Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage on
 

Will money buy the White House?

By Sheila Krumholz, Special to CNN
August 23, 2012 -- Updated 2048 GMT (0448 HKT)
Historically, the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win an election, says Sheila Krumholz.
Historically, the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win an election, says Sheila Krumholz.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Recently, Mitt Romney widened his cash advantage over President Obama by $62 million
  • Sheila Krumholz: If Romney keeps raising more money, will he win the election?
  • She says historically, the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win
  • Krumholz: But for candidates in any race, money alone is no guarantee of victory

Editor's note: Sheila Krumholz is the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that tracks money, politics and influence in Washington.

(CNN) -- In case you haven't noticed, this election season is awash in money.

By the end of July, Mitt Romney had widened his cash advantage over President Obama by $62 million. Romney has also been raising more money than Obama in the last three months.

If Romney continues to outraise Obama, does it mean that he will win the presidential race? Can money buy elections?

Palin not present at RNC but still a presence

Historically, the candidate who raises the most money is likely to win. In recent presidential elections, the only victors whose campaign committees raised less than their opponent were Bill Clinton in 1996 (raising $116.8 million to Sen. Bob Dole's $134.7 million) and Ronald Reagan, who raised less than Jimmy Carter but nevertheless swept into Washington in a 1980 landslide.

In both instances, the comparison of funds raised is limited to their primary campaigns as, unlike today, these candidates relied exclusively upon the presidential public financing system which provided funds in equal amounts to both major party candidates for their general election campaigns.

Sheila Krumholz
Sheila Krumholz

Fortunately, for candidates in any given race, money alone provides no guarantee of victory. Candidates need exceptional campaign skills, a solid election team, charisma, name recognition and it helps to be an incumbent who usually has these attributes and whose viability often attracts more donations.

Still, money is essential. For example, in the 2010 cycle (including both primaries and general elections), only 9 winning House challengers spent under $1 million. Candidates need a lot of resources to conduct a meaningful campaign and, these days, that costs $1.4 million for an average House seat and up to hundreds of millions to take the White House.

Over the last decade, we've seen that in the vast majority of congressional races, those who raised the most money emerged victorious. In 2004, Senate candidates who raised the most money won 88% of the time and House candidates who raised the most money won an astonishing 97.8% of the time. It is a testament to money's influence that even in what was widely considered to be a "wave election" in 2010, when the political environment favored the GOP, candidates with the most money still held sway in most of the races.

In 2012, money is even more important because candidates are not just competing with their electoral opponent anymore, but also with the messages and money from highly professionalized super PACs and nonprofits with lots of campaign experience. These unfamiliar groups' agendas may or may not be clear to candidates, or the voters they're trying to influence.

Outside spending is now the hallmark of America's elections, particularly in tight races.

Walmart moms not yet buying Romney or Obama

Expect to see record spending this year, which will largely come from very few donors. While the presidential campaigns are raising less money overall than in 2008, money spent by super PACs and secretive nonprofits, ostensibly independently, to influence elections is soaring. Groups across the political spectrum are making "independent expenditures" and "issue ads" that talk about candidates and issues without explicit "vote for" messages.

This is the evolutionary effects of two critical changes in the campaign finance world. One is the demise of the presidential public funding program and the other is the formal legal sanctioning of unlimited and unrestricted spending directed at candidates.

Since 1976, the presidential public financing system included matching funds for small contributions in primaries and equal grants for the two general election nominees. Beginning with George W. Bush rejecting public matching funds in the 2000 primary campaign (and the spending limits that went with them), that system was diminished incrementally until 2008 when Obama's rejection of general election funding spelled its final demise.

The system was far from perfect, but it offered an equal base from which the two presidential candidates could conduct the eight or nine week sprint to the finish. And it would reduce the fundraising frenzy that now surrounds this presidential race.

Witness how Paul Ryan began his tenure as Romney's running mate with a stop at the Venetian Hotel to meet Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has previously said he will spend up to $100 million to ensure President Obama's defeat. Team Obama, meanwhile, is holding exclusive, coast-to-coast fundraisers in homes of the super-rich, giving face time (with the president, vice president, first lady and various other celebrities) to those who can bring $70,000 or so to the table.

Similarly, a series of judicial and regulatory decisions in recent years has yielded a system in which unlimited funds from virtually any source can be brought directly into the campaign at any time, often with no indication of who is paying the bill. The maze of obscure organizations designed to coordinate these outside efforts and obfuscate their financial sources is just one more example of the cynical efforts of the political class to bend the rules and manipulate the process in hopes of gaining some small advantage on Election Day. It's an attitude that is not lost on an already frustrated electorate that finds little in the political process worthy of respect.

The result is an atmosphere where candidates and parties must raise upwards of $20 million or more each week or risk falling behind. The airwaves are saturated in an unprecedented effort to influence voters in the dozen states up for grabs this year. In the largest of these states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia) the campaigns, super PACs and other shadowy groups have spent an average of nearly $30 million each month since May, levels not seen until late fall in the closest of previous presidential races.

We've reached the point in the campaign where groups running issues ads that identify a candidate would normally have to disclose their donors. But in a cynical move, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Crossroads GPS readily admit to employing evasive tactics which, ironically, require that they take a more aggressive position for or against the candidate, in exchange for which they may completely dodge disclosure of their donors.

Meanwhile, we move toward fall pretending that our campaign finance system remains sound and will protect us when, in some key respects, the rules and disclosure that the Citizens United decision, and the entire system, depends on no longer exist.

Partisan advantage appears to have replaced institutional dysfunction as the driving forces behind the eroding disclosure of those "paying the piper" in this election. The question is whether and when enough people will engage their representatives and collectively demand more authentic dialogue and intellectually honest leadership from lawmakers in Washington. If there is to be any hope of change, this is step No. 1. Otherwise, we shouldn't be surprised when, come 2013, we start hearing a new tune, but can't see who's calling it.

Meanwhile, Romney, Obama, their parties and the outside groups that support them are all locked in an exhaustive race for funds. While Romney has done well compared to Obama in the last few months, the Obama campaign has raised far more overall this cycle. Both camps will have enough money to get their message out, but only one will win the election. In the end, money may not be the only reason, but if history is any indication, whichever candidate raises more of it will likely be our next president.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Sheila Krumholz.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
August 27, 2014 -- Updated 1626 GMT (0026 HKT)
The death of Douglas McAuthur McCain, the first American killed fighting for ISIS, highlights the pull of Syria's war for Western jihadists, writes Peter Bergen.
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 2242 GMT (0642 HKT)
Former ambassador to Syria Robert Ford says the West should be helping moderates in the Syrian armed opposition end the al-Assad regime and form a government to focus on driving ISIS out
August 27, 2014 -- Updated 1321 GMT (2121 HKT)
Ruben Navarrette says a great country does not deport thousands of vulnerable, unaccompanied minors who fled in fear for their lives
August 27, 2014 -- Updated 1319 GMT (2119 HKT)
Robert McIntyre says Congress is the culprit for letting Burger King pay lower taxes after merging with Tim Hortons.
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 2335 GMT (0735 HKT)
Wesley Clark says the U.S. can offer support to its Islamic friends in the region most threatened by ISIS, but it can't fight their war
August 27, 2014 -- Updated 1126 GMT (1926 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the tech sector's diversity numbers are embarrassing and the big players need to do more.
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 2053 GMT (0453 HKT)
America's painful struggle with racism has often brought great satisfaction to the country's rivals, critics, and foes. The killing of Michael Brown and its tumultuous aftermath has been a bonanza.
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 2019 GMT (0419 HKT)
Ed Bark says in this Emmy year, broadcasters CBS, ABC and PBS can all say they matched or exceeded HBO. These days that's no small feat
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 1919 GMT (0319 HKT)
Rick Martin says the death of Robin Williams brought back memories of his own battle facing down depression as a young man
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 1558 GMT (2358 HKT)
David Perry asks: What's the best way for police officers to handle people with psychiatric disabilities?
August 25, 2014 -- Updated 1950 GMT (0350 HKT)
Julian Zelizer says it's not crazy to think Mitt Romney would be able to end up at the top of the GOP ticket in 2016
August 25, 2014 -- Updated 2052 GMT (0452 HKT)
Roxanne Jones and her girlfriends would cheer from the sidelines for the boys playing Little League. But they really wanted to play. Now Mo'ne Davis shows the world that girls really can throw.
August 25, 2014 -- Updated 1629 GMT (0029 HKT)
Peter Bergen and Emily Schneider say a YouTube video apparently posted by ISIS seems to show that the group has a surveillance drone, highlighting a new reality: Terrorist groups have technology once only used by states
August 25, 2014 -- Updated 2104 GMT (0504 HKT)
Kimberly Norwood is a black mom who lives in an affluent neighborhood not far from Ferguson, but she has the same fears for her children as people in that troubled town do
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 2145 GMT (0545 HKT)
It apparently has worked for France, say Peter Bergen and Emily Schneider, but carries uncomfortable risks. When it comes to kidnappings, nations face grim options.
August 26, 2014 -- Updated 1727 GMT (0127 HKT)
John Bare says the Ice Bucket Challenge signals a new kind of activism and peer-to-peer fund-raising.
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 1231 GMT (2031 HKT)
James Dawes says calling ISIS evil over and over again could very well make it harder to stop them.
August 24, 2014 -- Updated 0105 GMT (0905 HKT)
As the inquiry into the shooting of Michael Brown continues, critics question the prosecutor's impartiality.
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 2247 GMT (0647 HKT)
Newt Gingrich says it's troubling that a vicious group like ISIS can recruit so many young men from Britain.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1450 GMT (2250 HKT)
David Weinberger says Twitter and other social networks have been vested with a responsibility, and a trust, they did not ask for.
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 1103 GMT (1903 HKT)
John Inazu says the slogan "We are Ferguson" is meant to express empathy and solidarity. It's not true: Not all of us live in those circumstances. But we all made them.
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 1223 GMT (2023 HKT)
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling says he learned that the territory ISIS wants to control is amazingly complex.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Cerue Garlo says Liberia is desperate for help amid a Ebola outbreak that has touched every aspect of life.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1742 GMT (0142 HKT)
Eric Liu says Republicans who want to restrict voting may win now, but the party will suffer in the long term.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1538 GMT (2338 HKT)
Jay Parini: Jesus, Pope and now researchers agree: Wealth decreases our ability to sympathize with the poor.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1200 GMT (2000 HKT)
Judy Melinek offers a medical examiner's perspective on what happens when police kill people like Michael Brown.
August 19, 2014 -- Updated 2203 GMT (0603 HKT)
It used to be billy clubs, fire hoses and snarling German shepherds. Now it's armored personnel carriers and flash-bang grenades, writes Kara Dansky.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1727 GMT (0127 HKT)
Maria Haberfeld: People who are unfamiliar with police work can reasonably ask, why was an unarmed man shot so many times, and why was deadly force used at all?
ADVERTISEMENT