Do Our Senators Work For Us?

    The Big Money in Political   Campaigns 

Jasper McChesney

United Re:public / News Report

Published: Wednesday 27 June 2012

“Candidates who raised 33 percent less money received 33 percent fewer votes, and lost.”

Is Digg defining a new direction for the curation economy? And could the new site help us cope with information overload?

We know what the ballot looks like when we go to the polls. But what does a senator see?

To win elections, politicians need votes. To get those, they need to raise money – a lot of money. In the 2010 Senate elections, the average winning candidate received 1.8 million votes and raised $9.8 million. Candidates who raised 33 percent less money received 33 percent fewer votes, and lost.

If a candidate called up voters himself, he’d need to convince 144 people every hour to vote for him (on average over his six-year term). That means he could spare just 25 seconds talking to each voter. (And this assumes he never spends time governing; he’d actually have far less.)

NationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit funded directly by our readers. Please make a small donation to support our work.

But modern political campaigns speak to voters less directly, with TV ads and billboards. To afford their campaigns, senators need to raise $782 an hour. That sounds like a lot, but a single big donor gives $1,837 on average. Most Americans can’t afford that, but politicians ask lobbyists and the wealthy. Because each big donor gives so much, he or she is worth 2.4 hours of a candidate’s time – over 300 times more than a voter.

Would a busy senator rather talk with 300 voters or one big donor? When it comes time to do his job, and pass legislation, whose interests will he represent?