Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

OCPF study shows that big warchests mean big winners

By

Of the 200 legislative races, 71, or 35 percent, were contested by more than one candidate in either the primary or general election, five fewer than in 2006. Of the 71 contested races, nine featured winners in one-on-one races whose opponents spent less than $1,000…. The number of candidates in 2008 is the lowest total ever recorded in OCPF studies, which have been compiled after each election since 1990. The highest number of legislative candidates recorded in an OCPF study was 507 in 1990.

Thirty-five percent contested races.  Unbelievable.  And if you don’t count the nine “less than $1,000” races, which barely count as “contested,” the figure drops to 31%.  *sigh*

Here’s another shocker:

Winning candidates spent more money than their opponents. On average, Senate winners outspent unsuccessful candidates two to one: $88,827 to $43,897.

The corresponding numbers for the House: winners on average spent $40,233; losers spent $19,029.

And you knew this, but just for the record:

All but four incumbents in 2008, or 98 percent, were re-elected. In the Senate, Sen. James Marzilli, D-Arlington, and Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston, lost their respective primaries (Marzilli announced in June that he would not seek re-election but his name remained on the primary ballot). In the House, representatives Patrick Natale, D-Woburn, and Anthony Verga, D-Gloucester, lost their primary elections.

Of course, Marzilli wasn’t really running, and not to take anything away from Sonia Chang-Diaz, who ran a superb campaign even while being outspent, but Wilkerson really is a special case (even before the bra-stuffing incident).  Kudos to Ann-Margaret Ferrante (who beat Verga) and Jim Dwyer (who beat Natale) for figuring out how to do the impossible!

There’s even some unintentional humor in the report.  After the sentence reporting that Chang-Diaz won while being outspent, there is the following footnote:

Sen. Wilkerson’s committee has not filed a year-end report for the 2008 election as of the publication date of this study. If it is filed, some results throughout this study could change by minor amounts.

Good to know that some things never change.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. create the baseball equivalent of a luxury tax/public financing system. Donate over $x for y seat? 20%-50% of it goes toward the public financing system. Choose to operate with help from the public financing system? $50-100 political contribution limits from any individuals – and only personal contributions, no PACs, etc. Furthermore, maybe a $1-2k max on a self contribution to the campaign if a candidate still wants to go the public route.

    <

    p>If a state rep has $440k+ in the bank, I’m sorry, but that should be taxed — and half of it sent to fund 6-7 other state rep campaigns in a public system. I think this is the best of both worlds — it gives people the clear choice of whether or not they want to run with big money or against it.  

  2. It’s certainly possible that the reason incumbents have so much money entering their re-election campaign is because they are just so dang popular, which also explains why they win the election.

    <

    p>Here’s a thought: no fund raising on off-years.  If you’re an incumbent, you can’t take checks on the odd-numbered years.  If you’re a challenger, you can’t take checks until Jan 1 of the election year.

    <

    p>It cuts into the ability of an incumbent to build up their war chest a bit anyway.

  3. It works well in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut.  Spending limits, within reason, could also be a good idea (I disagree with the Buckley v. Valeo decision).

Archives