FRANKFORT — Kentucky’s television airwaves are so loud with ads advocating the election of Andy Barr and Nate Morris to the U.S. Senate because Barr and Morris each have access to nearly all the money they want.
Barr has been elected seven times as representative to the U.S. House for Kentucky’s 6th District. He’s well known in the district surrounding Lexington. He’s advertised to spread his name statewide and establish an identity as the most pro-Donald Trump candidate. (“It’s not a sin to be white,” Barr says in a recent ad.)
Morris is a wealthy entrepreneur originally from Lexington — completely unknown at the outset of the race — making his first bid for elective office. He too is trying to establish an identity as the most pro-Trump candidate statewide. (“Endorsed by Charlie Kirk,” brags the narrator of a pro-Morris ad.)
A third major candidate and the frontrunner in early polls is former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron of Louisville who lost the 2023 race for governor to Democrat Andy Beshear. Cameron is also trying to be the most pro-Trump candidate. But Cameron has raised a fraction of the money amassed by Barr and Morris.
The names of Barr, Morris and Cameron — and those of nine other Republicans and seven Democrats — will appear on the May 19 primary ballot in the hope of succeeding the retiring U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell.
So much money has flooded the Republican primary because “it’s for an open Senate seat with three prominent candidates … and possibly it will be the deciding election in determining who gets that seat,” said Stephen Voss, an associate professor of political science at the University of Kentucky.
The last Democrat to win election to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky was Wendell Ford in 1992.
To understand the financial condition of the candidates in such a modern, high-stakes race, you must basically examine the money that flows through two types of political committees for each candidate and is reported to the Federal Election Commission.
First is the candidate’s own campaign committee where the candidate has control of how the money is spent and the content of the advertising. Money in a campaign committee also goes further because television and radio stations must — by law — offer campaign committees their lowest advertising rate during the 45 days before a primary election. But federal law limits any person to giving no more than $3,500 per election to a campaign committee. Contributions of up to $5,000 are allowed for traditional political action committees (PACs). Corporation contributions are forbidden.
Second is the super PAC. Under the 2010 Citizens United ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, a super PAC can raise contributions of unlimited amounts from people and corporations to run independent advertising supporting or opposing a candidate. A disadvantage of super PACs is that they are charged higher market rates by TV and radio stations for commercial time.
Trey Grayson, a former Kentucky secretary of state who lost a Republican primary for U.S. Senate to Rand Paul in 2010, said, “It’s so different today. Rand and I each had about $3 million in our campaigns with very little independent spending. … Now you can hardly compete without a robust independent effort.”
Kentucky Lantern examined the reports filed with the FEC by the political committees financing the three top GOP candidates. Here are our takeaways:
- Nate Morris is viable because of Elon Musk and other GOP mega-donors.
The most significant development in the campaign occurred in January when Elon Musk gave $10 million to a super PAC called Fight for Kentucky. Fight for Kentucky is saturating Kentucky airwaves with those ads of Morris being endorsed by Kirk not long before the popular MAGA influencer was assassinated last September.
It would take 2,857 people each giving the maximum $3,5000 to a campaign committee to equal the $10 million Musk gave to Fight for Kentucky.
Tres Watson, a Republican strategist from Lexington, said Musk’s donation at this point in the campaign “was incredibly important. … Nate Morris would be done without it.”
Musk was just the latest in a grand slam of national Republican megadonors who have given big to super PACs backing Morris.
Jeff Yass, the libertarian co-founder of a Pennsylvania trading firm, gave $2 million last year to a super PAC that ran ads for Morris last year. Richard Uihlein, founder of the shipping supplies giant Uline, is the primary funder of yet another super PAC that spent more than $1.6 million on ads for Morris last fall. And Konstantin Sokolov, the head of the Chicago-based private equity firm IJS Investments who gave $11 million to Trump’s super PAC last year, gave $500,000 to the pro-Morris Fight for Kentucky super PAC last September.
Morris’ own campaign committee has raised a strong total of $6 million through the end of 2025, but that total includes $4.4 million in loans Morris made to his campaign committee. Only about $1.6 million came in contributions from people.
As of Jan. 1 Morris’ campaign committee reported a balance of $4,581,141.
- Andy Barr is a longtime incumbent who has mastered the Washington money game.
Barr is able to meet or beat the Morris money because he mastered the art of Washington fundraising in the 2020s just as McConnell mastered it in the 1990s.
Since his first election to the U.S. House in 2012 when he defeated Democratic incumbent Ben Chandler, Barr has played the political “long game” gaining seniority and key committee assignments. He currently is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and chair of its Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy Subcommittee.
Such influence in Congress attracts waves of contributions from traditional special interest PACs, the PACs of other friendly Republican office holders and the donor class.
Consider: Barr’s campaign committee has reported raising $1.4 million from hundreds of old-fashioned, traditional PACs. Most of that came from PACs of banks and associations of the finance sector — from JPMorgan Chase to the National Pawnbrokers Association.
By comparison, as of Dec. 31 Morris reported just $32,500 from traditional PACs, Cameron just $2,000.
Barr has been building a donor base since 2012. He long ago assembled an incumbent’s full array of complementary political committees — a “leadership PAC” and a “joint fundraising committee” which allow him to maximize his fundraising and win friends by making contributions of his own.
In his most recent reelections of 2022 and 2024, Barr’s campaign committee raised big money despite weak opposition — perhaps with an eye on this year’s Senate race. As a result, Barr had a stockpile of $3.7 million in his old House reelection committee at the end of 2024 — money he was able to rollover to his new Senate committee. So Barr’s campaign committee had a $3.7 million headstart in this election over Morris and Cameron.
Barr’s campaign committee reported raising more than $6.6 million in 2025 on top of that headstart.
As of Dec. 31, Barr’s committee reported having a balance of $6.47 million on hand.
- Barr also has wealthy donors giving to a super PAC.
The super PAC helping Barr is called Keep America Great. It hasn’t gotten any contribution close to the $10 million that Musk put behind Morris, but it has gotten some big ones.
It raised more than $4.3 million in 2025 and spent $3.1 million.
The largest donors to Keep America Great through Dec. 31 have been: Foris Dax Inc., a Texas crypto currency company, $1.3 million; Defend US Inc., a Washington “dark money” political committee that does not disclose its donors, $1.1 million; Conservative Agenda for America, a Sterling, Virginia, political committee, $360,000; Chance Aluminum, of Williamsport, Pennsylvania, $200,000; Tamara and Eric Gustavson, of Lexington, owners of Spendthrift Farm, $200,000; American Society of Anesthesiologists of Schaumburg, Illinois, $125,000; Churchill Downs, $100,000; Brett Setzer, Lexington real estate developer, $100,000.
- Insufficient funds mean Cameron is fading, but …
Cameron entered the race with high statewide name recognition because of his successful campaign for attorney general in 2019 and his 2023 campaign for governor, when he won a contested Republican primary but lost in the general.
As such, Cameron led by a wide margin in early polls. But polls this year show the gap closing as Cameron has yet to launch a significant media campaign.
Cameron’s campaign committee raised just $1.6 million in 2025. It reported having a balance of $630,000 on Dec. 31 — one-tenth the balance of Barr’s committee at that time.
A super PAC for Cameron, Kentucky First Action, has yet to report any windfall from a megadonor, even though both Yass and Uihlein gave millions to a super PAC that supported Cameron in his 2023 race for governor.
Kentucky First Action reported raising $177,500 last year. Its largest donors were: Kiki Courtelis, a horse farm owner from Georgetown, $50,000; All State Title Service, of Shepherdsville, $50,000; Bernard Fineman, Louisville, chairman of Caldwell Tanks, $35,000; and Joseph Blackmon, a dermatologist from Paducah, $25,000.
Cameron’s campaign emphasizes that Cameron easily won the 2023 Republican primary despite being significantly outspent by self-funded billionaire Kelly Craft.
Naturally, Cameron benefits from the fact that so much of the money being spent by the Barr and Morris committees is being used to attack each other.
Voss said Cameron remains viable because of his high name recognition partly and because voters may reject those negative ads. But for that strategy to work, Voss said, it would help if Cameron raises enough money for an ad campaign in the home stretch portraying himself as an “affable and sincere” alternative.
All the candidate committees and super PACs must file their next reports disclosing donations and spending during the first quarter of 2026 with the FEC on April 15.
This article appears in March 1-24, 2026.