Coordinated party expenditure ran to $3,945,435 across 40 records dated 14 to 31 July 2026, against $1,032,346 across 40 records for the whole of January to June. Both figures are compiled here from the Federal Election Commission's bulk transaction file `itpas2.txt`, cycle 2026, filtered to transaction type 24C, which marks a coordinated party buy.1 The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) accounts for $2,230,472 of the July total across 13 records.
The committee said on 30 June that it would shut its independent-expenditure operation and told campaigns on 1 July to fold that spending into coordinated buys. The register now shows the money moving, which is the part nobody could report at the time.
A filing calendar explains why a September briefing is reporting July money. The August Monthly report closed its books on 31 July and was due on Thursday 20 August, which falls inside the gap between the last briefing and this one.2 The September Monthly, covering August, is not due until 20 September. July therefore counts as a complete, fully reported month, and the empty August rows carry no information about August spending at all.
Alaska produces the sharpest line in the file. The Alaska Democratic Party recorded $884,835 in five coordinated expenditures between 17 and 30 July, every dollar on Mary Peltola and every dollar through one direct-mail payee, against $696,884 that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spread across eleven candidates nationwide in the same fortnight.3 Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent Peltola is chasing, drew $136,570. Alaska spent its summer arguing over which Dan Sullivan belonged on the ballot, , and its party committee has now answered a different question about which race is worth the money.
Hold that comparison to the July window. Across every 2026-dated record in the same file the two committees sit within $4,549 of each other, the DCCC marginally ahead on $889,384, because it spent $192,500 before July while the Alaska party spent nothing.4 The state party did not out-spend the national committee over the cycle; it front-loaded into fourteen days while the DCCC did not. Both figures count coordinated expenditure alone, a narrow slice of what either committee spends. One further caution on the same data: all four congressional campaign committees show zero rows in the independent-expenditure file for this cycle, and that zero is a property of the file rather than a description of anyone's behaviour.5
