George C. Edwards III
Campaign Finances and SpendingPlease note: all links will open in a new browser window
FINANCING THE 1996 FEDERAL ELECTIONS
For the past year, researchers at the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics have painstakingly examined and classified more than 1.2 million individual contributions of $200 or more to federal candidates and political parties, in addition to another 230,000 contributions from political action committees. The Center has just issued its report on campaign financing in the 1996 presidential and congressional elections. Some of the high points are summarized here; you can also go directly to the Center's website at http://www.crp.org/crpdocs/bigpicture/default.htm for detailed information.
Campaign Donations
The Sources of Campaign Contributions for the 1996 Elections
Public Money $211 million Small Donations (under $200) $734 million Large Individual Donors $597 million Political Action Committees (PACs) $243 million Soft money $262 million Candidates $161 million Other $200 million TOTAL $2.4 billion
Candidates for different offices tend to get their money from distinctive groups of contributors. PAC contributions, for example, are most important to U.S. House candidates, where they accounted for nearly 40% of their revenues in 1996. Senate candidates typically get more total dollars from PACs than do House members, but they rely far more heavily on large donations from individuals to fuel their campaigns. Presidential candidates rely almost entirely on large individual donors, in addition to substantial help from their parties if they win the nomination.
The political parties, meanwhile, get the majority of their "hard money" dollars from small donors giving under $200, while their "soft money" donors tilt heavily toward corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals able to give tens of thousands of dollars - or more - with a single check. [See page 229 of Government and America for a discussion of "soft money."]
Campaign Spending
The 1996 federal elections cost about $2.2 billion. It is not possible to determine exactly how much was spent, because tens of millions of dollars were spent "off the books" on issue ads and similar campaigns that were never reported to the Federal Election Commission or any other agency. Such spending is legal.
Here's an overview of campaign spending, based on reports filed with the Federal Election Commission:
US House candidates $499.1 million Senate candidates $341.5 million Presidential candidates $453.8 million Parties hard money $622.8 million Parties soft money $271.5 million TOTAL $2.2 billion One important note about the numbers in the chart: the full cost of the presidential campaign is considerably higher than the figure for presidential candidates, because a substantial portion of the $900 million spent by the Democratic and Republican parties was used to support their respective tickets during the general election campaign.
What Did It Cost to Get Elected?
Getting elected to public office has never been more expensive. The average winning campaign for the House of Representatives cost over $673,000 in 1996. That's a 30 percent increase from just two years earlier, when the average seat cost $516,000. Ninety-four candidates for the House spent more than $1 million to get elected. Six of them spent $2 million or more, and the most expensive campaign of all was the reelection effort of House Speaker Newt Gingrich, which cost nearly $5.6 million.
In the Senate, the average seat in 1996 cost $4.7 million - only slightly more than it had been in recent years. Averages mean less in the Senate, though, since there are comparatively few races (only a third of Senate seats are up in any given election year) and since the costs in any one year depend heavily on which states are having elections. In 1996, neither California nor New York had Senate races. In 1998, both do, and those races will likely be expensive enough to push the averages up again.
Campaign Statistics
Senate
1996
1994
Average winner spent
$4,692,110
$4,569,940
Average loser spent
$2,773,756
$3,426,509
Number of incumbents seeking reelection
21
29
Number of incumbents reelected
19
24
Reelection rate
90.5%
82.8%
Number of close races (winning margin of less than 10%)
16
10
Average winner's vote percentage
56.1%
58.1%
Average winner's receipts from PACs
$1,090,173
$1,014,677
Average winner's end-of-year campaign balance**
$197,577
-$149,639
House of Representatives
1996
1994
Average winner spent
$673,739
$516,126
Average loser spent
$265,675
$238,715
Number of incumbents seeking reelection
384
387
Number of incumbents reelected
361
349
Reelection rate
94.0%
90.2%
Number of close races (winning margin of less than 10%)
80
87
Average winner's vote percentage
64.3%
66.6%
Average winner's receipts from PACs
$287,692
$225,895
Average winner's end-of-year campaign balance**
$118,446
$81,008
* Figures cover full 6 year cycle for Senate incumbents
** Cash on hand minus debts
[Note that these figures differ somewhat from the figures presented on page 292-293 of Government in America. The figures in the text are based on Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports and are calculated somewhat differently from those of the Center for Responsive Politics. You can find the FEC data at http://www.fec.gov/.
Does Money Buy Elections?
The perennial question regarding campaign finance is "Does Money Buy Elections?" The Center for Responsive Politics' report shows that in 1996, 92 percent of House races and 88 percent of Senate races were won by the candidate who spent the most money. In many cases, where incumbents were seeking reelection in reasonably safe seats, the greater campaign spending of winners probably reflected the fact that they were the favorites to win and had an easier time raising funds. However, incumbents' cash reserves undoubtedly kept many potential challengers from even entering the race. [See pages 290-292 of Government in America for a discussion of incumbents' advantages.] But even in races where no incumbent was running, the power of money was indisputable. The candidates who spent the most won a total of 43 of the 53 open-seat House races. In the Senate, the top spenders in open seat races won 12 out of 14 contests.
Money alone does not win elections, of course. Running for public office is an art form, and success is shaped by many factors. You still need a relatively attractive candidate with a coherent message. In addition, the realities of the district are critical to success. The demographics of most congressional districts favor the candidate of one of the major parties. A liberal Democrat is not likely to win in a conservative rural district, no matter how much he or she spends; a far-right Republican will have a tough time in an inner-city district. And candidates have learned, by and large, to watch their tongues, speak in generalities, and say things the voters are more likely to agree with than not.
Nevertheless, many congressional districts are competitive. Without money, a campaign is unlikely to obtain the attention of the electorate, let alone their votes. That's a reality that every candidate for public office understands, or quickly learns. And it's one reason that candidates - whether incumbents or challengers - are likely to spend as much time seeking dollars from potential donors as they do meeting with constituents or speaking at public events. [See pages 293-295 of Government in America for a discussion of the role of money in congressional elections.]