Money isn't quite as useful in elections as you might think

[nancylebov]

The rise of millionaire candidates is an interesting test of the thesis that money is the be-all and end-all of winning elections. The Center for Responsive Politics compiles lists of candidates who put large amounts of their personal money into elections for the House and Senate. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the results show that the overwhelming majority of them lose and often lose badly.

In 2002, 32 candidates put at least $500,000 of their own money into their campaigns. Only three won their elections. At the top of the list of losers was James F. Humphreys, Democrat of West Virginia, who spent almost $8 million of his own money to lose an election to the House of Representatives. Not far behind were Douglas Forrester, Republican of New Jersey, who invested $7.5 million to lose the Senate, and Erskine Bowles, Democrat of North Carolina, who spent almost $7 million to lose a Senate race in his state.

It's amusing to think of tempting rich people to spend their money on political campaigns as something like a progressive tax, but it may actually increase variation in wealth if the few who win come out wealthier as a result. Anyone know if they do?

Link thanks to Marginal Revolution.

Comments

[madfilkentist]

The rise of millionaire candidates is a consequence of "campaign reform" laws designed to prevent new coalitions and marginal parties from getting any traction. The Demopublicans would have preferred to ban all political spending except by those who are given the taxpayers' money to spend, but the Supreme Court wouldn't let them get away with quite that thorough an evisceration of the First Amendment.

[nwhyte]

Of course, the problem with it as a progressive tax is that the beneficiaries of the expenditure are really the campaign organisers and managers who are themselves already in the mid-to-upper level income brackets!

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

If the purpose of a progressive tax is to help poor people, then millionaire campaigning doesn't work. If the purpose is to break up concentrations of wealth, it might help a little.

[util.livejournal.com]

What fraction of these rich candidates would've won if they hadn't spent any of their own money? This seems like the relevant reference quantity.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

That's a really hard question to answer if being self-financed has both good and bad effects.

[kiya]

I think it's important to note that there's "having enough money to be able to consider making the run in the first place" -- being able to take the time and energy and so on to do it -- and there's "spending one's own money on the compaign", which is generally done when people are already losing as a last-ditch attempt to stay in.

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

It is an oft debated point whether money follows winners or winners follow money. The 2006 election was notable for the number of upsets and the number of candidates beating incumbents spending at 2-1 or 3-1. But other factors may have made this an outlier.