The 2024 Money Race: Just About Whose (Pile) is Bigger?

The news is full of reporting about contribution numbers for the presidential candidates. In the CD1 race, one of the Democratic candidates has focused on his ability to raise money, particularly given his background on Wall Street. In these cases, and in many more, the implicit assumption is that greater money means a greater chance of winning. How true is this, and what are the (possibly) unintended consequences of this assumption?

There was a great article from 538 in 2018 on the relationship between money and success in elections. One thing they noted was that the statistics are skewed by the large number of safe districts and states, where the ultimate winners tend to get large sums anyway. And they quote Prof. Richard Lau of Rutgers saying, “ I think where you have to change your thinking is that money causes winning. I think it’s more that winning attracts money.”

The most obvious consequence of raising large amounts of money is – media coverage that large amounts have been raised. In other words, when it is assumed that more money is a measure of likely electoral success, the assumption is reinforced, and becomes more likely to be true. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Honestly, it’s kind of a story about who has a bigger one.

Campaigns do need money

Don’t get me wrong: I know that financial support is necessary for campaigning, especially for first-time candidates in down-ballot competitive races, where donations can have greater impact (both for the targeted campaign itself, and also for other races on the ballot that benefit from effective down-ballot campaigns). Volunteers can do a lot, but having good paid staff is also necessary. Nearly every aspect of a campaign will necessitate some expenditure – signs and other visual reminders (especially when the candidate is less well known), literature printing, digital and other media, etc. And it is undoubtedly true that when a campaign is well-funded, it will tend to pursue every possible avenue to success, even if some are less efficient mechanisms (such as TV ads in a crowded market, which get incredibly expensive in a competitive state in a presidential year, and which arguably have a small effect). If you have the money, why not try it all?

But there are tradeoffs

The focus on money is not an unadulterated good. There are tradeoffs. The most effective fundraiser is typically the candidates themselves. But every hour that a candidate is spending on fundraising is an hour that he or she is not doing something else, and in particular, talking with voters. And emails and texts asking for money add to a political cacophony that just might be responsible for so many potential voters turning away from participation in the process. This year in particular, there will be so much political noise that each new ad (especially for Congressional and below) will have nearly zero effect.

Given this implicit cost to time spent fundraising, how much is enough?

How much is enough?

Elections are idiosyncratic. What’s happening internationally, nationally and locally? How well-known is the candidate? How has free media (such as the local news) portrayed the candidates, and what is their image in social media, if any? What are historic trends in the state or district, and how are they changing? Most importantly, is the candidate a good one? And do they have an effective campaign team, including super-volunteers (the ones who are experienced, well-organized and incredibly hard-working)?

For these reasons, there is no reliable rule of thumb on how much money is necessary to win a campaign. And when a candidate quotes a dollar amount, even if it is based on models from previous elections, the idiosyncrasy of each campaign means that the number doesn’t mean much.

What matters most?

Rather than dollars contributed, there are two other factors that overwhelm all others in their effects: the candidate and the campaign. Even in a very close election, candidate and campaign quality can have far more effect on the result than any concerted campaign tactic, including the ones that cost a lot.

A bad candidate could be, for instance, one who publicly promotes very unpopular ideas, or is a poor presenter. A good candidate demonstrates qualities that are popular with potential voters, both on policy and presentation. Good candidates are often effective listeners. I think of Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” phrase, which was widely satirized, but which was consistent with his demonstrated love of personally connecting with voters – the man loved wading through crowds. And that worked for him.

A good campaign is often one that provides maximum interaction with the candidate. When the electorate is too large for most voters to meet the candidate, a good campaign is one in which many, many trusted messengers are talking about the candidate to their friends and neighbors. It is one in which voters hear more about the candidate (and contrast with the opponent(s)) than they do about how much money is needed. And finally, when it comes to money in politics, what the dollars are spent on is far more important than how much is obtained. If it is largely spent on fundraising, that’s not good. If it’s largely spent on connecting the candidate to the voters (including achieving name recognition when the candidate is new), that IS good.

So, when you see dollars raised or cash on hand for candidates, ask how they got it (from how many potential voters?) and how they are spending it. And ultimately, focus on what those candidates represent, and how they are likely to perform in the job they are applying for. The money is necessary, but it’s just NOT the most important thing.