Money talked with a roaring voice in Tuesday's midterm
elections, according to a post-election analysis by the
non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Just over 95
percent of U.S. House races and 75 percent of Senate races were
won by the candidate who spent the most money, the Center found.
[And,
the leading contributor to the Republican effort, tobacco company Philip Morris]
That translates into 410 of 431 House races that were decided at
press time where the winning candidate outspent his/her
opponent, and 24 of 32 Senate races. Four races were still too
close to call at the time of this report's release--Colorado's
7th District, New Mexico's 1st District, Texas' 23rd District,
and South Dakota's Senate race, which was headed for a mandatory
recount. Two races in Louisiana--the 5th District House race and
the Senate contest--will hold runoffs Dec. 7 because no
candidate collected 50 percent of the vote.
The findings are based on the latest available spending reports
filed by candidates with the Federal Election Commission. Most,
but not all, candidates filed their most recent report Oct. 16.
Some 157 candidates--one-third of all those running for the
House or Senate--were financially unopposed in Tuesday's
election. Thirty-five had no opponent at all, while another 122
faced challengers who either spent no money at all or filed no
reports with the FEC. Federal rules require candidates to file
detailed reports of their contributions and expenditures if
their campaign costs exceed $5,000.
In all, 21 Republicans and eight Democrats managed to win their
seats despite being outspent. So did Bernie Sanders (Vt.), the
only Independent in the House of Representatives.
While the overwhelming majority of yesterday's races featured
incumbents running for re-election, money was also decisive when
two newcomers squared off in open seat races. The top spender in
House open seat contests won 79 percent of the time. It was a
very different story in the Senate, where four out of seven open
seat races (57 percent) were won by the candidate who spent the
least.
Two of those races - in New Jersey and Minnesota - were
anomalies, as they both saw last-minute replacements of the
original candidates with former senators. In Minnesota, Walter
Mondale stepped in after Democratic incumbent Paul Wellstone
died in a plane crash. In New Jersey, Frank Lautenberg took over
after incumbent Democrat Bob Torricelli gave up his campaign
under the cloud of scandal. Lautenberg and Mondale had virtually
no time to raise money (though Lautenberg put his own money in),
but their predecessors had raised plenty.
The prize for the most money spent by a losing candidate went to
incumbent Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.), who spent $9.7 million. Topping
the list in the House was Jim Humphreys, a West Virginia
Democrat making his second bid in as many elections for a seat
in the state's 2nd District. Each race cost him about $6
million, nearly all of which came from his own pocket.
In that regard, Humphreys follows a long tradition of
self-spending losers. In past years, about three-quarters of the
biggest spenders of their own money have lost at the polls. That
pattern seems to have held true this year as well. Twenty
candidates spent $1 million or more of their own funds running
for office this year, and 19 of them lost at the polls. Seven
never even made it past the primaries. The only winner in the
group was Lautenberg, who pumped $1,010,000 into his campaign
though Oct. 16. The man he beat, Republican Douglas Forrester,
was the biggest self-spender of all, with just under $7 million
invested in his unsuccessful race.
Click here to see Senate and House winning candidates who were
outspent by their opponents:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/election2002analysis.asp
November 7, 2002
CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS
NEWS ADVISORY NOVEMBER 6, 2002
202-857-0044; 202-857,7809, fax
www.opensecrets.org; info@crp.org
Contract:
Steven Weiss, sweiss@crp.org
