Money made a difference in election results

Washington Times:

When then-State Sen. Leonard Lance won the Republican primary in New Jersey's seventh congressional district in June, he didn't have much time to celebrate. His Democratic opponent had a considerable war chest - one that would grow to a 2-to-1 advantage by the end of the race.

"Of course we were discouraged, particularly in the summer months, when we were at low tide," said Mr. Lance, who went on to win the race despite the financial disparity. "But we overcame the disadvantage in other ways."

The same was not true for 438 other candidates like him in the Nov. 4 elections. In only 30 of 468 congressional races did the candidate who spent more money on the race actually lose.

The better-funded campaigns won more than 93 percent of the congressional seats selected in this election cycle, as well as the White House. The prominent role of money in the race, particularly President-elect Barack Obama's fundraising bonanza, has prompted a series of watchdog groups to push for Congress and for Mr. Obama to follow through on his calls from the stump for campaign finance reform

Money has long proven to be a significant bellwether of future success, particularly in the Senate. This year, 93.5 percent of those elected or re-elected spent more than their opponent. That's a significant increase from 73 percent in 2006 and 88 percent in 2004, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a Washington watchdog group.

In the House, 93 percent of those elected spent more than their opponent. That's on par with the 94 percent in 2006 and less than the 98 percent in 2004. The figures do not include spending by outside groups or the races that have yet to be decided.

Congress hasn't indicated whether it plans to take up Mr. Obama's calls to fix what he has called the "broken" campaign-finance system. Democrats, who traditionally have favored campaign finance reform, now find themselves with a president-elect who succeeded by bucking the system and declining public financing.

"What's going to be fascinating to watch is will the Democratic leadership agree to move a bill to overhaul the public financing system," said Michael E. Toner, partner at Bryan Cave LLP and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). "There is probably a widespread sense in the Democratic Party that Obama doesn't need an overhauled system and would in fact be hurt by it."

...

I predict it will not be a priority unless a special prosecutor uncovers criminal activity. The Democrats are not interested in reform when they are winning the money polls. Campaign contributions are to a large extent a form of pre election polling where some of it gravitates toward the perceived winner in order to get a seat at the table after the election. McCain-Feingold was either a huge failure or a gigantic fraud if its objective was to get the money out of politics as it was sold. Instead it looks like an attempt to give Demcorats an advantage which they have exploited to the hilt.