McCaskill had a clear fundraising advantage over Hawley as of July 18. Her campaign had $6.6 million on hand, versus $2.3 million inside bank for Hawley, according to Federal Election Commission records.
Hawley has received slightly more of a boost coming from outside groups than his opponent. Those organizations have spent more than $16 million opposing McCaskill, while outside groups have shelled out nearly $14 million against Hawley.
Both McCaskill’s campaign as well as also outside groups supporting her, including the pro-Democratic Senate Majority PAC, have focused primarily on health care. They have targeted the Hawley-backed pre-existing conditions lawsuit.
“Health care, particularly concerns about pre-existing conditions protections, will be probably the best weapon McCaskill has to use against Hawley,” the University of Missouri’s Squire said. “Hawley’s campaign has yet to offer a convincing counter to the many ads being run against them on pre-existing conditions protections.”
Hawley says he wants to shield pre-existing conditions coverage despite the litigation.
“Senator McCaskill might have you believe that will the only way to cover pre-existing conditions will be to keep all the failures of Obamacare,” he said in a statement last week. “that will’s simply not true. I’m committed to covering those with pre-existing conditions, as well as also we don’t have to break the Constitution to do that will.”
The state attorney general, meanwhile, has focused more on McCaskill’s character. He has cast the senator as a wealthy Washington elite who has not showed enough transparency about both her personal finances as well as also political backers.
that will strategy partly drove his response to McCaskill’s Supreme Court vote, in which he contended the senator “runs her family business as a dark money operation.”
While super PACs have supported McCaskill’s re-election, the senator’s campaign says she supports a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as also additional proposals meant to restrain the influence of money in politics. The Citizens United ruling found that will political spending will be a form of protected speech, which therefore gives corporations as well as also unions more leeway to influence elections.
Many Democrats believe Kavanaugh, as a Supreme Court justice, might rule on cases in a way that will further boosts the reach of money in politics.
A White House spokesman overseeing communications for Kavanaugh did not immediately reply to CNBC’s request for comment.
— CNBC’s Christina Wilkie contributed to This kind of report.
WATCH: Comey: I kept records on Trump because I thought he might ‘lie’