end of April.
'Enthusiasm drives fundraising and in Virginia right now the Democrats' voting base has much greater enthusiasm' than Republicans, Rozell said. 'It is reminiscent of Trump's first term in office when Democratic fundraising and ultimately voting overwhelmed the Republicans in Virginia.'
Money does not guarantee success, however. In the last Virginia governor's race, former Gov. Terry McAuliffe outspent Republican Glenn Youngkin, who had invested $20 million of his own money in the race. Youngkin still clinched the election by nearly two points.
Youngkin, who is term-limited from seeking reelection, has offered more than $21,000 in support to Earle-Sears through his political action committee.
When asked whether he would donate more, his PAC responded, 'Governor Youngkin is working to elect the entire GOP ticket and is urging all Virginians to support the commonsense team this November to keep Virginia winning.'
The Democrats' fundraising advantage isn't confined to the governor's race.
State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, who eked out a primary win in a close three-way contest for lieutenant governor, raised nearly $1.8 million in her primary race and has $462,000 remaining.
The Republican nominee, conservative talk-radio host John Reid, raised nearly $312,000 since launching his campaign and has $116,000 remaining.
The only statewide GOP candidate with a fundraising lead, incumbent Attorney General Jason Miyares, has $2.3 million in the bank after raising a total of $4.6 million. His Democratic opponent, Jay Jones, has raised $2.7 million. He had about $493,000 left at the beginning of June, reports show.
This year, all three Democratic statewide candidates are backed by Clean Virginia, a political group that pushes for clean energy and often takes on legislative challenges against Dominion Energy, Virginia's largest utility.
The two groups are some of the most influential entities lobbying on state politics and policy. With energy demand likely to be a key issue in November, their influence could be significant.
According to the nonpartisan public-access group, Spanberger has taken in $465,000 from the environmental organization. On Tuesday, Clean Virginia endorsed Hashmi's candidacy for lieutenant governor, following its previous donations to her state Senate campaign committee.
During his campaign, Jones also received $1.5 million from Clean Virginia, while his primary opponent, Democrat Shannon Taylor, accepted $800,000 from Dominion Energy between 2024 and 2025. Clean Virginia released attack ads targeting Taylor for accepting Dominion money.
The energy utility has become entangled in other statewide battles. On the Republican ticket, Earle-Sears accepted $50,000 from Dominion in March. Miyares also gained $450,000 from the utility so far this year.
Clean Virginia has donated to both Democrats and Republicans, including to candidates running for the House of Delegates, where all 100 members are up for reelection in November.
Democrats who control the legislature are hoping to keep or expand their thin majority and amend the state's Constitution to protect rights to voting, marriage equality and abortion.
Democratic candidates have raised about $16.9 million in those races, with $3.2 million stemming from House Speaker Don Scott.
Meanwhile, Republicans have raised $8.8 million, with former Minority Leader Todd Gilbert earning over $643,000, and newly tapped Minority Leader Terry Kilgore raising nearly $470,000.
Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

USA Today

31 minutes ago

• USA Today

Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a DEI case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Why? Every decision was unanimous. Recent polling has shown that Americans continue to view the Supreme Court as extremely partisan. Just 20% of those polled view the nation's highest courtas politically neutral, and its favorability is far higher among Republicans than Democrats. These opinions on SCOTUS come from a lack of nuance in conversations around the court, in which Republicans are furious when one of their preferred justices occasionally disagrees with President Donald Trump, and where Democrats ignore the Supreme Court cases that don't get decided along political ideology. The ideological lines on the court shouldn't be chalked up to the party of the president who appointed each justice, and the media narrative suggesting such should be dispelled. Can we finally leave Justice Amy Coney Barrett alone? There is no better example of the lack of nuanced conversation surrounding the Supreme Court than Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She has been villainized by the left for being a Trump sycophant and has been smeared as a liberal in disguise by some of Trump's most ardent supporters. In recent months, Barrett has been under fire from MAGA for not being sufficiently committed to their cause. Glossing over the fact that the job of judges is to determine what the law is, rather than what it ought to be, these individuals have gone from praising Barrett's integrity at her confirmation to demanding she sacrifice it for Trump's causes. Opinion: Liberals owe Justice Barrett an apology. She's clearly not in Trump's pocket. What has Barrett done to deserve any of this? Well, she had the audacity to rule against Trump on a couple of occasions. That's it. Justice Barrett joined the liberal justices in dissent against the majority decision to allow Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, as well as voting against the Trump administration's attempts to freeze funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since arriving on the court in 2020, Barrett has joined majorities to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the right to carry a handgun, eliminate racist affirmative action practices, rein in executive bureaucracy and even expand presidential immunity. No reasonable person could argue that her jurisprudence in these cases is advancing any liberal causes, but the fact that she has ruled against Trump on occasion somehow overrides all of that evidence. Both parties have a warped view of who Justice Barrett is, and that is a symptom of a much larger problem about Americans' information about the court. The news media has played a role in that overall view. News media needs to do a better job of covering SCOTUS Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled on a religious liberty case, a firearms case and a discrimination case, and most Americans probably didn't hear about any of them. Opinion: There is no 'reverse discrimination,' people. There is only discrimination. The reason for that is the fact that every one of these decisions was unanimous, each written by one of the three liberal justices, so they didn't fit the narrative of the extremely polarized Supreme Court that Americans have been barraged with in recent years. Naturally, the court tends to split on the highest profile cases, which intuitively makes sense. After all, they are divisive. However, the vast majority of cases undermine the partisan tale often told of the court. For the 2022-23 term, the last for which data has been published, conservative justices only agreed with each other on roughly half of their cases, and in some cases, even they were more likely to agree with a certain liberal justice. Some experts have categorized the justices according to their regard for the consequences of the rulings, instead of political leanings. Justices Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts seem to be more concerned with consequences outside of the specific case they are ruling on. The result is that, in some respects, this group of three is closer to the liberal justices than their conservative colleagues. Furthermore, each justice has individual tendencies that differentiate them from even their ideological allies. Neil Gorsuch has a libertarian streak of generally standing up to the government and has a soft spot for the rights of Native Americans. The popular partisan narrative for the Supreme Court gives a very narrow view of how the justices' ideologies actually play out in practice. Americans should look to the justices' own personal tendencies and judicial philosophy to characterize them, rather than simply grouping them by party. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

New York Post

32 minutes ago

• New York Post

LA Sheriff's department deletes posts calling US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites ‘tragic' following backlash

The LA County Sheriff's Department has deleted a social media post calling the US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities 'tragic' after being dragged online. 'Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,' the department wrote on X Sunday in a now-deleted post. 'While this tragic event happened overseas, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is closely monitoring the situation alongside our local, state and federal partners.' 4 The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deleted the X post following backlash. @LASDHQ/X The post sparked immediate outrage and was allegedly updated to exclude the part sending condolences to 'the victims and families' and calling the US military airstrikes 'tragic.' Moments later, it was ultimately deleted from the platform, according to independent journalist Collin Rugg and Libs of TikTok. However, before being yanked for good, the post garnered a massive outcry of responses, bashing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for the insensitive and inaccurate post. 'We sincerely hope your account was hacked. There were no victims in last night's successful targeting of Iran's nuclear sites,' replied the American advocacy group Stop Antisemitism. 'Please verify this post was not posted by an employee of the LA County Sheriff's HQ.' 'It is shocking that the LA Sheriff Department employs someone who would post such messages when our brave men and women are risking their lives to protect our country,' wrote another outraged X user. 4 Satellite image shows a close-up view of destroyed buildings at Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, after it was hit by US airstrikes, in Isfahan, Iran, on June 22, 2025. via REUTERS 'That individual should be fired immediately and then investigated to find out what drove them to write these messages.' 'This is the CRAZIEST reaction to President Trump delivering MONUMENTAL devastation to Iran's nuclear sites,' another person wrote. While another agreed with the outrage, adding, 'Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna should resign in disgrace. Shame on him!' 4 A man who asked not to be identified holds an Iranian and an upside-down American flag while people gather for a 'No War with Iran x Israel and Immigrants' on June 7, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. Getty Images 4 LA County Sheriff's deputies arrest a protester after unlawful assembly was declared following a 'No Kings' national rally against the Trump administration in Los Angeles on June 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images In response to the backlash over the post, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office released a statement 'apologizing' for the 'offensive and inappropriate' post late Sunday. 'We are issuing this statement to formally apologize for an offensive and inappropriate social media post recently posted on our Department's social media platforms regarding the ongoing conflict in Iran,' the statement reads. 'This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department. As a law enforcement agency, we do not comment on foreign policy or military matters. Our mission remains solely focused on protecting public safety and serving our diverse communities.' The department acknowledged that it had 'updated' the social media post and has 'launched an internal review to determine how it was created and published.' 'Steps are being taken to strengthen our social media oversight protocols and ensure that any future communications align with our Department's standards of professionalism, respect, and accountability,' the department added. 'We appreciate the continued trust of our community and will work diligently to reaffirm that trust every day.' The Post has reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for comment.

Bloomberg

37 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Roknifard: Regime Change in Iran Unlikely

Israel woke up to a new reality Sunday after President Trump confirmed that the US had bombed Iran's main three nuclear sites. The attack has been lauded across Israel as a historic symbol of unprecedented cooperation with the US. However, now the concern is about how Iran will respond. Julia Roknifard, Senior Lecturer, School of Law & Governance at Taylor's University, Malaysia told Bloomberg's Horizons Middle East and Africa anchor Joumanna Bercetche expecting a regime change in Iran on the back of these attacks is extremely unlikely. (Source: Bloomberg)