$23 Million vs. One Swing District: The WA-03 Race Has Become a Super PAC Food Fight

A bright newsroom workspace with campaign mailers and a blurred television monitor, illustrating the flood of outside spending in Washington’s 3rd Congressional District

Desk: Political & Government, Campaigns & Elections.
By Dakota Jones | LD3 Productions Newsdesk | October 30, 2026

Southwest Washington’s mailbox is having a very expensive week.

In the final days before Election Day, outside groups have poured roughly $22 million to $23 million into Washington’s 3rd Congressional District race between Democratic incumbent Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Republican state Sen. John Braun. That puts WA-03 among the country’s biggest House contests for outside spending, roughly 12th to 15th out of 435 races, depending on the tracker.

That is a lot of money for one district. It is also a lot of unsolicited television, texts and mail nobody in Clark or Cowlitz County asked for.

And here is the kicker: almost none of it came from local wallets. It came from national PACs, party committees, and a Trump-aligned super PAC that did not exist a month ago.

So let’s do the responsible thing and follow the money. The other responsible thing would be to throw your mailbox in the woods, but that is a different article.

First, the money: about $23 million, and counting

The Chinook Observer, tallying spending through October 23, reported that outside PACs and party committees had spent more than $23 million on the race. Its breakdown shows a sharp Republican-aligned advantage:

Graphic: Outside spending reported by the Chinook Observer Amount
Republican-aligned groups and committees About $15.84 million
Democratic-aligned groups and committees About $7.24 million
Combined More than $23 million

The largest reported spenders include the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), with $5.98 million opposing Gluesenkamp Perez, and House Majority PAC (HMP), with $5.34 million opposing Braun. Those figures are outside spending, not donations sitting in either candidate’s campaign account.

A separate DonorAlpha tracker, updated October 30, puts outside-group spending at $22.1 million across 14 groups: $12.7 million opposing Gluesenkamp Perez and $7.9 million opposing Braun. The totals differ because trackers can use different update times and reporting categories. The useful takeaway is not a magic last digit. It is the scale: tens of millions of dollars aimed at one swing district.

Campaign mailers and a generic blurred political ad on a television in a bright home setting

The new PAC with a very familiar backer

Now for the most eyebrow-raising name in the spending scrum: No Going Back PAC. This committee is about a month old. It has already burned through $5.9 million in this one race by October 23, according to the Chinook Observer.

Let me repeat that for the people in the back: a PAC that did not exist when you were thinking about your summer vacation has already spent more money in one House district than most small cities spend in a year.

The paper reported that the PAC was funded almost exclusively by MAGA Inc., President Donald Trump’s main super PAC. Its spending has mainly targeted Gluesenkamp Perez with television advertising, along with texts and mailers. Trump endorsed Braun before the August primary and reaffirmed that endorsement in an October 22 social-media post.

The name says “No Going Back.” The money trail says the group is very much attached to an established political operation. Both can be true, which is honestly the most Washington, D.C. sentence I have ever written.

Elon Musk’s America PAC has also spent about $586,000 in the race, mainly on digital advertising, texts and mailers supporting Braun or opposing Gluesenkamp Perez, the Chinook Observer reported.

Candidate money is a different ledger

Here is where campaign-finance comparisons get slippery, and where most people checking their phones at a red light will get it wrong. Outside spending is not the same as campaign fundraising. The FEC’s candidate profile shows that, through October 14, Gluesenkamp Perez’s campaign had raised $9,472,266.66, spent $9,264,207.10, and held $234,519.93 in cash. The committee reported $180,252.41 in debts owed.

Braun’s campaign reported $3,311,756.42 raised, $2,639,837.28 spent and $671,919.14 in cash on hand through October 14, according to FEC-based After Citizens United data.

So the irony needs a little precision, because opinions are cheap and FEC filings are not. Gluesenkamp Perez has raised more directly for her campaign than Braun. But outside groups have spent heavily against her, and the overall outside-spending totals favor Republican-aligned groups roughly two to one. The incumbent may be famous for an independent streak, but she is staring down a national machine with a bottomless group chat.

The FEC’s profile separately lists $2,602,385.29 in processed regular-report independent expenditures by CLF opposing Gluesenkamp Perez. That figure excludes 24- and 48-hour notices, so it is not a complete, final tally of CLF spending. Reporting snapshots are useful. Treating every snapshot as the same ledger is not.

Individual contributions to Gluesenkamp Perez listed by state through July 15 included $1,897,347.70 from Washington, $1,048,377.42 from New York and $632,859.68 from California. The Seattle Times reported October 29 that millions are flowing into the contest, much of it from beyond Washington. In other words, local voters are getting a campaign shaped by donors and organizations from far beyond the district.

Party spending gets a new lane

The national party committees are also major players. The Chinook Observer reported that the National Republican Congressional Committee spent $3.3 million for Braun, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent $1.89 million for Gluesenkamp Perez.

A recent Supreme Court ruling allows party campaign arms to coordinate and spend at higher levels with candidates. That is separate from the independent expenditures made by super PACs. The distinction matters: party spending can be coordinated under the ruling; super PAC spending is reported as independent. The ads may all appear in the same crowded media market, but the legal categories are not interchangeable.

For voters, the practical effect is simpler. More money can mean more messages competing for your attention, and more opportunities to ask who paid for each one.

Neighbors comparing campaign materials and a generic debate video on a laptop in a community hall

Dead-heat polls, extremely confident prediction markets

The race also has a numbers problem of a different kind, and it is a fun one. DonorAlpha’s average of two polls through October 21 shows the candidates tied at 46.0% each. A coin flip. Yet its October 29 prediction-market snapshot put Gluesenkamp Perez at 87.5% to win.

So the polls say toss-up and the markets say landslide. Both cannot be right, but both are doing what they were built to do, which is why you should never confuse the two no matter how confident your brother-in-law sounds.

Those numbers do not mean the polls are wrong or that the market has seen the ballots early. A poll measures stated voter preferences in a sample; a prediction market reflects traders’ expectations and can move for reasons other than a new public poll. A market price is not a vote share.

Gluesenkamp Perez won the district in 2022 by defeating a Trump-endorsed Republican. Now Trump is again backing Braun, and outside groups are spending at a level that puts WA-03 among the nation’s most expensive House races. The history helps explain the attention. It does not settle the outcome.

FAQ: What WA-03 voters should know

Is the $23 million going directly to either candidate?
No. The headline figure covers outside spending by PACs and party committees. Candidate campaign receipts are reported separately.

Why do trackers show $23 million and $22.1 million?
They use different update dates and may classify or capture activity differently. Recent notices can also be missing from processed regular-report totals.

Does an 87.5% prediction-market figure mean Perez has 87.5% of the vote?
No. It is a market-implied probability, not a poll result or vote estimate.

When is Election Day?
Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Final Thoughts

WA-03 is a close race with an absurd outside-money footprint, and it is the clearest single example of what this entire midterm has become: two candidates, one district, and a pile of national money so large it should probably have its own zip code.

The main lesson is to keep the categories straight: campaign fundraising is not outside spending, party spending is not super PAC spending, and market odds are not polling. Get that right and you are already ahead of most of the commentary industry.

When an ad arrives (on TV, in your mailbox or on your phone) check the sponsor and the underlying claim. You can also follow LD3 Productions’ continuing coverage through our newsdesk. The volume is loud. The best response is still to verify before you believe.

Sources