Disparities in Political Spending
Congressional races are expensive and grueling. Especially for non-incumbents trying to get their foot in the door of politics. The financial odds are stacked against new candidates and can often be the largest difficulty for new politicians and democracy as a whole. This clash between capitalism and democracy is a topic that must be discussed.
My recent analysis of political spending amongst incumbents and non-incumbents shines a light on how large this spending disparity can be. By using 2021’s house expenditure data, I found that incumbents spend more than non-incumbents by a mind-blowing margin. Since 1990, the price of securing a seat in the house of representatives has doubled to about $1.5 million dollars. During the 2018 house elections, democratic incumbents collected an average of $11.6 million each by late April. At the same time in April 2018, democratic challengers had raised just $1 million each. My analysis on the expenditure data from quarter three of 2021 showed similar results. The outliers on the challenger side were eye-opening. Some challengers had a total spending of less than $100,000. Meanwhile, the lowest spending for an incumbent was well over $200,000. Some incumbents spent well over $450,000 while non-incumbents were spending just $100,000. This discrepancy shines a light on the power of financial resources in a position of power. Political affiliation doesn’t play a role or make a difference in the discrepancy between incumbent and challenger spending.
The financial discrepancy between challengers and incumbents can be troubling and concerning. With financials being such a large factor in deciding who gets elected, this discrepancy raises questions about how everyday citizens can participate in our democracy.
On one hand, the incumbents are mostly veteran and experienced politicians with deep connections into the political system. These incumbents often have access to established donors with common agendas who are willing to financially support their campaigns. On the other hand, are the challengers who may represent their communities better than the incumbent, however, lack the same financial support as their opponents. Challengers often have to come up with creative fund-raising strategies. They often rely on social media to advance their campaigns while asking for donations. Meanwhile, incumbents are investing in expensive, top-level advertising that is personalized for each recipient. This occurs through mass media as well as mail campaigns. The issue is not that challengers are less qualified than incumbents. The problem is that these challengers do not have the same level of financial resources.
The issue isn’t a personal problem for these challengers, this is an issue for American democracy and society as a whole. As politicians are shut down due to money, we also shut down a diversity of perspectives on how to continue making the country a better place for all. Furthermore, American’s who see this discrepancy may feel discouraged and that their opinions are not as valid as someone who lies in the financial elite. In turn, this lowers the level of trust that the American public has in the government.
How can this discrepancy be addressed?
First, we have to encourage average citizens to become more involved in politics at the local and the federal level. This can be done by running for local offices or supporting individual candidates with similar views and values. Next, we need to limit the influence of money within politics and campaigns. This could be done by publicly financed campaigns or stricter limits and transparency about donors.
In conclusion, it is the responsibility of American citizens and the public to address the financial spending discrepancy between incumbents and challengers within politics. This discrepancy reflects greater issues within America’s political system and will take a ton of public support or backlash to drive a change.
