Elon Musk spent almost $450m backing Republican political candidates in the US midterms — more than anyone has spent in an election cycle — and the party lost the House, the Senate and a string of statewide races anyway.

The scale of the spending made the result a test of whether money can still decide American elections. Musk's money went to Republican-aligned political action committees and groups, and he was personally involved in several races, including the Texas Senate contest where he backed Ken Paxton.

Musk spent at least $45m in support of Paxton, according to a BBC analysis of campaign finance data. Paxton lost to Democrat James Talarico, in a state that had not elected a Democratic senator since 1988.

A record that did not buy results

The spending was unprecedented in size, and it bought visibility: advertising, field operations and the kind of turnout machinery that campaigns cannot build alone. What it could not buy was a candidate who appealed to enough voters.

Republicans' problems were structural as well as financial. The cost of living dominated the campaign, the president's approval ratings were weak, and several candidates carried baggage that no amount of advertising could remove. Money can amplify a message; it cannot invent one.

The result has also raised questions about the relationship between the technology industry and the Republican Party. Musk's companies have gained an estimated $10bn in new government contracts since Trump returned to office, and the billionaire has been a visible presence in the administration's orbit.

What Democrats will do with it

Democratic control of Congress gives the party subpoena power and committee chairs, and Musk is an obvious target. Expect investigations into government contracts, into the relationship between his companies and federal agencies, and into the role of social media platforms in the election.

Musk's own response was characteristic. He posted on X that his previously floated idea to build data centres in space was "looking pretty appealing right now" — a joke that also signalled how exposed he now is to political scrutiny on the ground.

The wider money story

The midterms were expensive across the board, and Musk was not the only billionaire writing large cheques. But his spending was the most visible, and his losses were the most conspicuous, which is why the result has been read as a verdict on a particular model of political influence.

That model — a single wealthy donor, a network of allied groups and a message amplified on a platform he owns — may still work in some races. It did not work in this one, in this year, against these opponents.

For the technology industry, the lesson is that political exposure cuts both ways. Companies that align themselves closely with one party invite scrutiny when that party loses, and the scrutiny is easier to pursue when Congress is controlled by the other side.

What comes next

The investigations will take months, and the spending totals will be studied by both parties as they plan for the next cycle. Musk's own political future is unclear: he remains the world's richest person, with a platform and a following that no other donor can match, but his record in this election is now a line in his biography that opponents will use.

The broader question is whether the result changes how money is deployed in American politics. It rarely does. But the sight of a record spender losing the biggest races of the night is the kind of evidence that campaigns remember.

The political landscape has shifted quickly: the Democratic takeover of Congress and the market reaction are already reshaping expectations. Musk's spending is now part of that story rather than the explanation for it.

The result also complicates the narrative that technology money now decides American politics. Musk's spending was larger than any previous individual effort, and it was concentrated in races where the party needed a push. That it failed suggests that the marginal value of money falls sharply once both sides are well funded, and that candidate quality and national conditions matter more than any single donor.

For the companies involved, the political exposure is now explicit. Government contracts, regulatory decisions and antitrust enforcement all run through a Congress that will be controlled by the other party, and committee chairs have already signalled an interest in the technology sector. Musk's businesses are unusually dependent on federal decisions, which makes the scrutiny more consequential than it would be for a donor without government contracts.

What happens next will be watched closely by both parties. Democrats will use the hearings to argue that the relationship between the administration and the technology industry needs limits, while Republicans will have to decide whether to defend a donor whose spending did not deliver. Neither argument is comfortable, and both will play out in public.

The wider news day included related coverage, related coverage, related coverage.

The total will be examined by both parties as they plan their spending for the next cycle, and by regulators looking at how independent expenditure is disclosed.