Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Reveal Navigation

Why Candidate Fundraising Matters Less Than It Used To Why Candidate Fundraising Matters Less Than It Used To Why Candidate Fundraising Matters Less Than It Used To Why Candidate Fundraising...

share
This ad will end in seconds
Close X

Not a member? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation

 

Blogs

Why Candidate Fundraising Matters Less Than It Used To

October 20, 2011
With the rise of Super PACs and other outside groups, candidates in competitive races will no longer lose because they can't raise enough money, my colleague Reid Wilson argues in today's NJ Daily. Outside spending, which candidates don't control, is eclipsing their own campaign spending. 

Wilson reports

Now that outside groups can spend unlimited amounts on independent advertising, candidate fundraising means even less. Last year in Colorado, when Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet first sought election after his 2009 appointment, he raised and spent $11.5 million while Republican Ken Buck raised and spent almost $5 million. Yet outside organizations dwarfed both candidates' campaigns; Democratic groups spent $13.2 million on Bennet's behalf and Republican groups spent more than $14 million for Buck.

In 2010, outside groups spent more than $10 million per state on Senate races in Nevada, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, Missouri, and California, according to data compiled by The Hotline and the Center for Responsive Politics. The average member spent $1.44 million to win his or her House seat; in 38 districts, outside groups spent more, according to the center's data.


Get us in your feed.
More Blogs