Incumbents enjoy an unethical advantage in campaign fundraising
Historically, incumbents (public officials running for re-election) have had an advantage over their election year challengers, because they have been able to raise more money from individuals, their political party and special interests (corporations, unions and rich ideologues).
For example, in the 2004 elections for U.S. House of Representatives, 395 out of 402 incumbents won re-election-- the average winning incumbent raised $986,000 for their campaigns. Their opponents raised an average of only $277,000. The same pattern occurred for the U.S. Senate, as well.
Incumbents normally have a fundraising advantage over their challengers,
because they have more sources of campaign contributions. They had already at least one term in office and therefore, they enjoy contributors who are special interests, who want to keep them in office in order to maintain the incumbent's support for their causes and interests. Let us vote out incumbents who are more interested in buying your vote with the contributions of special interests, than they are in pursuing the interests and agenda of the people in their own district for the nation as a whole.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
Comments
I wonder how great an effect it would have if you had to be a resident (or located there, if you're a business) with in the election area to donate funds...meaning you actually had to be a constituent to contribute to someone's campaign. I think that would make things more equal. What does everyone else think?
Posted by: Stephanie | March 11, 2006 10:46 PM
Stephanie, since federal congress persons should govern for all of America, not just their own district constituents, it seems to me all Americans should be free to contribute to any federal candidate for office.
Posted by: David R. Remer | March 12, 2006 11:22 AM
I think that each voter in his respective district has the right to enjoy his proportion of his district's total votes. Therefore, it is only right that their election vote not be dampened by influence from other districts when it concerns a federal office. In other words, since all of the votes for a federal office come from within the office condidates' respective district, all financial influence should "derive" from that district only, whether the actual check is mailed from within or without that district.
Posted by: David Weller | March 12, 2006 11:46 AM
Yes they do. Incumbents have many unfair advantages that tax payers unwittingly fund.
But, voters, if they want, can't remedy it.
Posted by: d.a.n | March 13, 2006 10:50 PM