Money usually counts in political races, but not always

By Charles S. Johnson of the Standard State Bureau - 07/06/2008

Chuck Johnson Horse Sense commentary

HELENA — For the most part, money talked during Montana’s state primary elections.

Candidates who spent the most money in contested state primaries generally won their respective races. That’s not to say that spending more money was the only reason they won, but it certainly helped.

That’s probably comes as no surprise, although there have been plenty of exceptions over the years.

The question is, why? Do stronger candidates attract more donations? Or does having a larger campaign war chest make someone a stronger candidate? Or, more likely, is it a combination of the two?

More importantly, should money play such an important role in campaigns? It’s unfortunate and unfair that it does, but it seems to be a political fact of life.

Money will continue to heavily influence state and national political campaigns until there are major overhauls campaign-finance laws.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Those who write the campaign-finance laws benefit from them as incumbents.

The need to raise money, and lots of it, can keep many potentially good candidates from running against those capable of reeling in lots of campaign cash, particularly incumbents.

To measure the impact of money in the primary, we divided the amount of money the candidates spent in their respective races by the number of votes they received. That tells us how much they spent per vote received.

Spending the most money per vote, $2.62, was Steve Bullock of Helena, the Democratic nominee for attorney general who won a highly competitive three-way primary.

Comparisons with Bullock’s two primary opponents, Mike Wheat of Bozeman and John Parker of Great Falls, weren’t immediately possible. Their campaign finance reports didn’t balance, so they are having to file numerous amendments with the political practices office to close out their campaigns.

Yet since it appears that Bullock spent the most money and did garner the most votes, that conclusion should stand that he spent the most per vote.

Next was Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who spent $2.46 per vote to easily win his three-way primary. However, neither of his opponents, William Fischer of Lakeside or Don Pogreba of Helena, spent more than $4,300 in their races. Schweitzer spent nearly $394,000.

In third place was Republican attorney general nominee Tim Fox of Helena. He spent $2.28 per vote to defeat Lee Bruner of Butte in that competitive two-way primary. Bruner was fourth, spending slightly more than $2 per vote.

Roy Brown, the Republican nominee for governor, was in fifth place in dollars spent per vote. He spent more than $131,600 in his primary or nearly $2.00 per vote received in racking up an easy win. His opponent, Larry H. Steele from Great Falls, hasn’t filed his final report, but had spent only a little more than $2,000 through the previous reporting period.

In sixth place was Claudette Morton, a Democratic candidate for state school superintendent from Helena. She was the statistical exception to the rule.

Morton finished last in her four-way primary but appears to have spent the most per vote, $1.43, of the three Democratic superintendent candidates who filed reports.

Holly Raser, a Democrat from Missoula who placed second in votes, hadn’t filed her closing campaign finance report by Thursday afternoon. It was due June 23.

The Democratic primary winner for state school superintendent, Denise Juneau of Helena, was seventh, spending $1.23 per vote.

There weren’t contested primaries for state auditor and secretary of state. The winners of both parties’ primaries automatically advance to the November election.

Both candidates for chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court, Mike McGrath and Ron Waterman, also advance to the general election. So does Justice Pat Cotter, who faces a vote on whether to retain her instead of an opponent.

These statistics are for the state races only.

When the closing primary reports are filed for the Montana’s federal races, they will show that the two surprise primary winners spent far less per vote than did the favorites.

Defying the theory that you need money to win elections are Bob Kelleher, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, and John Driscoll, the Democratic U.S. House winner.

Another aberration occurred in 2006 when Democratic challenger Jon Tester knocked off three-term Republican U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, despite Burns outspending him $9.2 million to $5.6 million.

So what’s the moral of this story? It’s that money still counts in political campaigns, but not always.

Johnson is chief of the Lee Newspapers State Bureau in Helena. He may be reached at (800) 525-4920 or 443-4920. His e-mail address is chuck.johnson@lee.net.