Best 2010 Election Results News
Here’s the best news to come out of the 2010 elections: Fewer than one in five self-funded candidates won their elections.
The data comes from Bradley S. O’Leary of The PM Group, and is reported in the manuscript, “2010 Elections: From Tide to Tsunami,” prepared for the 43rd Annual World Conference of the International Association of Political Consultants on Nov. 9., 2010. I saw him present it at the American Association of Political Consultants Academic Outreach Conference at the University of Akron, on Nov. 19. In a nutshell:
- 58 federal level candidates spent $1/2 million or more of their own cash on their campaigns. Only 11, or fewer than one in five, won.
- 32 federal level candidates spent at least $1 million of their own money. Only 4, or one in five, won.
- 8 federal level candidates spent more than $3 1/2 million of their own money. Only 1 of them won.
I have great concern about the increase in self-funded candidates, and loathe the faux-populist tactic of refusing to accept a paycheck (Michigan’s governor elect, Rick Snyder, is currently considering this “honorable” maneuver). There’s no surer way to permanently implant a true aristocracy than to elect only those wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. Regardless of party, it’s good to see the majority of these folks go down to inglorious defeat.
Someone should share this info with Michael Bloomberg…Report
The classic definition of chutzpah is murdering your parents and then asking for sympathy because you’re an orphan. Claiming you’re qualified to be a senator because of your private sector experience while financing your campaign with golden parachute money is a close second.Report
James, when an Off The Cuff post is more than a couple/few sentences, could you put the rest behind “Read More”? It doesn’t take a very long post at all to take up a lot of OTC-space.Report
We’re not all that much better off if the only ones who can afford to hold office are those who have some independent source of support. Wealth is only one, obviously. If you want to see this in action have a look at Arizona: we pay our legislators just a bit above an annualized minimum wage ($24k/yr.) One arguably positive result is that we have a high proportion of women (supported by their husbands) but it’s rather strange seeing a fanatically “small government” legislature with a high proportion drawing Social Security. For some reason they’re not terribly interested in funding education, by the way.Report
Trumwill–Will do. I hadn’t realized how much space this post would take up.Report
“There’s no surer way to permanently implant a true aristocracy than to elect only those wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns.”
You mean like people who get to use tax money to fund their campaigns?
It’s not like those poor poor Democrats had to scrimp and save and beg in the street. Brown and Boxer matched Whitman and Fiorina ad-for-ad, at least as far as I saw from watching TV.Report
I’m not a fan of public funding because it favors incumbents.
My post was not an attack on Republicans, but on self-funded candidates and an oligarchy. Please don’t assume I see self-funded Dems any differently than self-funded Republicans.Report