Is Jasmine Crockett a Good Fundraiser? No.
Not as good as Talarico, anyway.
Jasmine Crockett has been called a “fundraising juggernaut” with a “strong fundraising network.”
As she enters a Senate race against James Talarico, a state representative who did not have a federal account when he announced his congressional run with 23 days left in the quarterly reporting period ending September 30.
In just over three weeks, Talarico raised $6.3m.
Over the first nine months of the year, Jasmine Crockett has raised $6.5m.
You can say it is not impressive that Crockett, with an open federal account and healthy PAC support, raised the same amount in nine months as a state rep raised in three weeks.
Burn Rate
But the bigger problem is the spending. Stories often report campaign press releases touting quarterly fundraising numbers without looking under the hood at spending.
By taking spending into account, Talarico simply blew away Crockett.
Crockett spent $3.6m over that period, compared to just $1.3m for Talarico.
What was Crockett spending money on? Buying your email address, texting you, and digital fundraising ads:
Raising $6.5m and spending $3.6m translates to roughly $1.80 raised for every dollar spent.
Talarico raised $4.85 per dollar spent.
Fundraising History
Crockett’s past two cycles look even worse.
In 2022, Crockett raised an oddly low amount of money to win an open primary, a runoff, and a safe-seat general election. Across all three elections, she spent just $810,398.
So how was she competitive? Crypto SuperPACs spent $2.9m to boost her candidacy, but those advocates likely won’t be investing in any races this cycle (but have been spending time with Honduran politicians in a federally-funded living situation).
In the 2024 cycle, Crockett raised $3.1m. But nearly a quarter of that ($720k), was from PACs. The International Bottled Water Association Political Action Committee can give $5,000 but no more.
Most individual donors, who don’t reach the $3,500 maximum, can give again. But contributions from individual donors of $200+ were just a fraction of her fundraising. Just $972k was itemized from individuals in 2024, up from $585k in her first cycle. So far in 2026, her itemized contributions are up to $1.4m.
But we’re talking about four years of fundraising here, and *combined* it would barely be adequate for a competitive House race (for reference, MGP raised more just last cycle).
Everything’s Bigger
That renewable resource from individual donors will be key.
But maybe not as key as SuperPAC spending. In the 2024 Senate race in Texas, Republicans spent $150 million (Cruz campaign spent $103m, SuperPACs $32m against Allred and $12m for Cruz).
Texas isn’t just big on the map, it’s one of the most expensive states in America to communicate with voters. A statewide campaign has to buy ads in several of the nation’s thirty largest media markets, including Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. Plus multiple mid-sized and overlapping markets that reach only a fraction of the state.
Unlike states with one dominant metro area, Texas requires campaigns to blanket an enormous, fragmented, and costly media landscape.
The Texas primary is twelve weeks from today. “Candidate Raise” is a terrible metric. It would be like a financial analyst being excited that Blockbuster had $3.2 billion in revenue in 2009. You need to ask how much they spent!
Cash on hand is more helpful - Crockett entered October with $4.6m on hand. Talarico entered with $5m on hand. But the full picture is more complicated.
Can Crockett buy enough email addresses and send enough texts to advertise statewide in Texas with a 1.8x return on investment?
TBD. But any “good fundraiser” talk needs a dose of better data.