Curtis Harris
Follow the money
By Curtis Harris
"Campaign finance reform" is in a class with other nonsensical terminology like "honest career politician" and "altruistic trial lawyer." A new set of rules concocted by career politicians can be called by any name, but the underlying truth is that the new rules simply shift advantage and influence to benefit the rule makers. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, currently on its way to the US Supreme Court, is just such a set of new rules intended to serve the interests of incumbent politicians while usurping the constitutional rights of American citizens.
I assume my intended audience is already aware of the political and constitutional problems of McCain-Feingold, so I will not repeat them here. We also know that money buys influence in a free economy, and that fact will not be altered by new rules applied to politics. They just change the game. There is, however, a fundamental aspect to the campaign finance issue that is not getting the attention it deserves. Why are these Senate and House seats worth so much money?
The simple answer is that senators and representatives are very powerful people in a very powerful federal government. Beyond that, once elected, these people can stay in office as long as they choose to do so. After all, there are few reasons members of Congress leave office. Once established in power, only those that step well outside the societal boundaries for personal and/or professional conduct are held accountable by their peers and their constituents. It is this prospect of many years of power that makes the Congressional candidates worth so much money. With seniority, their influence and prices only go up.
Here is a look at the financial power of incumbency using Federal Election Commission data (FEC) on the 2002 election cycle:
From the data in the table, it is obvious that incumbents have the financial advantage that virtually ensures re-election. In the Senate, incumbents raise 6.3 times more money than challengers and spend 4.5 times more. An incumbent senator is also more valuable than a first term senator. The average incumbent senator raises 3.8 times and spends 3.1 times more money than a candidate for an open seat. However, each major party candidate for the open seat has a real chance to win, resulting in the ability to raise 1.7 times more money and spend 1.4 times more compared to a challenger facing an incumbent senator.
In the House of Representatives, the same patterns occur, but the power of incumbency is greater. In 2002, there were only 27 of 435 seats without an incumbent candidate. The average House incumbent raised 9.5 times more money than the average challenger and spent 9.8 times more. Under present circumstances, these incumbents are virtually untouchable.
The power of incumbency is relatively greater in the House than in the Senate. House incumbents out-raise and out-spend their challengers by much wider margins than do incumbent senators. Comparing candidates challenging incumbents to candidates for open seats between the two branches of the Congress demonstrates the relatively greater power of House incumbency. Each major party candidate for an open House seat raised 3.7 times more money and spent 4.6 times more compared to a challenger facing an incumbent in 2002. Those multiples are 1.7 and 1.4 in the 2002 Senate races. One reason is that House districts are gerrymandered by state legislatures to give advantage to one of the two major party candidates. Also, a House seat is less powerful than a Senate seat and the term is only two years, so challengers are less able to raise and less willing to spend large amounts of money in a lopsided contest for a House seat. In the Senate, the differences between the money raised and spent by incumbents and challengers are less dramatic. The races are state-wide so gerrymandering is not possible, the office has much greater power, and the term is six years. Challengers are able to raise and willing to spend much more money to win a Senate seat.
The FEC data also disclose candidates' cash-on-hand. These numbers really show the financial power of incumbency:
Something is clearly amiss here. Since a free market demands value for money, these career politicians must be producing value of some kind for their contributors. But the value is certainly not measured in fiscal responsibility or in selfless service to the nation. The value they provide is measured in terms of favors from the federal government delivered to contributors or in the protection of contributors from the effects of government policies, taxes, and regulations.
The solution is to stop worrying about a symptom (the money), and focus on the problem—career politicians corrupted by power. Only when Congressional terms are limited by citizens voting them out of office or by an amendment to the US Constitution will citizen legislators be able to reshape and resize the Federal government into the body designed by America's founders.
© Curtis Harris
"Campaign finance reform" is in a class with other nonsensical terminology like "honest career politician" and "altruistic trial lawyer." A new set of rules concocted by career politicians can be called by any name, but the underlying truth is that the new rules simply shift advantage and influence to benefit the rule makers. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, currently on its way to the US Supreme Court, is just such a set of new rules intended to serve the interests of incumbent politicians while usurping the constitutional rights of American citizens.
I assume my intended audience is already aware of the political and constitutional problems of McCain-Feingold, so I will not repeat them here. We also know that money buys influence in a free economy, and that fact will not be altered by new rules applied to politics. They just change the game. There is, however, a fundamental aspect to the campaign finance issue that is not getting the attention it deserves. Why are these Senate and House seats worth so much money?
The simple answer is that senators and representatives are very powerful people in a very powerful federal government. Beyond that, once elected, these people can stay in office as long as they choose to do so. After all, there are few reasons members of Congress leave office. Once established in power, only those that step well outside the societal boundaries for personal and/or professional conduct are held accountable by their peers and their constituents. It is this prospect of many years of power that makes the Congressional candidates worth so much money. With seniority, their influence and prices only go up.
Here is a look at the financial power of incumbency using Federal Election Commission data (FEC) on the 2002 election cycle:
|
From the data in the table, it is obvious that incumbents have the financial advantage that virtually ensures re-election. In the Senate, incumbents raise 6.3 times more money than challengers and spend 4.5 times more. An incumbent senator is also more valuable than a first term senator. The average incumbent senator raises 3.8 times and spends 3.1 times more money than a candidate for an open seat. However, each major party candidate for the open seat has a real chance to win, resulting in the ability to raise 1.7 times more money and spend 1.4 times more compared to a challenger facing an incumbent senator.
In the House of Representatives, the same patterns occur, but the power of incumbency is greater. In 2002, there were only 27 of 435 seats without an incumbent candidate. The average House incumbent raised 9.5 times more money than the average challenger and spent 9.8 times more. Under present circumstances, these incumbents are virtually untouchable.
The power of incumbency is relatively greater in the House than in the Senate. House incumbents out-raise and out-spend their challengers by much wider margins than do incumbent senators. Comparing candidates challenging incumbents to candidates for open seats between the two branches of the Congress demonstrates the relatively greater power of House incumbency. Each major party candidate for an open House seat raised 3.7 times more money and spent 4.6 times more compared to a challenger facing an incumbent in 2002. Those multiples are 1.7 and 1.4 in the 2002 Senate races. One reason is that House districts are gerrymandered by state legislatures to give advantage to one of the two major party candidates. Also, a House seat is less powerful than a Senate seat and the term is only two years, so challengers are less able to raise and less willing to spend large amounts of money in a lopsided contest for a House seat. In the Senate, the differences between the money raised and spent by incumbents and challengers are less dramatic. The races are state-wide so gerrymandering is not possible, the office has much greater power, and the term is six years. Challengers are able to raise and willing to spend much more money to win a Senate seat.
The FEC data also disclose candidates' cash-on-hand. These numbers really show the financial power of incumbency:
|
Something is clearly amiss here. Since a free market demands value for money, these career politicians must be producing value of some kind for their contributors. But the value is certainly not measured in fiscal responsibility or in selfless service to the nation. The value they provide is measured in terms of favors from the federal government delivered to contributors or in the protection of contributors from the effects of government policies, taxes, and regulations.
The solution is to stop worrying about a symptom (the money), and focus on the problem—career politicians corrupted by power. Only when Congressional terms are limited by citizens voting them out of office or by an amendment to the US Constitution will citizen legislators be able to reshape and resize the Federal government into the body designed by America's founders.
© Curtis Harris
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
