TV advertising in the Texas’ U.S. Senate primary exceeded $122 million, making it the most expensive primary cycle on record, according to data from AdImpact.
Throughout the last few months, the top three Republican candidates—incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and challengers Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt—and supporting PACs have spent $95.1 million on TV ads, AdImpact’s analysis shows. The top Democratic candidates— state Rep. James Talarico, who represents District 50, and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who serves District 30—have reportedly spent more than $27 million on TV ads.
At KHOU-TV, Talarico spent $238,410 for 216 spots, Cornyn spent $108,475 for 130 ads, Crockett spent $101,725 for 179 spots, Hunt spent $76,575 for 102 spots and Paxton spent $58,225 on 46 spots.
Hunt spent more than $44,000 for 60 ad spots on KHOU-TV from Feb. 23 to March 1, including $2,775 each for three ads during “Wheel of Fortune” and $3,700 for one 30-second ad on Sunday’s “60 Minutes.” Four years ago, when Paxton ran for re-election as attorney general, his campaign spent more than $45,000 for 43 ad spots in one week on KHOU-TV.
Incumbent Sen. John Cornyn dominated television spending, accounting for more than half of the total. Democratic contender James Talarico followed distantly, while Hunt and Paxton trailed behind.
Outside organizations played a significant role in financing advertising. Political action committees, which are not required to disclose donors, have produced negative ads through an influx of funding commonly referred to as “dark money,” according to the Houston Public Media.
The U.S. Senate race included significant negative advertising, with $10 million spent to attack both Cornyn and Hunt, according to AdImpact. Paxton and Cornyn spent roughly $3 million combined attacking Hunt, according to CBS News, highlighting divisions within the GOP primary.
Despite the surge in advertising, some younger voters remained skeptical. Sam Houston State University student Christian Ekpenike said he viewed political ads cautiously and believed many targeted younger audiences.
“I think the political ads targeted you. They were hateful and attacked each candidate,” Ekpenike said. “I definitely believed the ads targeted younger generations because we were impressionable.”
His comments reflected broader questions surrounding the $100 million in spending, such as how much influence do these ads have on younger voters who increasingly consume political content online rather than through traditional broadcast media?
Dennis Lu-Chung Weng, an associate professor of political science at Sam Houston State University who studies campaign trends, said the answer depended on changes in the media landscape and campaign spending strategies.
Weng said political advertising was no longer a temporary revenue boost for local television stations, but had become essential to sustaining operations during election years.
“For broadcast stations, political ad revenue was no longer just a bonus, it’s the critical infrastructure that sustains operations during election years,” Weng explained. “In the 2026 cycle, billions in spending turned a nonpresidential year into a windfall for local media.”
Weng said campaigns have also changed how they spend money. Traditional television remained important, but campaigns increasingly divided budgets across digital platforms rather than relying solely on broadcast messaging.
His research highlighted oversaturation and voter fatigue as campaigns used data to target narrow groups. Customized and often negative ads were repeatedly deployed to maximize effectiveness.
Using voter data, campaigns showed student loan ads to younger voters while targeting neighbors with Social Security messaging. Streaming ad spending was projected to grow by 20% because of this precision.
