WASHINGTON,
D.C.—Fundraising and campaign spending are proving once again to be
incredibly accurate predictors of who wins elections according to an
analysis of recent Federal Elections Commission (FEC) data for the 2006
congressional primaries released today by U.S. PIRG.
Despite numerous public opinion polls indicating record levels of
public frustration with the current Congress and the best opportunities
for challengers in more than a decade, 76% of the primary elections
were uncontested. Report authors argue that the common thread linking
the campaigns is the amount of money the winners raised and spent on
their campaigns compared with funds raised and spent by their opponents.
“This
study indicates that going into the final stretch, look to the
candidate with more campaign funds to win the election,” said U.S.
PIRG’s Democracy Advocate Gary Kalman.
The report released today, The Wealth Primary,
showed that the biggest fundraisers won 92% of the 2006 major party
primaries. Furthermore, party nomination campaigns were primarily
funded by large contributions from less than one tenth of one percent
of the electorate.
U.S. PIRG maintains that the current campaign finance system forces
candidates to compete for dollars in a “wealth primary.” Those who are
unable to raise large sums from wealthy contributors are filtered out
of the process, either by losing their primaries or deciding not to run
in the first place.
“This
report confirms what every prospective candidate knows—the first
questions to ask are about money. Am I rich? Do I know rich people who
will give me money? If not, my chances of reaching Congress are slim
and maybe I’d better pursue another line of work,” U.S. PIRG Democracy
Advocate Adam Lioz added.
The dominance of big money also appears to have hindered electoral
competition. With three-quarters of the races uncontested, the report
suggests that the lack of competition can be traced in part to large
financial advantages of incumbents or “first-movers” (often party
favorites). Incumbent candidates began the 2006 election cycle with
more than $188 million in cash on hand.
“Incumbents
fare very well in the wealth primary system,” Lioz noted. “Large
contributions from PACs, lobbyists, and other special interests are a
principal advantage of incumbency. Officeholders routinely build huge
war chests that scare off credible challengers before the first vote is
cast.”
Among the report’s additional key findings:
-
Major party congressional candidates who spent the most money won 91%
of their primary races in 2006, according to FEC data. Winning
candidates out-raised their opponents by a margin of 3.5 to-1, with the
winners raising an average of $1.06 million and losers raising
$304,000.
-
While only 0.03% of voting age Americans made a contribution to a
candidate of $2,000 or more, these large donations accounted for more
than 29% of individual contributions received by primary candidates.
Contributions of $200 and above, made by 0.27% of Americans, accounted
for 82% of all individual contributions.
-
Overall, incumbents began the 2006 election cycle with an average of
more than $432,000 of cash on hand; incumbent Senators began their
reelection campaigns with an average of $1.43 dollars already on hand.
U.S. PIRG called for Congress and state legislatures to provide
candidates who agree to spending limits and refuse special interest and
other private contributions with public financing. As a signal to
voters of their commitment to changing the system, U.S. PIRG also urged
all current congressional candidates to sign the Voters First Pledge.
