The Who, What, When, Where, and Why of Congressional Campaign Spending

Description

In what will come as a shock to no congressional observer, congressional campaigns are getting more and more expensive. The 2000 election cycle, for example, saw House candidates spend a combined $2.9 billion on their campaigns. In 2016, that number exploded to $4.05 billion. Last cycle, the average Representative raised $1.8 million for their reelection campaigns, up 80 percent from 2000.

And for those attempting to handicap specific congressional races, fundraising totals are often used as a key predictor of candidates’ success on Election Day. The equation is straightforward: candidates with bigger war-chests are better able to court voters via TV spots, voter data operations, consultants, and get out the vote efforts. Conventional wisdom says those who raise can spend, and those who can spend typically win.

Surprisingly, however, and despite its acknowledged link to candidate success, we know little about how campaigns actually spend their huge (and growing) amounts of raised monies, and how variance in these campaign spending decisions may ultimately impact electoral success. We know they buy TV air time, hire consultants, and print up yard signs, but we don’t have a good handle on how candidates choose to divvy up the fruits of their fundraising labor.