← 2026-11-03 edition · Sourced reporting
Fund reports $585,070.72 in Senate texting across three states
As of 2026-11-03 · Publication details
October 31, 2026 item dates; November 1 disclosure · U.S. dollars
One fund, six items; support and opposition combined within each state. State is Senate office sought. Reported disbursements or obligations, not total race spending, delivered texts, public support or votes. Ohio is a special-general election.
One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
Digital Freedom Fund’s November 1 filing reports $585,070.72 in six text-message items for Senate elections in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Texas accounts for $309,245.60, Ohio $218,978.88 and Iowa $56,846.24. These are reported costs—not counts of texts, voters reached or votes won. [4] [1] [2] [3]
Still open: Complete official candidate lists and candidate-policy comparisons were not verified for this geographic expense summary; it names no candidates. All open questions ↓
Read the original dated FEC filing; compare item amounts, dates and purpose labels rather than adding repeated cumulative totals. →Archive photograph · 2015-10-22 · Location not established by inspected source metadata
Read the full story
The reporting question: Where does one new Senate texting disclosure place its reported costs?
Six items, one vendor
All six entries name Minute Mail Consulting Group LLC, label the purpose text messages and date both dissemination and disbursement/obligation October 31. The new public filing is dated November 1 and currently listed as most recent and unamended. No message creative, invoice or delivery log was inspected. [4] [6]
Compare dollars on the same basis
The chart adds only distinct amount fields and groups by the state of the Senate office sought. All rows share the same dollar measure and transaction date. Ohio’s election is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas are marked general. The vendor’s Florida address is not the election geography. [1] [2] [3] [4]
Support and opposition both cost money
Each state pair combines one support and one opposition entry. Their costs measure neither public support nor the number of people contacted. The filer’s independence certification remains its own statement; this report has not independently investigated coordination. Repeated cumulative fields are not extra amounts. [5] [4]
Trace messages without predicting winners
Senate seats carry votes on federal laws and presidential nominees, but this packet cannot establish which party will control the chamber. It is one committee’s disclosure, not a complete candidate-policy comparison, qualification list, donor investigation or census of race spending. Use the original three pages to check purpose, dates and amount fields. [7] [4] [5]
- 3 source records
- DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND filed with the Federal Election Commission
- Federal Election Commission
- USAGov
How we know7 scoped claims · 3 source recordsView evidence
Each claim keeps its full assertion, date, source passage and limits. Source counts describe records, not independent corroboration.
1.Claim 1Attributed
The filing’s two Iowa Senate text-message items are $39,969.74 and $16,876.50, totaling $56,846.24.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- Page 1, SE.4367 and SE.4368, Senate/IA and general boxes, amount fields and page subtotal.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Committee-reported disbursements or obligations, not verified payments, number of messages, recipients or votes. State refers to the office sought, not the Florida vendor address.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T10:44:32.270Z · DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND filed with the Federal Election Commission
Disclosure is neither campaign income nor a census of race spending; no candidate qualification inferred.
2.Claim 2Attributed
The filing’s two Ohio Senate text-message items are $122,291.82 and $96,687.06, totaling $218,978.88, marked Special-General.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- Page 2, SE.4369 and SE.4370, Senate/OH and Other: Special-General boxes, amount fields and subtotal.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Committee-reported disbursements or obligations, not verified payments, number of messages, recipients or votes. State refers to the office sought, not the Florida vendor address.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T10:44:32.270Z · DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND filed with the Federal Election Commission
Disclosure is neither campaign income nor a census of race spending; no candidate qualification inferred.
3.Claim 3Attributed
The filing’s two Texas Senate text-message items are $187,753.16 and $121,492.44, totaling $309,245.60.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- Page 3, SE.4371 and SE.4372, Senate/TX and general boxes, amount fields and subtotal.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Committee-reported disbursements or obligations, not verified payments, number of messages, recipients or votes. State refers to the office sought, not the Florida vendor address.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T10:44:32.270Z · DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND filed with the Federal Election Commission
Disclosure is neither campaign income nor a census of race spending; no candidate qualification inferred.
4.Claim 4Supported
The six distinct text-message amounts sum to the filing’s $585,070.72 total; every row names Minute Mail Consulting Group LLC and dates dissemination and disbursement/obligation October 31.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- Pages 1–3, SE.4367–SE.4372; final total. Sum 56,846.24 + 218,978.88 + 309,245.60 = 585,070.72.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Exact addition of reported item amounts only. Repeated cumulative fields are excluded; delivery, creative and underlying invoices are not inspected.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T10:44:32.270Z · DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND filed with the Federal Election Commission
Disclosure is neither campaign income nor a census of race spending; no candidate qualification inferred.
5.Claim 5Attributed
Each state pair contains one support and one opposition item; the committee certifies independence in its filing.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- Pages 1–3: support/opposition boxes and perjury certification.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Classifications are the filer’s own. No independent coordination, ad-content or compliance investigation is established.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T10:44:32.270Z · DIGITAL FREEDOM FUND filed with the Federal Election Commission
Disclosure is neither campaign income nor a census of race spending; no candidate qualification inferred.
6.Claim 6Supported
The current FEC index lists file 2045547, committee C00911610, as a November 1 new F24, most_recent=true and is_amended=false.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- Matching file_number 2045547 and committee_id C00911610; receipt_date, amendment_indicator, most_recent, is_amended.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Metadata at retrieval, not expense validation or a complete election-money census; no API timestamp timezone inferred.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T10:43:45.312Z · Federal Election Commission
Disclosure is neither campaign income nor a census of race spending; no candidate qualification inferred.
7.Claim 7Supported
The Senate participates in federal lawmaking and approves presidential Cabinet nominees, while a president can veto legislation.
- Scope
- One Digital Freedom Fund November 1 F24: six October 31 text-message items for Senate offices in Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Ohio is marked special-general; Iowa and Texas general. No complete spending census, candidate roster or message-delivery measure.
- Evidence passage
- USAGov Legislative branch, Executive branch Cabinet paragraph and checks and balances.
- As of
- 2026-11-03
- Limit
- Institutional context, not a candidate forecast or assertion that one seat can enact a policy alone.
Retrieved 2026-11-03T09:10:17.830Z · USAGov
General federal explanation. It establishes no election outcome, bill text, candidate commitment, local voting deadline or independent cost estimate.
What remains open.
- Complete official candidate lists and candidate-policy comparisons were not verified for this geographic expense summary; it names no candidates.
- Message content, channel implementation, actual payments, delivery, unique recipients and effects are unverified. No inference that WhatsApp was used from contextual archive photography.
- No independent donor, coordination or compliance investigation; committee filing is the originating expense source.
A substantive amendment, corrected original record, or independently verified transaction/delivery evidence would reopen this report. No audience engagement or comprehension has been measured.
THIS STORY IN TIME
Keep the dates with the story.
- Reported development
- Evidence as of
- First retained publication
- This version published
Publication times are Central. A development date and an evidence date can differ. Missing dates remain unrecorded.