iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Wealthy Candidates Come Up Short On Election Day

KEVIN FREKING and SUSAN HAIGH   11/ 4/10 06:51 PM ET   AP

Wealthy Candidates
California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman shares a table as she greets diners at Philippe The Original french dip sandwich restaurant during a campaign stop in downtown Los Angeles Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon)

LOS ANGELES — Dipping into personal fortunes to self-finance a campaign this election season turned out to be a losing investment for several candidates trying to break into political office.

Former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman took the biggest gamble, spending $142 million in her losing effort to become California's next governor, a figure that covers the general election and her GOP primary race.

In Connecticut, former wrestling entertainment executive Linda McMahon is expected to have spent at least $50 million in a losing U.S. Senate bid. And in New York, millionaire developer Carl Paladino was expected to spend about $10 million in a losing governor's race against Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

California's newly elected governor, Jerry Brown, said his campaign showed that it takes more than money to succeed in politics.

"It takes brains and it takes a little bit of luck, and it takes a lot of people pulling together," he said.

Based on unofficial returns, he spent about $7.50 per vote by using about $30 million in campaign donations from others. Whitman spent the equivalent of $46 per vote from her personal fortune, based on her total spending in the primary and general election. That also does not count the more than $20 million she received from contributors.

Whitman dominated the state's airwaves for most of 2010. The strategy paid off in the primary, but the Brown campaign believes the ads became so repetitive that they lost their effectiveness.

"Throwing a lot of ads on the TV in the middle of the summer might not make a lot of sense," Brown said in an interview with The Associated Press. "There's only so many times you can tell somebody something. Name recognition is good, but repetition of ads can be very debilitating."

Perhaps the most important lesson from Election Day was that money simply can't overcome demographics. Republicans who spent big tended to run in states where the Democratic Party dominates.

"The money can certainly buy a candidate recognition, but it can't necessarily buy them love," said Douglas Schwartz, polling director at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter how much a candidate spends. In McMahon's case, polls indicated that voters had grown tired of her advertising, Schwartz said. Based on unofficial results, she paid about $103 per vote from her personal account.

Federal financial reports have shown that McMahon and her husband have assets and investments worth more than $458 million.

The experiences of wealthy, self-funded candidates were mixed around the country.

Just one of eight of the federal candidates spending more than $3.5 million of their own money won Tuesday, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending.

The exception was Republican Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who defeated Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold. Johnson spent about $7 million of his own money on the race.

The center found that just four of the 32 federal candidates who spent more than $1 million of their own money through mid-October won Tuesday, including McMahon's opponent, Richard Blumenthal. Even though Blumenthal loaned his campaign more than $2.2 million, he was able to characterize himself as the financial underdog in the race, given McMahon's largesse.

McMahon has been unapologetic about her spending, even though Blumenthal had accused her of attempting to buy the Senate seat.

"I absolutely decided from the beginning that I was going to invest my money, money that I've earned, to fund this campaign, because I felt it was important not to take special interest or PAC money and not owe any favors to anyone when I got to Washington," she told a business group recently.

Whitman made a similar argument to California voters. She surpassed the previous record for personal spending in a campaign – the $109 million New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent in his quest for a third term.

Another wealthy California businesswoman, former Hewlett-Packard Co. chief executive Carly Fiorina, also tapped her personal fortune as she mounted an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

She spent about $6.5 million of her own money, the vast majority of it in the GOP primary. In that race, it proved to be a deciding factor against two lightly funded opponents.

In the general election, Fiorina spent just $1 million from a fortune estimated between $25.6 million and $115.9 million, according to candidate disclosure forms.

Deep-pocketed candidates for state office fared somewhat better.

Florida's Rick Scott spent about $73 million of his own money to win the governor's race, by far the most ever invested in a Florida election. He narrowly defeated Democrat Alex Sink, the state's chief financial officer.

In Michigan, Rick Snyder, an Ann Arbor venture capitalist, easily defeated Democrat Virg Bernero. The former president of computer maker Gateway Inc. had kicked off his campaign with a Super Bowl ad in which he declared himself "one tough nerd." He spent about $6 million in the primary.

Other state candidates ended up like Whitman, on the losing end despite tapping large bank accounts.

Cuomo made passing references to Paladino's spending in the New York governor's race, saying he wasn't a millionaire like Paladino, couldn't afford to fund his own campaign and had to rely on contributions. He ended up easily winning.

Well-known Ohio car dealer Tom Ganley, a Republican, lost to incumbent Democratic U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton despite pouring $7 million of his own money into the campaign. And in Connecticut, Greenwich businessman Tom Foley appears to have lost his race for governor despite spending nearly $11 million of his own money.

While Foley has not conceded, the secretary of state's office announced Wednesday that unofficial election results show Democrat Dan Malloy won by a little more than 3,000 votes.

Malloy used the state's public campaign financing system and was expected to spend nearly all of the $8.5 million he received for the primary and general election.

___

Associated Press writers Juliet Williams in Los Angeles, Rik Stevens in New York City and Meghan Barr in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report. Haigh reported from Hartford, Conn.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
LOS ANGELES — Dipping into personal fortunes to self-finance a campaign this election season turned out to be a losing investment for several candidates trying to break into political office. F...
LOS ANGELES — Dipping into personal fortunes to self-finance a campaign this election season turned out to be a losing investment for several candidates trying to break into political office. F...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 612
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
creoleguy32
Exposer of Corruption
03:24 AM on 11/14/2010
Well I am a registered Ca. Republican and even I voted for Jerry Brown and Boxer. Gov Christy messed it up for Queen Meg. Carly Fiorina was incompetent and both were nothing but two rich, out of touch woman who got into positions, largely based on gender affirmative action which white women so love to forget about
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carolr51
11:13 AM on 11/05/2010
It's such a relief to have her off of my TV and radio! She has been relentless for over a year, and I think that is one reason she lost. Brown's strategy worked much better, spending most of his funds at the end of the campaign. Go Jerry!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jerryfromcalifornia
I can't type
11:12 AM on 11/05/2010
Paul Newman gave 300 million to charity from "Newmans Own" , Meg spent half that and has nothing to show for it but tired feet and a couple of signs for her garage. Pity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ActionLady
09:14 AM on 11/05/2010
So much good could have been done with that type of money. Did they really think these offices were worth that much?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MacManLB
Public Enemy #2
06:26 AM on 11/05/2010
The article mentions that these businesspeople "invested" into their own political races. Common sense tells us that if a businessperson "invests" $160 million dollars (the actual amount that Meg spent) that she has calculated and expects at least a four-fold return on that investment. These oligarchs would have us believe that they are willing to spends hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money because they are altruistic and they love the working class people. Meg Whitman created a life-narrative that would have us believe that she was a disinterested and selfless person whose only concern was for the well being of others. Then the undocumented Mexican maid who had toiled under Meg's oppressive yoke for years spoke out. Martin King was right, no lie can last forever. Let's hope the rest of the country wakes up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
joeyfoto
“Écraser l'infamie!”
05:17 AM on 11/05/2010
This may have been written elsewhere, but the only attribution I have is from Justine, my 22 year-old daughter, who said: If Meg Whitman had donated her one-hundred-million plus dollars to AIDS research or to fund scholarships for poor kids, I would have voted for her."

Squandering wheel-barrows full of money on over-priced political consultants, who ran some of the most foolish ads in campaign history, demonstrated that Meg Whitman was unfit for high-office.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MacManLB
Public Enemy #2
06:33 AM on 11/05/2010
Let's say she did give the money to a charity. The fact that she very bothered to vote in any elections speaks volumes. Perhaps this billionaire knows something about the electoral process that we lowly working class people don't. If she really believed voting was important she would have voted in the last twenty-eight years or more. That fact alone should have disqualified her. This whole idea that rational people could brush the fact that she never voted aside is bewildering.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MacManLB
Public Enemy #2
06:36 AM on 11/05/2010
...wait I'm thinking about Carly Fiorina who never voted. Nevertheless, the point remains that neither woman is worthy of high office.
03:46 AM on 11/05/2010
Meg should run for president next. She still has over a billion in the bank, hell just spend half of that and for sure she would get the nomination.
03:22 AM on 11/05/2010
Must be disappointing to spend $140 million & not be given the 'right' to sell California on e-Bay.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Freesia2
I'm nicer than I appear in print. :-)
02:35 AM on 11/05/2010
$142 million of her own money. That's positively obsc-ne. It is.

Congratulation on your new Governor Brown, California. Who didn't try to buy you.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
BadBadKitty
02:14 AM on 11/05/2010
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Meg is an _UglyPig_
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:53 AM on 11/05/2010
,,,that is being too kind...!
03:23 AM on 11/05/2010
Technically, she's a warthog.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:05 AM on 11/05/2010
"..."The money can certainly buy a candidate recognition, but it can't necessarily buy them love," said Douglas Schwartz, polling director at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut..."

Can't buy me lu-uv.
No no no, noooo...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:16 PM on 11/04/2010
Bwah haha. Ha. HA. Ugh...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:36 PM on 11/04/2010
So "meggie" and Carly thought they could actually "buy" California? Well, this state ain't for sale! Now you both can get the hell out of this state and go back to wherever you came from!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Viper1st
multi quasi faceted
10:56 PM on 11/04/2010
Instead - they were out-bid by Jerry Brown with the help of Gloria Allred
photo
1logicalthinker
with occasional humorous overtones :)
02:12 AM on 11/05/2010
out-bid by Jerry Brown? That's absurd! The only donation Jerry Brown made to his own campaign was $24,000 in-kind donation--not cash. That figures out to about a nickel a vote, unlike Meg's donation of $46 of her own money for every vote.

As for Gloria Allred's help, while Jerry Brown surely benefited from it, the blame is totally Whitman's, unless you think Brown hired Whitman's illegal worker :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:55 AM on 11/05/2010
.*********.....GLORIA ALLRED IS 'NO' ONE TO MESS WITH..*********


.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CaliTLC
The GOP is a MORIBUND Party
11:25 PM on 11/04/2010
Hold on. They can stay since they are spending millions. They should just NEVER EVER run for public office again.
10:19 PM on 11/04/2010
Jerry Brown already showing that he knows how to do more with less.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:43 PM on 11/04/2010
Which goes to show you who would be better at running this state. Talk about "wasteful spending", "meggie" typified that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Concerned Citizen in CA
3 things cannot be long hidden: sun, moon & truth
10:44 PM on 11/04/2010
I hear he did a wonderful job rebuilding Oakland (the Raiders not withstanding).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MysticInd
09:39 PM on 11/04/2010
I'll believe it when I see it; tee pee-ers got Koch money to be known....Worked out well for them...Who's reporting this garbage anyway....(don't mean to inflame)