Money Race Could Decide the Midterm Elections

Even before the sour economy forced many households to cut back on superfluous expenses, only a tiny fraction of Americans gave money to political candidates. But the impact on the political process of those who do give is, simply put, enormous. It's part of a trend that looks to continue and even exacerbate the outsize influence of the relative few wealthy enough to contribute regular large sums to those seeking office in the November elections. [See how much your member of Congress has raised.]

All told, from donors large and small, for expenses ranging from television ads to paper clips, the 2010 elections will cost an estimated $3.7 billion, according to experts. At this point, Democrats hold a slight overall edge in fundraising over Republicans for contests in the House and Senate. That margin is small but significant in a year when the public's opinion of Congress, and the two political parties in general, is at a historic low. Then again, in first-quarter fundraising, Republicans held an advantage over Democrats in a handful of pivotal Senate races, including Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, and Illinois—important bellwethers for what could be a "throw the bums out" election year.

The election is still several months away, of course, and the vote could yet end either in landslide or photo finish. Still, the so-called money race has often been a strong indicator of which candidate will eventually triumph at the ballot box. Individual donations will be key, but so too will funding from political action committees and other outside sources. One potentially key though as-yet-unknown variable will be the recent Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to spend money to support or oppose candidates. [See which industries donate the most.]

Both parties face challenges. For Republicans, the main task is how to capitalize on the unpopularity of the party in power while at the same time unifying their own fractured base of voters and donors. The sluggish economy and the prospect of increased taxes, coupled with their objections to President Obama's healthcare legislation, are obvious points of emphasis in their pleas to donors. But though recent polling shows voters unhappy with Democrats, just as many say they are unhappy with the GOP. Moreover, many conservatives have loudly bemoaned the Republican National Committee's prodigal spending and its inability to muster more from donors. By the end of May, the Democratic National Committee had $15 million in cash-on-hand, while the RNC had $12 million.

Part of the problem has been conservative supporters dividing both their time and money between traditional Republican candidates and those backed by the more conservative Tea Party groups. While creative tensions between the Republican Party and its more activist right-wing doppelganger may rally voters to the polls, they also threaten to divide a finite pool of donors between Tea Party-backed upstarts and GOP stalwarts—not to mention scaring off independent and moderate voters, poll watchers say. In the U.S. Senate race in Florida, for instance, Tea Party-backed Marco Rubio pulled both likely GOP votes and funding from sitting Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, who later decided to run as an independent. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, former Rep. Pat Toomey, another Republican favorite of the Tea Party, has already secured a war chest of several million dollars for his U.S. Senate race, ensuring a competitive campaign in the fall against Democratic primary winner Joe Sestak for the seat currently held by Republican turned Democrat Arlen Specter. But whatever the impact of the duplication of effort, conservative voter enthusiasm and the well-documented history of midterm election losses for the ruling party both suggest GOP gains. [See where Sestak's campaign cash is coming from.]

The Democrats, for their part, are looking to hold the line at the polls and have one big advantage, incumbency. Incumbents are becoming harder and harder to oust from office, election statistics show, a fact of which big campaign donors, often looking to back a winner, are all too aware. Over the past four decades, the average re-election rate for a sitting congressional representative has been north of 94 percent. Sitting senators also enjoy a large advantage over challengers, though by less substantial average margins than in the House, according to statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.