Money & Politics News

In all congressional primaries so far this year, more than three out of every four contested races were won by the candidate who raised the most money twelve days before the primary, according to pre-primary FEC data analyzed by PIRG.

Of all congressional candidates, including those who were unopposed, 92% who out-raised their opponents won the primary. In New Jersey, preprimary FEC reports indicate that candidates for federal office raised $48 million and spent $39 million from January 1, 1999 to May 17, 2000.

“Fundraising ability has become the primary job qualification for elected office,” said Julia Hutchins, NJ PIRG’s national democracy advocate. “Big money politics inevitably favors candidates who either appeal to large contributors or have significant personal wealth. The potential candidate who could attract broad support but lacks big money connections is effectively screened out during the pre-election ‘wealth primary,’” she continued.

Preprimary FEC reports indicate that New Jersey congressional candidates collectively gave $25.7 million in personal funds to their races through May 17, 2000, with seven candidates giving more than $100,000 to their own campaigns.

In the race to fill the open House seat in the 7th district, Democrat Michael Lapolla was the only candidate who did not give personal funds to his campaign. PIRG also found that contributions of $1000, the maximum allowable amount, make up a significant proportion of individual campaign contributions. Maximum contributions to New Jersey Senate candidates made up 71% of the contributions received from individual donors giving more than $200 through March 31, 2000.

“The handful of people who can afford to give maximum $1000 contributions have an enormous amount of political muscle. Collectively, large donors can influence who runs for office and who wins elections,” said Hutchins. “Advocates for campaign finance reform should focus less on how big money influences the decisions of politicians and more on how big money distorts the electoral process.”

New Jersey PIRG recognizes the need for comprehensive campaign finance reform, yet notes congressional reluctance to address the wholesale corrupting influence of large “hard” money donations. Although the current reform legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Feingold would ban unlimited “soft” money contributions to political parties, it would do nothing to restrict the undue political power of wealthy donors to pre-select candidates. Instead, recent congressional ‘reforms,’ like Sen. Hagel’s Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2000, call for tripling of the current $1000 contribution limit. In the House, all of the New Jersey representatives voted against a similar amendment last fall that was defeated by a vote of 300 to 127.

Derek Cressman, democracy campaign director for the state PIRGs, worries that raising the contribution limits will compound existing campaign finance problems and further disadvantage grassroots candidates: “Campaign finance reforms should address the wholesale corruption that occurs when large donors effectively control the electoral process. Higher contribution limits would benefit candidates who have raised a relatively large proportion of their funds from maximum donors. These candidates would raise even more money if they could solicit $3000 instead of $1000 from major donors. On the other hand, raising the limits would disadvantage candidates who are funded largely by small donors and lack the support of wealthy special interests.”