Sources of information
THE MONEY
Find out who is backing the candidates
Federal Election Commission campaign-finance database — the primary source
This should be the foundation. The FEC lets you search every Senate candidate, the candidate’s authorized committee, contributions received, PAC contributions, and—particularly important for our purposes—independent expenditures supporting or opposing that candidate.
For example, if we select a candidate and discover that three super PACs have spent money supporting him, we can then click through to each PAC and examine who contributed to that PAC. The FEC’s Schedule E data actually identifies the candidate targeted by an independent expenditure and whether the expenditure supported or opposed that candidate.
The FEC also makes the 2025–26 data downloadable as CSV files, which could become very useful if we decide to build our own table covering all 33 races.
Issue One — particularly good for the dark-money layer
This is becoming especially useful in this election cycle. Issue One is already tracing 2026 money flowing from nonprofits into the major congressional super PACs.
For example, its July analysis found that Senate Leadership Fund, Senate Majority PAC and the major House super PACs had collectively received about $197.7 million from affiliated dark-money organizations since January 2025.
That’s exactly where simply looking at the FEC can become misleading. The FEC might tell us:
One Nation → $24.29 million → Senate Leadership Fund
But One Nation is a 501(c)(4), so its underlying donors generally aren’t publicly disclosed. Issue One specializes in trying to illuminate that next layer. In fact, it reports that Senate Leadership Fund had received $70.74 million from One Nation since January 2025 through June 2026.
OpenSecrets — best first-pass analytical source
Utilize this as your initial lens to pinpoint major contributors, key industrial sectors, and independent groups; subsequently, pivot to raw FEC records to substantiate the specific financial movements.
THE CANDIDATES
Who are these people, what they have said, and what they have done?
1. OnTheIssues.org — 2026 Senate races
It has already assembled a 2026 Senate section, organized by state and candidate. More importantly, it collects statements by issue from campaign websites, press releases, debates, interviews and previous public statements.
You can look up a candidate and get categories such as abortion, budget/economy, civil rights, crime, education, energy, foreign policy, health care, immigration, Social Security, taxation, etc.
For our purposes, it preserves dated quotations not simply “Candidate X supports Israel,” but something like:
June 2026: Candidate X said ___ regarding Gaza.
August 2026: Candidate X said ___ regarding the Iran war.
That’s much more revealing.
2. Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia is a good starting point for biographical information: age, education, occupation, previous offices, electoral history, endorsements and campaign information.
It also frequently reproduces candidate survey responses. The weakness is that candidates don’t necessarily answer the questionnaires.
3. Vote Smart
Vote Smart is especially valuable for candidates who have previously held public office because it combines biography, issue positions, ratings by interest groups, public statements and voting records.
And that’s an important distinction. If an incumbent senator tells voters in 2026 that he is a great defender of Social Security, we don’t necessarily have to accept the campaign’s characterization. We can look at what he actually voted for.
4. Congress itself — for incumbents and House members running for Senate
For anyone presently serving in Congress, we have an unusually rich record.
Congress.gov gives us legislation sponsored and cosponsored, roll-call information and congressional activity.
For senators, U.S. Senate roll-call votes gives us the actual voting record.
For representatives running for Senate, U.S. House roll-call votes does the same.
This would be particularly useful when assessing a candidate’s relationship with the Trump administration. Rather than merely labeling someone “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump,” we could examine particular questions:
Did the candidate support Trump’s tariffs? The Iran war? Medicaid changes? Immigration policies? Tax legislation? Spending reductions?
That gives us something measurable.
For very recent issues, add contemporary news searches
This is necessary because the databases inevitably lag behind events.
So for rapidly developing subjects, search AP, Reuters, local newspapers, television interviews, debate transcripts and the candidates’ own statements rather than depending entirely upon Ballotpedia or OnTheIssues.
Include the candidates’ own websites
A campaign website tells us how the candidate wants voters to understand him or her. If a Republican candidate’s website has pages on immigration, inflation and crime but says virtually nothing about the Iran war, that’s information in itself.
Likewise, if a Democrat emphasizes Medicaid and Social Security but avoids discussing a controversial foreign-policy issue, that omission can be noteworthy. Consider both:
Stated position: what the candidate says.
Record/evidence: votes, legislation, interviews and previous statements.