Money makes the world go round, and U.S. Congressional elections are no different. Successful candidates will have things like consultants for strategizing, full-time staff for doorknocking and getting voters to the polls, advertisements on television and social media and through snail mail to get their name out there, and maybe even some opposition research to knock down a major opponent. All these things cost money, and as a result, the person who spends more money usually wins.

Upsets by the thriftier of the top two candidates are rare. According to data from OpenSecrets.org, they claim victory in only 1 in 10 of the 468 Congressional races in a good year, but most of the time it’s closer to only 1 in 20.  And a Congressional candidate that spends no money on their election at all never wins.

It’s easy to see why spending no money is a bad thing, especially if you have no name recognition to start, and one might argue that the raising and spending of money in an election is really what a good political race is all about, that when the candidates debate over ideas for policy and interact with the public, they’re fighting for dollars to build excitement and momentum for their campaign as much as they are fighting for votes on election day. The problem with this rosy model is that Congressional races aren’t really competitive, with the winner most often completely crushing the opposing candidate with a torrent of campaign spending.

Splitting winner spending into categories, one can see that well over a third of winners, more than a half in most election cycles, spend more than 20 times what the next most popular candidate does, and the winner spending more than 10 times their opponent happens half the time or more in any given year, two-thirds of the time in 2016. Winners spending only twice as much as their opponents or less make up a relatively small portion of races.

It’s intuitive that the candidate with more charisma and integrity, a better track record, and sensible or popular ideas is more likely to attract money, and so the better candidate will win anyway. Of course, any civics major will tell you about incumbent advantage in an election, which is how individual members of Congress stay in office despite the public’s confidence in the institution as a whole plummeting to about 10% in recent years. Those already holding a seat have name recognition from their previous race and time in office, the use of government resources, and the ability to control to a degree the terms of the next election. They also have easier access to campaign finance, and so money goes to more powerful candidate that donors have already invested in, not necessarily the best one for the job.
Unlike the degree of winner outspending in Congress, the ratio of incumbent to challenger fundraising has notably increased over the years, from 5.6 to 1 in Senate races in 2000 to 7.9 to 1 in 2016, and 4.4 to 1 up to 6.9 to 1 in the House over the same period.

 

 

More money in politics has only made it harder for a principled individual to make it into office and upset the status quo, not easier.