---

---

Government and Politics

Money Doesn't Decide Elections

Researchers at the Center for Voting and Democracy have found that campaign contributions are not as important a consideration in deciding the outcome of November general elections as other factors. Their analysis was based on the results of the 1996 contest for U.S. House seats. In a review of contests in districts with open seats, how that district voted in the presidential race was a much stronger predictor of its congressional choice than campaign spending. Nearly one-third of Republican winners in open-seat races were outspent by Democrats -- but all of them were from districts where President Clinton received less than 50 percent of the vote. Where Clinton ran poorly, Republicans consistently won easily; where he ran well, Democrats won easily. In districts where Clinton ran close to his national average, the races were close. The researchers suggest that most elections are decided during the redistricting process every 10 years -- when the political map is carved up to create "safe" districts and protect incumbents. So a disproportionate amount of money is spent to influence undecided voters in "swing" districts. The authors suggest that the whole process of redistricting be taken out of the hands of politicians and vested in an independent nonpartisan commission which would use nonpolitical criteria to draw district boundaries. Source: Rob Richie and Steven Hill (both of the Center for Voting and Democracy), "In Politics, Money Isn't the Root of All Evil," Wall Street Journal, January 19, 1998.

---

Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security | Debate Central | Contact Us

Dallas Headquarters: 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924
Washington Office: 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 900 South Building - Washington, DC 20004 - 202/220-3082 - Fax 202/220-3096
© 2001 NCPA