Money and the Congressional Campaign - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages This is indeed unrealistic but there are a number of speculations that may be used to analyze the narrative because there is no statistically observable linkage between spending and the likelihood of victory (Dubner Web). Candidates spending had much smaller effect in winning the elections than expected. This essay tends to ascertain the reasons behind the relationship between huge spending and likelihood of victory for the congressional candidates. According to Dubner the 2012 elections saw huge campaign expenditure achieving very little because it did not have discernable effect on the outcome of most races (Dubner Web). Historically, in the congressional elections, 90% of the incumbents seeking always win with more than 60% of the vote regardless of the challengers’ positions. Nevertheless, senators seeking re-election usually win with narrow margin compared to the house representatives due to the diversity of the states. Reelection always exposes the incumbents to vulnerability because of big expenditure in campaigns such as advertising, travelling more to their states and large staffing (Narayanswamy Web). Congressional candidates have been spending enormous sums on campaigns to win the elections particularly when the competition is very stiff and there is no incumbent running for re-election. There is always a belief when an incumbent is running for a reelection then any candidate from any party is likely to win and this greatly stiffens competition. In that case, there is a notion that a candidate who spends the most in the vacated seats especially in the House has a bigger chance of winning. Huge sum of money for congressional campaigns come from individuals pocket while 30% come from Political Action Committees that seek access to policymakers. PACs usually sponsor incumbents because they are likely to win since critics argue that the main objective of PAC is not to elect but to influence. Interestingly, high-volume does not guarantee victory regardless of the belief that money buys challengers’ recognition and an opportunity to be heard (Lessig Web). Dubner explains that group of billionaires and privately owned corporations contributed more than $1billion on super PACs accompanied by wave of attacks through unrivaled ads yet the big spenders did not win (Web). Failure to return the senate to the GOP control by the Republicans was an evidence of a heavy spending with little achievement. It was unfortunate that the Republicans lost ground in the senate after pouring a lot of money in the campaigns including the House contest where the Democratic candidates won even after the Republican candidates outspent them in the final months. Interestingly, there were some cases where the Republicans were outspent but they won the elections (Narayanswamy Web). Senate contest in Virginia that involved Kaine and George Allen who spent almost $50 million from independent group but Kaine won comfortably and another failure of the big spending Linda McMahon in Connecticut after pouring more than $90 million. There are many other examples such as in the House where Re, Robert Dold of Illinois was outshined by Democrat brad Schneider after spending $1.9 million (Dubner Web). It was later clear that most of the targeted candidates failed and they blamed the super-Pac money for their disappointment. They lamented that most of their time in the race was spent on seeking money and focusing on defense instead of discussing issues (Lessig Web). It was unfortunate to see huger spending Republicans losing in the House elections while Democrats winning with little spending. Could it be a momentum from Obama or just another force that favored the Democrats and ...Download file to see next pagesRead More