Campaign Finance, State Elections

THE STATES ARE often neglected in the study of campaign finance, despite the fact that they oversee the vast majority of American elections. The candidate who raises the most money wins the election most of the time, and when incumbents run, they almost always enjoy a funding advantage. Second, the average cost of a state election varies. For example, California's $300,000 average candidate expenditures for the general assembly election of 2006 dwarf those of even other large states. In New York, for instance, average expenditures were about $75,000, and they were slightly lower than $150,000 in Texas. The norm for most states is well below $50,000, and in smaller ones such as Maine, Wyoming, or North Dakota, the costs are often less than $10,000. The spending gap between states can be explained in part by population differences and the competitiveness of the district. Candidates in more densely populated areas must turn to more expensive campaign methods to get their messages out, and when a race is close, there is a greater impetus to spend. These factors can explain variation within the same state as well, as candidates in different districts can differ considerably in spending depending on the character of the race and the composition of the district. In Texas, for example, four candidates for the state house raised more than $1 million in 2006, while more than 70 spent less than $50,000.

The most important factor in explaining spending variations between states is the wide-ranging spectrum of legislative professionalization. Seats in more professionalized legislatures typically come with higher salaries, more staff, and other perks that make them more prized. Contenders are willing to raise and spend more money to win election to those bodies. In Michigan, for instance, where the legislative base salary is roughly $80,000 a year, a typical 2006 house race cost less than $40,000, while in Montana, the average candidate for the state house spent about $7,000 for a job that pays only $83.67 per session day with no staff assistance.

The cost of gubernatorial contests also varies by state. Candidates for governor often spend several million dollars, or about the same cost as a campaign for U.S. Senate catering to the same statewide constituency. Again, there are large differences in total outlays from one state to another. In the 2006 California gubernatorial election, nearly 30 candidates to spent more than $137 million combined, more than any non-federal race in American history. During the same cycle in Hawaii, 18 candidates spent less than $5 million, and in Maine, 10 contenders spent a combined total of just over $2.5 million. The costs of other statewide races, such as secretaries of state, judicial candidates, or attorneys general, are typically somewhere between the legislative and gubernatorial figures, but rarely come close to the spending levels of the latter.

Despite such wide disparity in average spending, the vast majority of state elections are much less expensive than federal ones. State legislative races are less costly because districts are smaller in population and geographical area than all but the tiniest congressional districts. With fewer voters to reach, candidates for many state legislatures are able to put a personal stamp on their campaign. In federal elections, the price of media advertising is usually a substantial factor in the overall [Page 80]cost of a race, but in state races, the media market may be a daily newspaper or local radio station. With comparatively few advertising media on which to spend money, it is not uncommon for legislative candidates to still rely on grassroots tactics, campaigning door-to-door, telephoning constituents, sending mailings, and purchasing relatively inexpensive signs.

...