Untitled
Search
•
RSS Feed
Executive Summary
Large contributions made by a small fraction of Americans unduly
influence who runs for office and who wins elections in the United
States. Without personal wealth or access to networks of wealthy
contributors, many qualified and credible candidates are locked out of
contention for federal office—often before voters have the opportunity
to register their preferences or hear competing points of view.
Money
was as important to candidates in the most recent congressional
elections as it has ever been. Our analysis of Federal Election
Commission (FEC) campaign finance data for the 2004 election cycle
reveals the following:
- Ninety-one (91) percent of 2004 congressional primary candidates who raised the most money won their races.
- Sixty-five
(65) percent of all congressional primary elections were uncontested.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the role of money in campaigns plays a
significant part in discouraging candidates from running.
- Sixty-three
(63) percent of 2004 congressional primary candidates’ individual
donations came in contributions of at least $1,000—from just 0.08
percent of the voting-age population.
Moreover, according to
the Federal Election Commission, campaign fundraising continues to
increase at a rate greater than inflation. Winning congressional
candidates raised nearly 50 percent more in the 2004 cycle than in a
comparable period during the 2002 cycle.
In order to put a human
face on this data, we surveyed federal candidates who dropped out of
races, lost primaries, or lost general elections. The candidates
profiled in this report cite money as a primary reason why they lost or
pulled out of their races entirely. Many of the unsuccessful candidates
profiled are at least as credible and qualified as the eventual
winners. What they lack is something altogether different—personal
wealth, access to networks of wealthy donors, or policy positions that
appeal to large contributors.
Several candidates made powerful statements about the state of our democracy and our campaign finance system:
“Democracy
should never be for sale to the highest bidder. But democracy IS for
sale to the highest bidder—and our democracy is very ill served as a
result. … There’s never been real campaign finance reform, only
campaign finance reform perpetrated by the good ol’ boys and girls,
which puts those without wealth at a disadvantage and prohibits them
from challenging the status quo.”
- Charmaine Caccioppi, Democratic Candidate in Louisiana’s 3rd District Open Primary
“The
sad thing is that in America today if it’s going to take $2 million to
win, then normal people can’t run anymore. You either have to be very,
very wealthy or very, very bought.”
- Janice Bowling, Republican Nominee for Tennessee’s 4th District
“[The
system] protects incumbents because there’s so much money in the
system. Money is tilted towards incumbents, so there’s huge financial
disincentives [for challengers] . . . Being a maverick outsider is not
realistic when you’re up against a $1 million ad buy.”
- Jeff Steinborn, Democratic Primary Candidate in New Mexico’s 2nd District
“[Running
for Congress] is such a daunting task that it becomes a huge barrier
for ordinary people who want to run. It’s a business—you need a
professional fundraiser ... We have a professional political class [in
Congress] and we have a professional political class getting them
elected. Outsiders need not apply.”
- Mark Binder, Democratic Primary Candidate in Rhode Island’s 1st District
“[Fundraising]
is a big hurdle. I know a lot of people who would run—and I know people
who have run once, but then can’t do it again because they owe money
[as a result].”
- Dr. Inam Rahman, Republican Primary Candidate in Hawaii’s 2nd District
“My
opponent raised 65 percent of his money from outside special interests
at $10,000 a whack, while I’m collecting money from Sally and Joe.”
- Brian Hamel, Republican Nominee for Maine’s 2nd District
“[Our
campaign finance system] benefits incumbents who are in safe districts
and are in a position to really help some very narrow special
interests. In a broader sense, it hurts everybody because it naturally
makes [officeholders] inclined to give better service to those who give
[them] more money. Representation is supposed to be one vote per
person, not based on how much money you have…If you took the money out
of politics, it would change the whole dynamic and produce a much
healthier, more responsive, democracy.”
- Ben Konop, Democratic Nominee for Ohio’s 4th District
“If
we think we are a democracy, we’re deluding ourselves ... We purport to
be an example of democracy around the world, but in fact we have an
oligarchy ... I would hope and pray that we can take can take money out
of politics . . .”
- Leigh Pomeroy, Democratic-Farmer- Labor Party Nominee for Minnesota’s 1st District
|
