Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) has raised approximately $5.27 million during the 2025-26 election cycle, compared with $137,292 raised by Democratic challenger Rachel Fetty Anderson. That gives Capito a fundraising advantage of approximately 38-to-1 in a race rated Solid Republican. ​

Capito also holds a substantial cash advantage. As of Sept. 30, her campaign reported approximately $4.64 million on hand with no outstanding debt, compared with Fetty Anderson's $24,787 in cash. Fetty Anderson had approximately 0.5% as much cash available as Capito.

The candidates' reported donor occupations reflect different fundraising patterns. CEOs contributed approximately $234,000 to Capito, followed by lawyers at $174,000, company presidents at $158,000, and executives at $131,000. Fetty Anderson's largest reported occupational groups were dentists at $2,000, emeritus professors at $1,500, consultants at $1,385, and lawyers at $750.

Retired and not-employed contributors accounted for approximately $447,000, or 15%, of Capito's reported itemized individual donations, compared with $12,000, or 46%, of Fetty Anderson's. Capito also received substantial contributions and transfers from political committees. According to the supplied analysis, these sources accounted for approximately 30% of her reported receipts, compared with none for Fetty Anderson.

Outside organizations have reported approximately $309,000 in general-election independent expenditures supporting Capito through Oct. 18, including spending by American Mission and Take Me Home WV Action. No comparable spending supporting Fetty Anderson was identified in the same compilation.

The cash disparity gives Capito substantially more resources for advertising, voter outreach and campaign operations ahead of the Nov. 3 election. Fetty Anderson enters the final weeks with less than $25,000 in cash, while Capito holds more than $4.6 million.

---

Track the full campaign finance data at Allciv.com

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article