Elections and Money

Cost of Elections

Whether a candidate is campaigning for the presidency, the Senate, or for the House of Representatives, running for public office can be costly. It is rare for an individual to run a successful campaign by merely collecting signatures and placing his or her name on a ballot. Candidates who want to inform voters about their platforms must spend money on a campaign.
Election costs continually increase due to the amount of time and effort needed for a successful campaign in our progressively high-tech world. These escalating demands result in a greater need for fundraising. The 2000 presidential election cost about $1.5 billion in campaign funds, a significant increase from the 1992 election, which totaled $286 million. In 1992, races for seats in the House of Representatives cost a total of $364 million, but by the year 2000, the cost jumped to $1 billion. Senate races are even more expensive. In 2000, the average successful Senate campaign cost $7 million, while the average House campaign required $800,000.
Elections need ample funding because candidates must build a campaign organization as well as create campaign exposure. Other election campaign costs include legal and accounting fees and interest on loans taken out to sustain the campaign.
Candidates can create exposure for their campaign in several ways. They can travel to meet with voters and interest groups and create materials such as signs, fliers, letters, and media advertisements. Although it is common for candidates to use television and radio commercials in today’s elections, there is little evidence that these advertisements have a strong effect on voters’ opinions of the candidates. However, advertising does increase name and image recognition, which often translates to a better chance of being elected. Candidates also work to receive publicity, or free news coverage, by making newsworthy appearances in their community. For example, candidates may speak to the elderly in a nursing home or make an appearance at a local park to promote their environmental policy.
While it seems logical that there would be a correlation between the amount of money spent on campaigning and winning an election, the connection is tenuous. For example, in presidential contests, the candidate who spends the most does not always win. However, in congressional races, the amount of money spent can increase a candidate’s chance of winning. Studies show that while congressional incumbents have a better chance of winning an election, high-spending incumbents have an even greater chance of winning than those who spend less.
Politicians employ a variety of fundraising tactics to finance their campaigns. Direct mail can be effective if targeted at people with views similar to those of the candidates. Each year direct mail solicitations persuade people to contribute over $1 billion to various politicians. Candidates also hold events such as dinners, speeches, or rallies to gain financial and voting support. Most politicians also seek financial aid from interest groups and Political Action Committees (PACs).
An interest group is an organization of individuals with similar policy goals who enter the political process to influence legislation that affects the organization’s interests. Examples include the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Federation of Labor (AFL), Greenpeace, and the National Rifle Association (NRA).
There are two types of interest groups: institutional and membership. An institutional interest group is an organization represented in Washington by another individual or organization. For example, the Ford Motor Company, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors have representation in Washington lobbying for benefit of their organizations. A membership interest group is an organization that represents a specific group of people. For example, the NAACP represents African-Americans and the American Association for Retired Persons (AARP) lobbies for individuals over 65.
When interest groups become directly involved in the electoral process by funding campaigns, providing testimony for campaigns, and recruiting members to volunteer for particular candidates, called electioneering, they become Political Action Committees (PAC). PACs have increased in popularity in recent years. There are currently over 4,000 PACs, while in 1974 there were only 608.
The main purpose of a PAC is to raise and distribute funds to advocate the political goals of its members. Research on whether PACs gain a significant return on their political investment has not produced a clear answer. Overall, the public has a negative view of PACs and interest groups. Many feel these organizations are “buying votes” by contributing to specific candidates and have too much influence in Washington. Americans also tend to believe interest groups add to campaign costs by forcing their particular issues, making running for office even more expensive.
Interest groups claim they are not buying votes, but rather gaining access to the system to achieve a voice in public policy. They contend that they are linkage institutions representing the desires of the population they serve. The National Education Association (NEA) supports candidates who are sympathetic to teachers. The NEA feels that if their candidate is elected, there is a greater chance of positive legislation for teachers.
Interest groups are common in the United States. Even though most Americans’ opinions of interest groups are generally negative, most people are part of some civic or political group. Some examples include Rotary International, American Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Sierra Club, or any local organization designed to help people, raise awareness, or make change. Although Americans can participate in government in a variety of ways, most people feel that they can more easily accomplish their policy goals if they join with like-minded people.