FOLLOW THE MONEY

by Matthew Gilson

It pays to make money. While that might sound obvious, it’s also true.

In the 2000 election, the final results could be predicted based on the total worth of the independent expenditures made in the name of each candidate. All of the candidates with victories in the election racked up over $8 million apiece. No one on the losing side had over $4 million spent for them.

Adams, McDonald and Peterson, who raised roughly $8.6 million, $9.3 million and $11.3 million, respectively, were the three that landed spots in the winner’s circle. Johnson, Smith and Thurston brought in a combined $7.4 million, still over a million short of Adams’ total alone.

Independent expenditures are slightly different from regular donations. Instead of giving money directly to candidates, groups or individuals provide a product or a service to a candidate and pick up the tab for that project. Some common ideas include making posters or distributing direct-mailings. All of the independent expenditures made for the six candidates in question were provided by three interest groups: the Police Union, the Save Our Planet Group and the Teachers’ Union.

There is no conclusive evidence that gathering more money in independent expenditures produces campaign wins – it is possible that the victorious candidates were given more money because they were already more popular and would have won anyway.

However, one factor did appear to have an unquestionable effect on the outcome of the races – TV

Fifty-six percent of the total independent expenditure money was devoted to TV advertisements, and for good reason. Altogether, the three winning candidates had 28 commercials produced for them. The losers had two.

The average cost of the TV advertising expenditures hovered just below $700,000, nearly four times the cost of the next most expensive category. If all of the money of the three losing candidates had been diverted to TV, still only 10 advertisements could have been made.

Large donations enable expensive projects, and the most expensive – TV advertising – seems to lead directly to votes. As can be clearly seen in the results of this election, it’s tough for the little guy to stand up to big bucks.

The Save Our Planet Group contributed the most money – almost $20 million – and the three candidates that it supported the strongest all won. Not surprisingly, the Save Our Planet Group spent more than twice as much on TV advertisements that the other two groups combined.

The independent expenditures clearly exhibited a typical final rush. From March through October, about $16 million was spent. However, in the week before the election (November 2-8), the groups contributed nearly $21 million. All of the direct mailings were sent out in March and all of the TV spots aired in that final week before the vote.