Tom Ferguson came across this news article, Who Really Has the 2026 Midterms Cash Edge?, and was disappointed to see this completely wrong graph:

The problem here is not the inclusion of no-longer-candidate Platner, as that’s noted in a footnote. Rather, as Ferguson says,
The Times shows Platner outraising Collins; whereas she is millions and millions of dollars ahead, as our charts show.
Here’s the chart that Ferguson shared with us the other day:

If Collins raised $39 million, why did the Times say that Collins only raised $13 million? (They also understated Platner’s total, but by a lot less, counting $13 million instead of $16 million.)
I asked Ferguson how this happened–how did the Times screw up so badly? He replied:
Probably they just used the campaign fund of the candidates. The Super Pacs report elsewhere. You have to look them up. This is normal; we’re clear about that when we did Platner. Republican candidates like Collins are really operating with a pack of funds. That’s the famous coordination discussion, BTW. Now rendered even legally moot by the Supreme Court decision.
Collins has many different vehicles supporting her. Easy to find and not new.
The Times reporters are just lazy; they know about the Super Pacs, but can’t bring themselves to do work. That’s the kind interpretation.
Dayum.
Ultimately, the problem here is no so much with the New York Times–large as they are, they’re just one news organization, and they’re trying to do their best–but with the hollowing-out of the news media more generally.
To put it another way, the problem is not New York Times is not the problem. The problem is that the New York Times is one of the few large independent news organizations out there. If there were lots of other orgs reporting these things, we wouldn’t have to rely on the Times not screwing up.
Ferguson continues:
Contrast the endless articles about Democrats talking in Maine deliberations. The billionaire-tasked Times guy should do some work on Collins.
Cf. our discussion of sources in the first post:
We have used data from the Federal Election Commission to construct similar figures for the much-discussed Maine Senate race. Incumbent Senator Susan Collins is running on the Republican ticket, while Graham Platner is her Democratic challenger. Our totals reckon in contributions from Super Pacs and other outside organizations spending on behalf of either candidates or against one (which we count as spending for the candidate’s opponent).
The note’s a killer, so I’ll copy it here:
Federal Election Commission bulk data downloads are not updated at lightning speed. There is a time lag before individual electronic filings are incorporated into those files. In this case, the bulk data downloads are missing the 12-day Pre Primary Report (12P) (filed before the June 9 primary) and contain contributions to the principal campaign committee up to and including May 20, 2026. The bulk downloads are also missing the independent expenditures spent through election day. We obtained the electronic filings of the candidates’ principal campaign committee and the independent expenditures to fill the gap in the bulk data downloads. We downloaded these electronic filings June 12-14. Collins uses multiple committees to raise and spend money, and these committees have different filing deadlines. The Pine Tree Results PAC filed a 12P and reports contributions up to and including May 20. The Lead Maine Committee has contributions until April 28. The Stronger Maine Super PAC has contributions until March 31, The Collins Victory Committee is March 31, and the Susan Collins for Maine JFC is March 31. Collins also raises money for her principal campaign and leadership committees via joint fundraising committees (JFCs). These are shared accounts that allow several candidates or party committees to raise money together. A single donor writes a “parent” check to the JFC, which then is divided among the participating committees. When Collins is the clear beneficiary of such arrangements, such as with the Collins Victory Committee, we count the full parent check as part of her donor distribution. When Collins is merely one of several candidates involved in the JFC, such as with One Team Senate Majority, we count only the subdivided portion given directly to Collins as part of her donor distribution and not the full parent check. Counting the parent check for committees she controls but only the subdivided check for committees she merely joins lets us credit each donor’s true contribution to Collins exactly once without double-counting the same dollars or absorbing money raised on behalf of other candidates.
So, yeah, they had to do some work.
The above-linked New York Times article sucks for two reasons:
1. It got things way wrong, completely missing the story of the Republican candidate’s massive fundraising edge.
2. It was written in an overconfident style with no indication to the reader that the news story was actually missing more than half of the campaign cash out there.
I’ll forward this to my colleagues at the Times. Maybe they’ll run a correction?



