Outside groups spent millions on Maryland primaries. Did it make a difference?

BALTIMORE - Outside groups spent more than $8 million on Maryland's most competitive congressional primary this year, helping turn an open-seat race into one of the most expensive House contests in state history.

After votes were counted, one question remained: How much did that spending actually shape the outcome?

State Del. Adrian Boafo won the Democratic nomination for Maryland's 5th Congressional District after receiving millions of dollars from groups tied to the cryptocurrency industry and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He secured the victory with about 32% of the vote, defeating businesswoman Quincy Bareebe by roughly 14 points in a 23-candidate field.

But political observers told The Baltimore Sun that measuring how many votes those dollars actually produced is very difficult.

"Every election, nothing happens in a vacuum," said JP Krahel, an accounting professor at Loyola University Maryland.

Outside spending has become one of the defining features of modern elections, including in Maryland. Yet despite millions spent on television ads, digital campaigns and mailers, researchers say there is no reliable way to isolate its direct impact on outcomes because voters respond to dozens of overlapping factors.

Boafo's campaign raised about $1.1 million in contributions reported by the campaign itself, separate from the independent expenditures spent by outside organizations that legally cannot coordinate with candidates. In contrast, many of his opponents - including Bareebe and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn - largely relied on self-funding or small-dollar donations.

Money matters, but it isn't everything

To isolate the effect of outside spending, Krahel told The Sun, researchers would have to rerun the election without it - an impossible experiment.

Instead, analysts evaluate outside spending by looking at what it allows campaigns to do: buy more advertising, hire staff, expand voter outreach and keep a candidate's name in front of voters.

"The more money that a candidate has, the more they can flood the airwaves to generate name recognition," said Anirban Basu, chief economist at Sage Policy Group. In an open-seat race without an incumbent, he said, familiarity can be a meaningful advantage.

The crowded field likely made those advantages even more valuable, said Flavio Hickel, an assistant professor of political science at Washington College. With nearly two dozen candidates competing for attention, well-funded outside groups could help one campaign expand its organization, invest more heavily in digital outreach and reach voters in ways many opponents could not afford.

Even with millions in outside support, Boafo was nowhere near winning a majority of votes - a reminder that money alone does not guarantee overwhelming electoral support in crowded primaries.

"Money is probably buying less than it used to," Hickel said, adding that campaigns now operate in a far more fragmented media landscape than they did even a decade ago. "Money still matters. We're just not sure exactly how much it matters (anymore)."

Outside groups also rarely make blind bets, Basu said. Organizations generally invest in candidates who already align with their priorities and appear politically viable, making it difficult to determine whether the spending created momentum or simply reinforced it.

Donald Tobin, a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, said that, in most cases, outside spending more often amplifies candidates whose views already match those of the groups supporting them.

Low turnout, high spending

Some experts say outside spending can be especially influential in low-turnout elections because campaigns can concentrate their resources on a relatively small pool of likely voters. Others say the effect is less clear, arguing that voters often ignore repeated political advertising.

About 17% of eligible Maryland voters cast ballots statewide.

For many voters, however, the bigger question isn't simply how much money is spent but who is spending it.

Tobin said disclosure remains one of the biggest concerns surrounding outside spending because many voters don't know who paid for the advertisements filling their mailboxes and television screens. "I can't judge the validity of this mailer if I don't know who it comes from," he said.

Campaign ads include disclaimers identifying sponsors, but analysts say terms like "outside spending" and "independent expenditures" rarely register with voters. While donor information is more visible through social media and political commentary, voters are still more likely to remember the candidate than the group behind the ad.

That distinction matters, analysts say. Even if voters can't identify a super PAC or outside group by name, repeated exposure can build familiarity - an advantage that can be especially valuable in crowded races where many candidates begin with little name recognition.

What is clear is that outside organizations are playing a far larger role in Maryland campaigns than they did a decade ago. Whether that money changes minds or simply amplifies candidates already positioned to win remains a question political scientists say elections alone cannot fully answer.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.