Self-financing candidates can’t buy love; wealthy challengers rarely win the elections

Question of the Day

Should Congress make English the official language of the U.S.?

View results

With the cost of campaigns ballooning, political parties, and Republicans in particular, are increasingly turning to wealthy candidates who can fund their own bids. The only problem is that those self-funders generally lose.

The number of self-funded candidates rose from 78 in 1990 to highs of 223 in 2010 and 193 in 2012, according to an analysis by The Washington Times of candidates who financed the majority of their campaign costs. In previous decades, the partisan split was equal, but the recent rise has been fueled almost entirely by wealthy Republicans.

Yet the results aren’t encouraging.

Of 1,752 self-funded candidates in federal elections since 1990, only 42 have been elected — a success rate of just 2.4 percent.

“There are always some people that think they’ll beat those odds, and some will. But very, very few do,” said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics.

Last year saw prominent self-funder Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst lose his state’s Republican Senate primary to Ted Cruz, and saw beer heir Joseph Coors Jr. run as the GOP’s nominee for a Colorado House seat, though the $3.5 million he spent from his own funds didn’t carry him to victory in November.

Coal mining magnate Tom Smith secured the Republican nomination for the Senate in Pennsylvania last year but lost to incumbent Democrat Robert P. Casey Jr. despite spending $16 million of his fortune.

And Linda McMahon, a pro wrestling executive, suffered her second straight defeat in a bid for Connecticut’s Senate seats, plunging $8.4 million of her own money into the two unsuccessful runs.

“Whether you have a billion dollars or 20, if the message you’re driving doesn’t resonate with the general electorate, you’re not going to win,” said Phil Singer, a former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee official.

Each year, an average of 27 percent of Democratic self-funders and 22 percent of Republican self-funders have won their parties’ primaries. But in November, they nearly always fizzle.

Party pleasers

Mrs. Krumholz said there is pressure for parties to “seriously consider people with ready money, even if they don’t have all of the other qualifications — ideas, charisma, hustle, a solid team.”

Sometimes parties run self-funders as placeholders in districts where they are not competitive, hoping that the candidate’s money can make the race closer and possibly force the national party committees to spend money to rescue their candidates.

“Parties often field a self-funded candidate to run when they think it’s hopeless,” Mrs. Krumholz said. The rise in self-funded candidates, then, may be tied to an increasingly polarized climate, with more Congressional districts now a lock for one party or the other.

With all the attempts, there have been a few successes. In 2010, Virginia Republican E. Scott Rigell won a House seat after spending $2.6 million of his own money, and won re-election in 2012. Rep. Jared Polis, Colorado Democrat, secured a seat in 2008 and has retained it with the help of $7.2 million from himself.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story

© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks