Political campaigns have always been high-stakes affairs, but in 2025, candidates in states like Alabama and Arizona are facing a new set of challenges—and not just from their opponents. From record-breaking fundraising battles in the Deep South to urgent debates over personal security in the Southwest, this election cycle is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and complex in recent memory.
In Alabama, the race for attorney general has quickly become the state’s scrappiest contest of 2026, with Republican candidates Katherine Robertson and Jay Mitchell raising nearly $137,000 and $131,000, respectively, just last month. According to recent campaign finance reports cited by AL.com, these two have amassed the largest war chests in a contested primary, setting the stage for a heated showdown ahead of the May 19, 2026 GOP primary.
Robertson, currently chief counsel to outgoing Attorney General Steve Marshall, has not been shy about touting her recent financial and political victories. In a written statement Friday, she emphasized her grassroots support and a major endorsement from the Alabama Farmers Federation, stating, “Our campaign is powered by the people of Alabama – farmers, small business owners, families, and law enforcement leaders. From the farms in the Wiregrass to the factories in north Alabama, everyday Alabamians are stepping up because they know I’ll stand strong as their attorney general to protect our borders, defend our constitutional rights, and hold the radical left accountable.”
Meanwhile, Mitchell, a former Alabama Supreme Court associate justice who resigned to run for the post, underscored the local backing behind his campaign. “Voters know that I am the candidate who will move the needle on the issues that interfere with their daily lives,” he wrote in a statement Thursday. “They know I will not tolerate violent crime or entertain woke nonsense, and they are confident in my commitment to providing a stable regulatory environment.” Mitchell also pointed out that 99.9% of his September contributions came from within Alabama, a detail he hopes will resonate with voters wary of outside influence.
The fundraising arms race is fueled by significant contributions from political action committees and high-profile donors. Mitchell’s largest donations last month were three gifts totaling $50,000 from Tuscaloosa-based PACs run by political consultant Michael Echols. He spent about $116,000 in September alone. Robertson, for her part, took in nearly $113,000 in September, alongside a $25,000 donation reported on October 6 from Hugh Culverhouse Jr.—a Florida philanthropist known for his outspoken views on Alabama’s abortion laws and for previously giving $150,000 to Robertson’s campaign in August. Culverhouse’s support for pro-life organizations and Republican figures like President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. Katie Britt has been noted by Robertson’s campaign as a marker of her conservative credentials. She also received $35,000 in support from PACs run by Montgomery-based Fine and Geddie and spent about $72,000 in September.
As of early October, Mitchell leads with $1.9 million on hand, Robertson follows with $1.4 million, and Blount County District Attorney Pamela Casey—another GOP primary contender—trails with about $594,000. Notably, there is currently no Democrat raising funds for the attorney general race, and the seat is open due to term limits on Steve Marshall, who is now running for U.S. Senate.
While Alabama’s candidates are focused on building their war chests and securing endorsements, their counterparts in Arizona are grappling with a very different, and in some ways more urgent, challenge: personal safety. Following the tragic shooting death of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, and other violent incidents, Arizona’s political landscape has been rocked by concerns over security for elected officials and candidates.
On October 5, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes issued a memo stating that his office will not pursue campaign finance complaints against candidates who use campaign funds for personal security. The memo, obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times, was prompted by a wave of inquiries from potential officeholders anxious about their safety in the wake of Kirk’s death. “Unfortunately, personal security has become a necessary part of running for and holding elected office,” Fontes wrote, acknowledging that while state law doesn’t expressly prohibit such expenditures, it doesn’t clearly allow them either.
The ambiguity in Arizona’s campaign finance laws has left many candidates and elected officials in a bind. Some, like Senator Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix, have already taken matters into their own hands. Bolick and her husband, Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, used personal funds to install security cameras at their home after receiving death threats during the 2020 election. The threats intensified in 2024 after the state Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s territorial abortion ban and the Legislature later repealed it, prompting the Department of Public Safety to offer additional security and encourage further protective measures.
Bolick, who has become something of a go-to advisor for colleagues on security, supports the use of campaign funds for personal safety but insists that clearer rules are needed. “If it’s not clearly defined how you want to secure yourself, you might have members who think this is a good time to go out and buy a bunch of firearms or attack dogs or something silly,” she remarked, advocating for legislation to specify what counts as appropriate spending.
Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which oversees public funding for candidates who avoid special interest money, also supports using public funds for campaign security. At its September 25 meeting, Clean Elections Director Tom Collins assured commissioners that such expenditures would not violate commission rules, though he echoed the call for more detailed legislative guidance to address gray areas like in-kind contributions and allowable expenses.
The heightened security concerns have already led to practical changes. Governor Katie Hobbs’ office no longer shares press conference locations without an RSVP, and both Republican and Democratic leaders in the Legislature have requested increased security at the Capitol. Top officials like Hobbs, Senate President Warren Petersen, and House Speaker Steve Montenegro are entitled to Department of Public Safety details, but many others must fend for themselves.
For now, whether candidates are actually using campaign funds for security will become clear when campaign finance reports are filed with the Secretary of State’s office in the coming weeks. In the meantime, Bolick continues to advise fellow lawmakers on best practices, such as using a post office box as a campaign address and avoiding public disclosure of event locations. “We’re going to have fewer people that want to run for office if we don’t actually clearly outline how you can protect your family while you’re running for office or while you’re serving our state and our community,” she warned.
As campaign season heats up across the country, the twin pressures of financial competition and personal safety are forcing candidates to navigate a landscape that is as fraught as it is unpredictable. The choices made now—in Alabama’s fundraising battles and Arizona’s security debates—may well shape the future of American politics in ways that reach far beyond the 2026 election cycle.
