The Wealth Primary: The Role of Big Money in the 2006 Congressional Primaries
Executive Summary
Despite the recent corruption scandals in
Washington, D.C., the most significant
problem with money in politics is that large
contributions, which only a fraction of the
American public can afford to make, unduly
influence who runs for office and who wins
elections in the United States. Money is a
critical, and perhaps decisive, factor in
determining election outcomes. Candidates
who wish to present their views to the voters
must first compete in the "wealth primary."
Without personal wealth or the ability to raise
large sums of money from well-heeled
contributors, many aspiring officeholders are
locked out of the process before the first vote is
cast. Those voters who wish to express views
that are not supported by wealthy donors are
left without an outlet.
Our focus on primaries is particularly
instructive. Partisan redistricting has ensured
that fewer general elections for the U.S. House
of Representatives are meaningfully
competitive. This means that the primary
election of the dominant party is often the most
important race in many districts and makes
primaries the best forum in which to examine
the influence of money on winning and losing�
free from the confounding factor of district
makeup.
Our analysis of Federal Election Commission
(FEC) campaign finance data for the 2006
primary elections shows that money played a
key role in determining election outcomes and
that most campaign contributions came from a
small number of large donors.
• Money was a key factor in determining
primary election outcomes. According to
FEC data, major party congressional
candidates who raised the most money won
92% of their primary races in 2006.
Candidates who spent the most won 91% of
the time. Winning candidates out-raised
their opponents by a margin of 3.5-to-1,
with the winners raising an average of
$1.06 million and losers raising $304,000.
This pattern held true for open seat races
as well. The biggest fundraiser won 82% of
the contests without an incumbent running
for re-election in the district.
• The vast majority of campaign contributions
came from a small number of large donors.
FEC data indicate that while only 0.27% of
voting age Americans made a contribution
to a candidate of $200 or more, these large
donations accounted for 82% of individual
contributions received by primary
candidates. More than a quarter (29%) of
the contributions came at or above the
$2,000 level, while only 0.03% of voting
age Americans made a $2,000
contribution.
• Large war chests hindered electoral
competition. Fully three quarters (76%) of
2006 congressional primary races featured
only one candidate seeking his or her
party's nomination, providing voters with no
real choice on primary election day. One
reason for this is that large financial
advantages of either incumbents or firstmovers
(often party favorites) discourage
meaningful competition. Incumbent
candidates began the 2006 election cycle
with about $188 million in cash on hand,
for an average of more than $432,000 per
incumbent. The average incumbent
Senator started his or her reelection
campaign with $1.43 million already on
hand.
In order to strengthen the voices of ordinary
non-wealthy Americans in the political process
and break the stranglehold of a small minority
of well-heeled donors over who runs for office
and who wins elections, we recommend the
following policy proposals:
• Offer candidates who demonstrate
sufficient community support a full
public funding option in exchange for
accepting a voluntary spending limit
and forgoing private funds;
• Provide free media for qualified
candidates;
• Provide incentives for small political
contributions such as tax credits,
refunds, and vouchers;
• Lower campaign contribution limits to a
level that average Americans can afford
to give; and
• Limit campaign spending to make
elections contests of ideas, not battles
for dollars.
|
