Two elections, one conclusion

Rose Creasman


Though four years apart, the 1996 and 2000 elections prove one common theme in politics: Money talks, sometimes even louder than the candidates.

The two consecutive elections highlighted the influence of money in the election outcome. As in 1996, Petersen received the most money in independent expenditures with roughly $11.3 million, with McDonalds and Adams coming close with contributions totaling $9.3 and $8.6.

Just like in 1996, the top three candidates with the most money spent in independent expenditures came in first in the elections. Three main groups contributed to the six candidates’ campaigns: the Police Union, the Teachers’ Union, and the Save Our Planet Group. The latter spent the most in 1996, contributing $9.7 million to candidates. The single largest donation for any candidate totaled approximately $1,075,837 and was, not surprisingly, contributed by the Save the Planet Group.

The two election periods reflect the changes in political campaigning while supporting the notion that more money equals more popularity and consequently, more votes. The most common purpose for contribution in 1996 was direct mail pieces, while the 2000 elections clearly show the rising popularity of TV and radio advertising. In fact, roughly 56 percent of all contributions were used in TV advertising.

In particular, Petersen’s use of TV advertising seems directly proportional to his success in the elections—about half of his earned money was devoted to TV advertising. Much less emphasis was placed upon direct mailings and yard signs.

Of the three losing candidates, Johnson, Smith and Thurston, Johnson received the least money with roughly $1.8 million. The three winners, in contrast, spent a combined $20 million on TV ads.

Political underdogs, beware. It seems that dollars and TV commercials really do buy the vote.