Does the Democrats’ Cash Advantage Matter?

In Senate battlegrounds elections, money can only do so much.

By
20

Democratic nominees in nine of the 10 most competitive U.S. Senate races are leading their Republican challengers on fundraising. But if Democrats retain control of the upper chamber, money won’t be the sole reason. 

Second quarter Federal Election Commission reports show that Democratic Senate nominees in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Colorado, Washington and New Hampshire had all out-raised and outspent their GOP opponents as of June 30. Only in Wisconsin did the Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson, lead his Democratic opponent.  

Candidates need serious cash to introduce themselves to voters and spread their message, but once they reach a certain baseline, even tens of millions of extra dollars don’t do much. At that point, election analysts say, fundamentals—candidate quality, the president’s approval rating, a state’s partisan lean, and kitchen-table concerns like inflation—make the difference. 

Consider the last cycle. In 2020, Democratic Senate candidate Amy McGrath raised—and spent—more than $20 million more than then-Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. She also lost by roughly 20 points. The trend repeated in races across the country—including South Carolina, Kansas, and Maine—demonstrating that candidates can’t simply “buy” Senate seats in hostile terrain.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
20
By
Comments (20)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Leonidas

    money doesn’t hurt but it doesn’t guarantee victory either. both hillary and biden outspent trump by at least 2:1 depending on how one measures direct and indirect contributions. trump, of course, has always been the beneficiary of the media’s unquenchable thirst for spicy orange click-bait content, which has been a tremendous, yuge, in-kind donation. beto and jamie harrison also come to mind as examples where gobs of money simply can’t serve as a substitute for the wrong candidate

    Collapse
  2. Bob

    Money lets you get your message out.

    The assumes your message can persuade some voters to your side. If your message is garbage money makes you look worse, not better.

    And there's the problem that Americans are not stupid. If you use money to present massive SPIN, everyone tunes you out and the money is wasted. And all political ads these days are just spin. They're so transparent it's pathetic. Money doesnt help if that's what you do with it.

    Money spent deploying door-to-door campaigns and expanded campaign footprints matters. But how much more of that can politicians reasonably do?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Lawrence C Berg

    I have long held the views Ms Fahlberg expresses. My typical argument was show me a "Nancy Pelosi" representing a rural Mississippi district or a "Ted Cruz" representing a district from a large city and I'll buy the nonsense that elections can be bought.
    There is simply no justification for limiting speech and that includes political speech. Money doesn't vote, it simply gives the opportunity to express a view and we need more of that open discussion, not less.

    Collapse
  4. Andrew Chida

    Does anyone know if there is a roughly identifiable point at which the ROI on ad buying rapidly becomes less effective?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rjosephpaquette

      Seems like there is a floor and ceiling. A minimum needed and a point when further spending gets you no return. Those numbers probably change dramatically depending on the race.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    This is interesting. I tend to agree with Hopkins' conclusion.

    At a certain point the money doesn't matter, either candidates either have an effective message and campaign or they don't. Doesn't stop candidates continuing to ask for money long after they've developed an overwhelming cash advantage in a race. Not sure if that's an indication of a lack of confidence in thier campaign or not.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Earl King

    Pennsylvania is a purple state. Fetterman holds some extreme progressive opinions. Dr. Oz needs money to get the word out. Dr Oz only chance is to raise Fertterman's negatives. That is how modern day campaigns are currently run. Raising the negative. Fetterman was pretty good at raising Dr Oz's negative. Not living in the state was one. but Oz isn't an extreme candidate he is just a new candidate and is making mistakes. He was TV huckster for some and helpful Dr for others. Oz if he has money can overcome his deficit but he'll need a massive infusion. If not he'll lose. In other races the dye is caste. In new Hampshire the new guy will probably lose. Their primary was only recent and all anyone knows is he is extreme. He has already lost as he won't have enough money to change that perception and raise his opponents negatives enough to overcome his. It is a sad state when all our elections are about is which candidate is worse.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    Proposed campaign finance reform.

    Stop out of state interference in elections.
    You can only donate to a campaign in which you are eligible to vote. Why should citizens of NY and California donate to Texas elections? Why should Texans donate to PA?
    I’d ban the practice.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Lawrence C Berg

      No ban on Free Speech is justified. None. Your "solution" is ridiculous because the stakeholders in each election are not limited to the boundaries of the district. Further, corporations don't vote so you would ban all corporate political speech.
      Not on my watch.... Censorship is never acceptable.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        We already have limits on campaign donations in how much and who.
        You are free to buy an ad, there is no censorship, I'm talking about donations directly to campaigns.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Ms. SSM

      Who wins in Congress is a national concern right. I could see your argument perhaps for a state position but not for a Congressional position.

      In either case as travel is a right and so is speech (which is what money is) this wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        There are already limits on who can donate to campaigns. There are already limits.
        I am ONLY talking about donations directly to a campaign. You are still free to buy an ad in Texas saying what ever you want.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Xsearnold

      Seems that this would only serve to bolster the advantages to incumbents that already exist.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        Or weaken it. They can’t get donations from out of state people with unrest in matters before their committee.

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      The Bell Tower

      Interesting. I wonder how that would size up legally. Citizens U was decided on the basis of free speech.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        CU wasn’t about donations to campaigns, but organizations such as unions and PACs conducting their own speech.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          The Bell Tower

          But the gist was that spending money on a campaign is speech. At least that’s my understanding but that’s why I called it interesting.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Rjosephpaquette

            No. Supreme Court has held up bans on corporate donations to campaigns and campaign spending limits.
            Unions, Pacs, and any organization still has free speech rights to make ads and spend money, but not unlimited to donations campaigns. CU did not change a single campaign finance law—that’s just a common liberal talking point.

            Collapse
        2. Andrew Chida

          I thought it was about ads for political documentaries beginning with Michael Moore that basically ran like political ads which then was answered by a conservative group making short documentaries that were essentially political ads. Then the debate came up, what if a book includes support for a candidate on the back cover, could it be banned? Or was that the case that preceded it.

          Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    How many decades have we whined about big money in politics? First it was the crony capitalists beholden to big donors or labor unions. Now it is about the populist small donor haul (and you can’t forget about the shadowy PACs). It would be nice if the dollars started to have less influence on the ultimate winner. That would mean voters are ignoring the slanted negative TV commercials and deciding on their own.

    Whether the money ends up being a determining factor or not, to me, the dollars raised is the least interesting data point on elections, even less than issue polls. I know it can be a measure of support but the issues are what should matter.

    Covering the dollar race is irritating to me because it just reinforces the Unicorn Crutch of TV commercials. The candidates need the $$ to pay for phony commercials and the voters need to watch the commercials to be told what they WANT to hear. ☹

    Collapse