How Much Does An Election Cost?

One of the constant complaints about US politics is the corrosive influence that money has on the political process. And since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, many folks believe it’s only gotten worse.

Movements have risen up against it; politicians have pillored those who take what seem like bribes from corporate donors. But does money really matter that much to elections?

Image Credit: The Blue Diamond Gallery

“There’s a myth going around that more money wins,” says Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute and Professor of Political Science at the University at Albany. “This has never been true.”

Overflowing coffers don’t guarantee an election win, and the data support that. Take, for example, the presidential campaign of Florida governor Jeb Bush. He outspent most of his opponents during the Republican primary, spending $34 million of his campaign’s own money and accruing $121 million in supportive outside spending. Yet he failed to ever find a significant toehold against his rivals. If big money means big wins, surely Gov. Bush would have done better.

Every election cycle is littered with similar examples, with political hopefuls spending big but losing out. “Money does not produce victories,” says Malbin, “but it is necessary” to avoid defeat. According to Malbin, there is some minimum level of financing required to compete in an election. But once you have enough money to communicate effectively with voters, more money isn’t a huge help.

If you’re a challenger attempting to unseat a state senator, for example, and you only raise 10% of the money that they do, you can expect to lose badly in most cases. But simply spending more than your opponent isn’t the path to victory. “Almost every year,” says Malbin, “successful challengers do not spend as much as the incumbent they defeat.”

But what kind money is required to mount a meaningful challenge in a major election? Looking at averages from the 2016 federal election, we can determine some rough numbers for what constitutes table stakes in major elections.

Unsurprisingly, presidential candidates are expected to spend the most, with average expenses of about $56 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. U.S. Senate races cost about $1.5 million, and U.S. House of Representatives races are the cheapest federal elections, at about $500,000.

Winning costs more than average, though. On average, winning senators spent $10.4 million in the 2016 federal election, and winning representatives spent $1.3 million. Some outliers, like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), spent even more, racking up a $27.8 million and $12 million bill, respectively.

A successful state or local election bid requires significantly less capital. To win a state Senate seat, you can expect to spend as little as $10,000. However, if your state election gets national attention, you might suddenly find yourself in the millions. It can vary dramatically depending on the size of your district, the ferocity of your competition and its importance to the national party’s election plans. Local elections cost typically less, and many candidates even run unopposed, requiring only nominal spending to win election. Extremely competitive elections, like Pennsylvania’s vastly expensive 2016 attorney general race or the state’s $15 million 2015 Supreme Court race, can still tip the scales, but that’s far from the norm.

The majority of this money is given over to media. Just the time slots for television advertisements can be outrageously expensive. But before the ads can be aired, they must be made. This requires advertising companies to make the ads, analyzing political messages to find the most effective way to reach the electorate. Fundraising comprises a large portion of the budget as well: raising money costs money, after all. And any candidate needs a staff to help coordinate their campaign, scheduling speeches, booking television appearances and ensuring they get the right media coverage.

What’s absolutely crucial is that that candidates have enough money to keep talking throughout the campaign. Once their campaign swings into high gear, they can’t afford to suddenly disappear from the political landscape because they’ve run out of funds for television ads. Going silent like that, says Malbin, “is the kiss of death.”

A successful campaign also requires money to defend itself. Take John Kerry’s presidential campaign, for example. When the Swift Boat campaign took off, questioning Kerry’s military record, Kerry’s rebuttal was less widely seen than the campaign against him. According to Malbin, Kerry had run short on funds and misjudged the importance of the attack, responding quietly to the smear campaign against him in order to reserve funds for later in the election. This apparent silence against the (ultimately false) accusations may have helped cost him the 2004 presidential election.

So, if you want to be a successful politician, make sure you have plenty of money on hand. You’ll need enough money to run your campaign and pay for ads right up until election day, and none of that is cheap. Excess funds won’t make buy victory, but having dramatically less than your opponent will likely consign you to failure.

However, just because money can’t buy elections doesn’t mean it can’t buy influence. Politicians might claim to be above the influence of their donors, some some are skeptical of this claim. As Rep. Barney Frank said, “If that were the case, we would be the only human beings in the history of the world who, on a regular basis, took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and made sure that it had no effect on our behavior.”

That’s why data journalists and sites like Trump Today are so crucial to policing politicians, making sure they stay accountable to their voters before their donors.

Corporate donors and lobbyists might not be able to buy an election, but they might buy special consideration from elected officials. That’s why tracking campaign contributions with data journalism is so crucial to keeping politicians accountable to their voters.