Money & Politics News

WASHINGTON, D.C.—As the 109th Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) issued a report, Look Who's Not Coming to Washington 2005, profiling candidates from 45 states who competed for the chance to be among the Washington decision-makers, but lost out to a significantly better-funded opponent. Among them is David W. Phelps, a Republican primary candidate in Illinois's 8th district, who won 31 percent of the vote but lost to Congressman Philip Crane, who out-raised him by a margin of 15 to 1.

The profiled candidates, many of whom have extensive public service experience, come from different backgrounds, ethnicities, and a range of political philosophies. What they have in common is that they all cite the influence of money on their races as a primary reason why they lost or pulled out of their races entirely.

"Unfortunately, the candidates with the best access to wealthy donors-not necessarily those who make the best representatives-continue to win elections almost every time," said U.S. PIRG Democracy Advocate Dana Mason. "Candidates who can't compete in the race for big money are weeded out, and Americans are left with fewer genuine representatives to choose from."

These 45 candidates were not alone in having confronted superior resources or fundraising power. As U.S. PIRG found in its last report, The Wealth Primary, the 2004 congressional primary candidates who raised the most money won in nine out of ten races. Winning candidates out-fundraised losing candidates by a 4-to-1 margin. Moreover, the majority of candidate funds came from a tiny percentage of the voting-age population. Preliminary data from the general elections indicates that the biggest fundraisers won at the same rate or greater in the final contests.

The candidates profiled in Look Who's Not Coming to Washington describe the obstacles they encountered in running against well-funded opponents. David W. Phelps, an attorney and local public official, testified to the formidable disadvantage he faced in running against a longtime incumbent with the ability to raise large sums from corporate interests. Without the funds to buy TV ads, Mr. Phelps ran his campaign by directly contacting voters. "My wife and I spent 13 months going door to door, holding open-house meetings at local libraries and participating in community parades and events," he said. (See below for Mr. Phelps' complete profile.)

Almost all of the profiled candidates feel that the current campaign finance system discourages good people from running, and a number of them said that they would not try again. According to U.S. PIRG's analysis, nearly two-thirds of congressional primary races were uncontested in 2004; the anecdotal evidence suggests that money in campaigns plays a significant role in dissuading potential candidates from entering the race.

U.S. PIRG asserts that the campaign finance system should be reformed to give candidates like Mr. Phelps a better chance to compete with those who are backed by wealthy interests. "Contribution limits should be lowered to levels that average Americans can afford," said Mason. "Low limits would give ordinary citizens greater opportunity for meaningful political participation and allow candidates to compete on a level playing field."

* * * * * * *
ILLINOIS
David Phelps
Attorney
Republican Primary Candidate in the 8th District

David Phelps, a longtime resident of Illinois's eighth district, is an attorney who has served as a local public official for 12 years. He was motivated to challenge 35-year incumbent Phil Crane for the Republican Party nomination because he felt Crane was doing an ineffectual job. Mr. Phelps identifies himself as a "moderate conservative Republican." His opponent, he says, "is a big advocate of outsourcing American jobs." On environmental issues, he was "appalled" by the incumbent's opposition to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, all of which Mr. Phelps would have supported.

Although the war chest of his opponent exceeded his own by a 15-to-1 margin, Mr. Phelps nonetheless netted 31 percent of the vote. He believes he lost because he was at a formidable disadvantage in facing a longtime incumbent who was able to raise a lot of money from big corporations, particularly drug and oil companies. Lacking the funds to launch a major ad campaign, Mr. Phelps campaigned the old-fashioned way, through direct contact with voters. "My wife and I spent 13 months going door to door, holding open-house meetings at local libraries and participating in community parades and events," he said.

The main problem with our current campaign finance system, according to Mr. Phelps, is that special interest groups can effectively buy influence. "Average individuals cannot match what is accumulated by corporations or special interest groups. The average person can't afford to give $1,000, let alone $2,000." Under a system of mandatory spending limits, he believes the regular person would stand a chance in a campaign. "But for the financial aspects of a campaign, you'd have a lot more qualified people running," he maintained.

As for his own prospects, he thinks they would improve if there were mandatory spending limits to put all the candidates on a level playing field. Asked if he would consider running for federal office again, he admits that fundraising concerns are the one factor that would weigh heavily in his decision. "The battle of the campaign war chest bleeds out a lot of good people," he said.

David Phelps lost to incumbent Representative Phil Crane in the 8th District Republican primary, receiving 31 percent of the vote. Representative Crane raised $312,000 for his primary bid, more than 15 times the $20,500 raised by Phelps. In an upset victory, challenger Melissa Bean defeated Representative Crane in the general election, matching his fundraising of nearly $1.6 million.