In at least ten U.S. House races in November 2014, the losing major party nominee spent at least $1,000,000 more than the other major party nominee. Some of the incumbents who lost are on this list. See the list here. Thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics for the link.
Sounds like this has more to do with Obama and the Democrats rather then money. But it does point out that money by itself can’t buy elections. State legislatures are working to limit money in elections and the numbers seem to indicate that money may be a factor but it’s just a small piece of the pie.
OK, you’ve convinced me, Richard. Money has no effect on the process of electing officials.
Ten losers overspent the winners by over a million dollars. Wow! Compelling stuff.
Of course there were over 400 other Congressional seats up for grabs, so one might think that the results in fewer than 3% of the elections are “outliers” and statistically pretty irrelevant. And one might also wonder how many incumbents ran for reelection effectively unopposed because potential opponents knew they had no chance of raising a sufficient amount of money to mount a viable campaign. And then there’s the question of whether the poison of the massive amount of money in our “system” of campaign finance really has less to do with the influence on who wins the election than it does on what leverage the money has on the winner before he chooses to run for reelection and returns with his hand out again. And one might also find it odd that freshman reps and senators are routinely given seats – by the leaderships of both parties – on the so-called “money” committees in both houses, since hey…it doesn’t matter whether the newbies make connections with the well-heeled, right? I mean, who needs money to win reelection?
But setting all those questions aside, if you really believe that money isn’t a problem in our system (you seem to relish posting articles that reinforce that notion – like the one about the nobody that won a nothing county job in CA by spending less than forty bucks), then why do you have any objections to limiting the amount of money that can be contributed to and spent by campaigns?
After all – money has no effect on who wins…right?
David – money DOES buy elections, and it DOES buy influence. Not by itself certainly, but try to win a few hundred seats in Congress without it.
Rich people don’t get rich or stay rich by pissing away their wealth without the expectation of a return on their investment.
I do think there is a problem now. That is why I favor public funding of campaigns, as long as it is not discriminatory.
Do you favor financing campaigns exclusively with public funding?
If you aren’t willing to make public funding the sole source of funding, you only exacerbate “the problem.”
You can’t drain a flooded basement by turning on the faucet in the utility sink.
It is impossible to ban independent expenditures, unless the free speech part of the First Amendment is changed. But there is no need for equality of resources. As I say often, Jesse Ventura won the 1998 election for Minnesota Governor even though each of his major party opponents had ten times as much money. If a candidate has enough money to get his or her message out, and it is a convincing message, and the message of his or her opponents is not convincing, then the candidate with the convincing message will win.
Money is just one resource for helping a candidate win. The personal characteristics of the candidates matter; the ability of a candidate to inspire volunteer labor is another; the ability of a candidate to get popular celebrities into the campaign is another; the attitude of community leaders, influential newspapers, churches and other membership organizations, is yet another.
Yes, you’ve mentioned Jessie Ventura before. Proves nothing. The fact that every now and again the stars can align and an underfunded candidate can win does NOT DISPROVE the fact that money – big, dripping gobs of money, is necessary to win the vast majority of elections in this country.
Kansas City got to the World Series this year. Wanna bet that they’ll make it again this year on their small market budget? (Please, if you do want to make that bet, please for goodness sakes drop me a private email).
The occasional anomalies don’t change the fact that the disgusting amount of money that is raised every election cycle (an average of more than a million dollars by Congressional candidates and ten million by Senate candidates – http://maplight.org/content/73190) pollutes, cripples, distorts and perverts our government and our society.
If we as a society can put any limits on how individuals can spend their money (on recreational drugs, prostitutes, for instance) then we can put limits on how individuals spend our money on elections of public officials.
In fact…we do! Pick any candidate for Senate and send his or her campaign a check for $20,000. See if it makes it to your bank of deposit. Seems to me that’s a constraint on your right to “free speech.”
Adding a public funding component to campaign finance without eliminating or severely restricting the other sources of funding solves nothing.
It is constitutional to tell an individual that he or she can’t spend money on hiring a sex partner, but it is not constitutional to tell someone they can’t spend money advocating that prostitution be made legal.
ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders are THE PROBLEM.
All of the campaign finance stuff is one more giant distraction.
—
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Do you twitch when you say something that nonsensical, Richard?
What’s the “constitutional” limit imposed on individuals making direct contributions to campaigns, Richard?
It’s time for a new opera. Why not change your name to Klingsor?
Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha hah.
Richard, your Libertarian pedigree has deformed your thinking.
You stated that it’s impossible to restrict independent contributions without changing the first amendment.
Are you stating, for the record, that there are no constraints on the first amendment right to “free speech?”
Bullshit, Richard.
Here’s the problem. YOU think that the accumulation of wealth comes with a commensurate accumulation of influence.
I don’t.
No representation without taxation!
If voting were based on the amount of taxes paid, there would likely be less money spent on campaigns.
Alternatively, we could limit government funding based on the amount spent on elections. Let’s say 1000x the amount spent on campaigns. For 2012 and 2014 about $11 billion was spent on federal elections. Divided over 4 years, that would be $2.75 billion per year. So limit federal spending to $2.75 trillion. Excess revenues could be rebated, or used to pay down the federal debt.