Why Money Didn't Buy The 2014 Midterms

Loading...
Loading...

There's at least one issue Republicans and Democrats agree on, and that's political spending.

75 percent of Americans (79 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans) feel there's too much money in politics, and only 25 percent believe there is an intrinsic right to unfettered election spending, according to a Reuters poll conducted in 2012.

But instead of increasing regulation on campaign finance, Supreme Court decisions of late–including the cases Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, widely considered to have opened the floodgates to political spending–have done the opposite, striking down contribution rules as violations of free speech. Together, the decisions eliminated the ban on corporate spending in elections, and created Super PACs, committees that can accept uncapped donations from any individual or organization.

Most recently, the Supreme Court lifted aggregate limits on what individuals can donate to committees and candidates per election cycle in the case McCutcheon v. FEC. Individual donations to candidates and PACS are still capped at $2,600 and $5,000, respectively, per election, but the respective $48,600 and $74,600 contribution limits are now gone.

Those calling for unfettered political spending consider these cases huge wins, but opponents are in an uproar, claiming that politicians can essentially buy elections.

And it's tempting to think that. After all, according to a study done by the Center for Responsive Politics, the top-spending candidate has won 93 percent of elections in the House and 83 percent of elections in the Senate from 2000 to 2010. We ran our own calculations for the 2014 midterms, and found similar results, with the top-spenders winning 92 percent of the time in the House and 79 percent of the time in the Senate.

Such numbers do seem to provide strong evidence that money buys elections, but the Center for Responsive Politics carefully hedged its own findings, stating, “It's a mistake, though, to conclude from this set of facts that more campaign money necessarily means more votes. The data, they say, “may also reflect the lack of competitiveness in the system and the difficulty that non-incumbents have raising money.”

Incumbents also enjoy a set of circumstances–simply by nature of being an incumbent–like party connections, name recognition, and a database of donors that give them an upper hand.

To account for lack of competition, the Center for Responsive Politics adjusted their study, only analyzing races where the winning margin was 10 percent or less. The percentage of instances where money won elections plummeted, with the best-financed candidates winning 64 percent of races in the House, and 59 percent of races in the Senate.

A similar result, but to a more extreme degree, played out in this year's Senate midterms in races where the winning margin–-according to polling company RealClearPolitics–-was less than 10 percent. Only 45 percent of the better-financed candidates in those races won the election, suggesting that money is necessary, but not sufficient in winning elections. When other factors turn elections competitive, deep pockets are far from the end-all.

This November, for example, we watched dissatisfaction with the status quo and the infamous six-year itch trump the influence of money. In fact, the electorate's dissatisfaction with Obama and his party proved so acute that six out of the seven candidates who outspent their opponents but still lost the election were Democrats in toss up states, where it's likely no amount of money was going to change the outcome.

Click below to see all seven races where the Senate candidate who outspent their opponent did not win the race.

Click to Begin

Michigan

Democrat Gary Peters defeated Republican Terri Lynn Land.

Next

Georgia

Republican David Perdue defeated Democrat Mary Nunn

Next

Arkansas

Republican Thomas Cotton defeated incumbent Mark Lunsford Pryor

Click to Begin

Loading...
Loading...

Alaska

Republican Dan Sullivan defeated incumbent Mark Begich

Next

Iowa

Republican Joni Ernst defeated Democrat Bruce Braley

Next

Colorado

Republican Cory Gardner defeated incumbent Mark Udall

Next

North Carolina

Republican Thom Tillis defeated incumbent Kay Hagan

 

Research all fundraising totals FindTheBest

 

The post Why Money Didn't Buy the 2014 Midterms appeared first on FindTheBest: The Official Blog.

Loading...
Loading...
Posted In: PoliticsEconomicsGeneral2014 Midtermscampaign fundingelections
Benzinga simplifies the market for smarter investing

Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.

Join Now: Free!

Loading...