I was reminded today of the importance of using low-tech ways, like a conference call, for connecting people to each other and to campaigns and candidates. Even in this, the Connected Age, when Twitter and YouTube are dominating election news in the way that blogs did in 2004. I was also reminded that there are many more political races this year than just the one for the White House.
I joined a conference call today for a discussion with two Democratic senate challengers, Mark Udall from Colorado and Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire. Now, to be clear, both candidates were using the call to raise money. When candidates have to spend 80% of their time fundraising, this is to be expected. However, there was also a chance for a real conversation with the candidates that doesn't happen often. What is their position on renewable energy policy? How long will it take to get out of Iraq? How can we stop a repeat of the electoral shenanigans that happened the first time Shaheen took on Sununu in 2002 from happening again? That was the scandal that eventually landed two Sununu campaign staffers in jail for jamming Democratic campaign phone lines on Election Day. However, most of the participants on the call were not from Colorado or New Hampshire, and I began to think about an oft-overlooked issue: the nationalization of key Congressional races.
The website OpenSecrets.org tracks the piles of money raised and spent in Congressional races. Several key Senate races in 2006 confirm a pattern that has developed over the last decade or so; the coffers of incumbents are stoked by corporate lobbyists, while challengers (who routinely raise less than half of the incumbents) try to level the playing field through contributions from national PACs, blogs and online efforts by organizations like MoveOn.org. For instance, in 2004 George Allen raised 57% of his $15 million from contributors outside of Virginia while Jim Webb raised 50% of his $5 million from outside the state. John Tester raised a total of $5.6 million, about a third of which came from outside of Montana, Conrad Burns raised $9.3 million, and the reverse, two-thirds, was raised from out-of-state. The pattern was the same in Pennsylvania and Missouri, but Connecticut is my very favorite example of the outsized fundraising that incumbents do out-of-state. Not only has Joe Lieberman left his political party, he's also left his in-state contributors behind, picking up over 80% of his contributors from outside of Connecticut in 2004!
It is easy to assume that this much money coming from the outside is bad for local communities as they become less important to candidates and candidate policy priorities shift with the money to out-of-state concerns. But I don't know that the answer is that simple. Outside funding helped John Tester beat Conrad Burns, and that's definitely a good thing for the people of Montana -- and the people of the United States. Even if we did try to regulate how much could be given by donors outside of states, it wouldn't work. Corporations would just set up in-state shell companies to bypass legal technicalities. What I do know, and what these numbers verify, is that it takes an obscene amount of money to be elected to the United States Senate these days, but that even gobs of money cannot save senators like Santorum, Allen and Burns from their real bosses, the voters. The interesting question, the one I'm not sure we know the answer to is this: When does the tipping point occur? When is a lopsided advantage in cash not enough to keep the greased wheels of incumbency turning?