At the height of Beatlemania, Paul McCartney wrote a lyric that still resonates 60 years later: “I don’t care too much for money; money can’t buy me love.”

It’s been playing on repeat in my head the past few days as I sort through Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton’s victory in the Democratic primary election for Illinois’ open U.S. Senate seat. With an assist from Gov. JB Pritzker, Stratton knocked off longtime polling and fundraising leader, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Schaumburg, along with Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Lynwood.

Between two dark money groups funded by the cryptocurrency industry, a political action committee largely funded by Pritzker and the candidates’ own war chests, more than $55 million was ultimately expended in the Democratic race to succeed Sen. Dick Durbin.

With this and the more than $62 million spent in Democratic primaries for four open U.S. House seats in the Chicago region, money is one of the dominant storylines this cycle.

But it is impossible to tell the story of how Stratton toppled Krishnamoorthi without also understanding the role money did — and did not — play in the outcome.

Raja’s riches, Pritzker’s response

Krishnamoorthi spent years filling his campaign coffers in preparation for a Senate run, meaning he could afford to be on television nonstop once he launched his first ad last July. In all, his campaign spent about $28 million on paid media, by far the most of any group.

With that head start, he built a large polling lead and, in some ways, an aura of inevitability as Stratton and Kelly struggled to raise funds necessary to get their messages out.

But even then, there were signs of trouble. Most notably, Krishnamoorthi’s support appeared stuck at a stubborn ceiling of around 40% in polling. Surveys also continued to show a sizable bloc of undecided voters despite his near-universal name recognition and the fact that his rivals had yet to mount any serious paid communication.

Starting in January, that changed.

The Pritzker-funded Illinois Future PAC launched a long-expected $15 million ad blitz boosting Stratton. It coincided with the first candidate debates, which Stratton’s campaign leveraged to sharpen contrasts with her opponents by highlighting her pledges not to accept corporate PAC money, abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without qualification and support a $25-per-hour federal minimum wage.

“We knew she would be really strong in the debates, and we devoted a lot of time and preparation and were very strategic about it,” Kaitlin Fahey, the general consultant to Stratton’s campaign, told Capitol News Illinois. “And so she showed up at those first two debates ready to define herself, to define her campaign and the values that she was leading with and to lay in that contrast to her opponents.”

Clips from the debates, including Stratton hitting Krishnamoorthi on nearly $30,000 he received from an ICE contractor along with his support for a resolution last year that included language “thanking” ICE officers, were played in news media, distributed via the campaign’s social media channels and amplified in paid ads by Illinois Future PAC.

“One lesson from this is: IE’s (Independent expenditures) can help — that outside money can certainly help,” Fahey said. “But you can’t run ads on a candidate who doesn’t actually have something compelling to say, and we had an exceptionally strong candidate and a strong campaign message that outside groups were able to leverage and sort of help in that way.”

‘The new boss’

Also at the center of the PAC’s messaging was the man largely bankrolling it: Pritzker.

The governor is easily the most popular elected official among Illinois Democrats. One of the PAC’s closing advertisements used Pritzker’s voice to reinforce his endorsement and Stratton’s role as his governing partner over the past seven years.

“I think that tipped the balance towards Stratton in the end,” a source close to Krishnamoorthi’s campaign told Capitol News Illinois of the Pritzker ad.

There’s likely some truth there. The election results fit neatly with the state’s media markets, with Stratton performing stronger-than-expected in the Bloomington-Peoria, Champaign-Springfield-Decatur and St. Louis markets, where the Pritzker ad ran. Krishnamoorthi, on the other hand, performed better in the Quad Cities, Rockford and deep Southern Illinois, where it didn’t run as heavily.

“(Raja) is a likable guy, but JB Pritzker is far and away the most popular Democrat in the state,” the source close to Krishnamoorthi’s campaign said. “So you could be f-ing Jesus Christ in this race, but JB over eight years has built up this persona as ‘The Democrat’ in Illinois. He is the new boss — he is the kingmaker in Illinois, for better, for worse.”

Mike Ollen, Pritzker’s top political advisor, told Capitol News Illinois it isn’t that simple.

The billionaire governor was certainly backing Stratton. But he was also “fighting against out-of-state corporate special interests that funneled eight figures into this race to try and define who Illinoisans voted for,” Ollen said.

That was a reference to more than $10 million spent by pro-crypto groups Fairshake and Protect Progress against Stratton. Ollen said there’s a difference between Pritzker supporting his No. 2 and special interest groups seeking to influence policy.

“This is a time where we believe that we have an existential threat to this country and to our democracy, and it’s incumbent upon all of us to fight against it,” Ollen said. “And we seem to have one Bruce Wayne on our side that’s willing to do it.”

Pritzker, at an unrelated appearance in Chicago on Thursday, reiterated his support for campaign finance reform, but made clear he has no intention of unilaterally disarming.

Money and a message

Everyone has a take on the impact the flood of money had on this race. Here’s mine: Money was obviously a factor. The leading candidates needed it to communicate with voters.

But money isn’t worth anything without a winning message and an effective messenger to deliver it.

Krishnamoorthi and PACs aligned with him still outspent Stratton and her allies even after Pritzker put his thumb on the scale.

To me, that signals that money was less the decider than the equalizer of sorts in this race.

Stratton’s folks believe she won because she portrayed herself as the most unequivocal fighter against President Donald Trump. Krishnamoorthi tried to do the same, but the ICE attacks hurt and his broader message never fully resonated.

A clear illustration for me was the difference in how they communicated their opposition to Trump. Krishnamoorthi touted, in paid ads, a detailed 11-page “Trump Accountability Plan” modeled after post-Watergate reforms. Stratton, on the other hand, released a digital ad last month featuring people, including Sen. Tammy Duckworth, saying “F–k Trump, vote Juliana.”

Krishnamoorthi’s was a serious proposal worthy of someone wanting to be a United States Senator. In Freudian terms, it represents the ego — reason and deliberation — of the human psyche. Stratton’s went viral with its appeal to the visceral anger Democrats feel towards Trump. This represents the id — the instinctual part of the human psyche.

Most Democrats in Trump 2.0 appear to be listening to the latter. At the very least, it’s the kind of fighting words they want to hear from their candidates.

Pritzker’s money gave Stratton the opportunity to overtake Krishnamoorthi. But capitalizing on it required a message that met the moment. Tuesday’s results made clear that Stratton delivered it to enough Democratic primary voters.

Brenden Moore is a politics and government reporter for Capitol News Illinois, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. Moore in Springfield is his regular analysis column.