[ad_1]
On July 18, McCaskill clearly had a fundraising advantage over Hawley. His campaign had a budget of $ 6.6 million, against $ 2.3 million for Hawley, according to the records of the Federal Election Commission.
Hawley received a little more help from outside groups than his opponent. These organizations spent more than $ 16 million fighting McCaskill, while outside groups spent almost $ 14 million on Hawley.
McCaskill's campaign and the outside groups that support it, including the Senate's pro-democracy majority Senate, have focused primarily on health care. They targeted the lawsuit against pre-existing conditions in Hawley.
"Health care, especially concerns about protections against pre-existing conditions, is probably the best weapon that McCaskill has to use against Hawley," said Squire at the University of Missouri. "Hawley's campaign has not yet succeeded in countering the many advertisements against them on pre-existing condition protections."
Hawley says that he wants to protect coverage from pre-existing conditions despite litigation.
"Senator McCaskill would have you believe that the only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to keep all of Obamacare's failures," he said in a statement last week. "This is just not true, I pledge to cover those who have pre-existing conditions and we do not have to break the Constitution to do so."
The Attorney General of the state, on the other hand, focused more on McCaskill's character. He called the senator a wealthy Washington elite who has not shown enough transparency about his personal finances and his political supporters.
This strategy partly motivated his response to the McCaskill Supreme Court vote, in which he said the senator "runs his family business as a dark money operation."
While the super PACs have supported McCaskill's re-election, the senator's campaign claims that she supports a constitutional amendment aimed at overturning the Supreme People's Court's decision and other proposals to limit the court's decision. influence of money in politics. The Citizens United decision concluded that political spending is a protected form of speech, giving businesses and unions greater leeway to influence elections.
Many Democrats believe that Kavanaugh, as a Supreme Court judge, would rule on matters in a way that increases the scope of money in politics.
A White House spokesman overseeing Kavanaugh's communications did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.
– Christina Wilkie of CNBC contributed to this report.
WATCH: Comey: I kept track of Trump because I thought he could "lie"
Source link
