Principal Investigators

Paul S. Herrnson, Director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship and Professor of Government and Politics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, 301-405-4123.

Ronald A. Faucheux, Editor-in-Chief, Campaigns and Elections magazine, 1414 22nd St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, 202-887-8529.

Funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts
 

Critics of the current campaign finance system complain about rising campaign costs and the time that candidates need to spend raising money for their campaigns. A survey of political candidates who recently ran for various offices -- such as the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Governor, the state legislature, local offices, and judicial posts -- shows that candidates spend a sizable portion of their personal campaign schedules raising money.

Candidates seeking federal or statewide office were the most likely to report they devoted large portions of their time to fundraising activities. Federal and statewide candidates also were the most likely to hire paid staff and consultants to raise money for their campaigns. The high costs of running for office at the congressional and statewide level has forced 55 percent of statewide and more than 43 percent of U.S. House candidates to devote at least one-quarter of their time to fundraising.

Candidates running for the state legislature also face increased demands to raise money. State legislative races have become very expensive in several large states. Almost one-third of all state legislative candidates report that they devote at least one in four hours on the campaign trail collecting campaign contributions. By comparison, most local and judicial candidates do not need to raise huge sums of money to campaign and report devoting only a small fraction of their time to fundraising.

Candidates in statewide and congressional races also are more likely to rely on professional fundraisers. A majority of statewide candidates and one-third of congressional candidates pay campaign aides or political consultants to raise money, compared to 11 percent for judicial candidates, 9 percent for the state legislative candidates, and 3 percent for county, local, or municipal candidates. Statewide and U.S. House candidates also spend significantly more money on fundraising than do those running for the state legislature, local, or judicial office. These results confirm that as the price for office increases candidates become increasingly beholden to fundraising demands.

In addition to differences across office levels, the study found significant differences between major-party and minor-party candidates. A far greater percentage of Democrats and Republicans spend more time raising money, hire fundraising professionals, and invest money for fundraising purposes than do independent and minor-party candidates.

The study investigated differences between incumbents, challengers, and open-seat candidates, winners and losers, and men and women, but found no major differences in the time, professionalism, and money they devoted to fundraising.
 

The campaign for dollars has taken on added importance as the amounts of money raised and spent in American elections reaches new heights with each passing year. This report addresses how much time candidates actually devote to fundraising. The findings are based on a new study of roughly 2,200 candidates who ran for various political offices, including the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, state legislature, country, local, and municipal office, and judicial posts between 1996 and 1998 (see below for details of the survey).
 

I. Time Devoted to Fundraising. Candidates spend a fairly sizable portion of their personal campaign schedules on fundraising activities. Roughly 29 percent of all candidates across all political offices devoted more than one-quarter of their time to fundraising activities, including attending fundraising events and making telephone solicitations (see Figure 1). For many candidates, fundraising has become one of the most significant activities on the campaign trail.

Figure 1. The Portion of Candidates' Personal Campaign Schedule Devoted to Fundraising

N = 2,198
 

II. Office Level Differences. The costs of running for governor, Congress, and many other offices have soared in recent years. There was nearly $450 million spent in the 1998 House elections alone. An all-time high of 110 candidates each spent more than $1 million and six spent in excess of $3 million. In the U.S. Senate, fifty-six of the sixty-eight major-party candidates each spent more than $1 million, including thirty who spent more than $3 million, and eleven who spent above $6 million.

Candidates for these offices spend substantial time asking for contributions. A breakdown of the data by office shows that those seeking the highest offices spend the most time raising money (see Table 1). Fifty-percent of all statewide candidates reported that they spent one-quarter or more of their personal campaign schedule on fundraising; 23 percent spent half of their time asking for contributions. U.S. House candidates were close behind. Slightly more than two-fifths of U.S. House candidates spent the equivalent of two and one-half of every ten days on the campaign trail asking for funds.

Candidates running for the state legislature were next -- about one-third reporting that they devoted more than one-quarter of their time to raising money. The costs of running for a seat in the state legislature in large states such as California are often as expensive as running for a seat in the U.S. House. Many state legislative candidates need to raise substantial sums of money to wage competitive campaigns and therefore must invest large portions of their time to fundraising activities.

County, local, and municipal candidates were the least likely to devote substantial time on fundraising. Many of them wage inexpensive grassroots-oriented campaigns, allowing them to spend less time soliciting fund.

Table 1. Office Level Differences in Time Devoted to Fundraising
 

	Statewide	U.S. House	State legislature	Local	Judicial
10 % or less	38.3 %	36.7 %	35.1 %	67.6 %	51.7 %
11 % to 25 %	6.7	20.5	31.9	16.6	26.8
26 % to 50 %	31.7	19.3	23.0	11.7	15.8
51 % to 75 %	15.0	17.5	8.4	3.0	4.3
More than 75 %	8.3	6.0	1.5	1.1	1.4
(N)	(60)	(166)	(1,115)	(435)	(209)

Note: Statewide candidates include those who ran for the U.S. Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state.
 

III. Partisan Differences. Democrats and Republicans spend roughly equivalent amounts of time raising money. The major partisan difference exists between candidates of the two major parties and independent and minor-party candidates (see Table 2). More than 75 percent of independents and other minor-party candidates devote less than 10 percent of their time to fundraising, compared to more than one-third for Democrats and Republicans respectively. Independents and minor-party candidates have a difficult time attracting donors because they usually face long odds of getting elected. This prompts many of them to concentrate on other activities, including trying to attract free-media coverage.

Table 2. Party Differences in Time Devoted to Fundraising
 

	Democrats	Republicans	Independents	Minor party
10 % or less	34.7 %	38.0 %	76.8 %	77.6 %
11 % to 25 %	28.4	28.8	14.0	15.9
26 % to 50 %	23.7	21.8	7.6	5.0
51 % to 75 %	10.8	8.4	1.6	--
More than 75 %	2.5	3.1	--	1.5
(N)	(883)	(859)	(250)	(201)

IV. Money Raised. Candidates who spent the most time on fundraising activities raised and spent the most money (see Table 3). Roughly 56 percent of the candidates who spent more than three-quarters of their time on fundraising activities spent more than $50,000 in campaign contributions. By comparison, only 8 percent of those who devoted less than 10 percent of their personal schedule to fundraising received and spent more than $50,000.

Further analysis of the data using simple regression techniques shows that for every one percent increase in time devoted to fundraising, candidates across all offices raised and spent an estimated $4,636 in additional money. The effects were even larger for candidates running for federal offices. In short, the time that candidates devote to fundraising has a significant impact in determining the amount of money that they eventually raise.

Winners and losers, challengers, open-seat candidates, and incumbents all spent similar portions of their personal schedule devoted to fundraising (see Table A-1 in the Appendix). There were no major differences between winning candidates and losing candidates (see Table A-2), or between male and female candidates (see Table A-3).

Table 3. Money Raised and Spent by Time Devoted to Fundraising
 

	10% or less	11 - 25 %	26 - 50 %	51 - 75 %	More than 75 %
$0-999	41.3 %	8.1 %	6.1 %	4.7 %	7.7 %
$1,000-9,999	32.7	25.3	16.7	11.1	7.7
$10,000-49,999	17.5	42.8	39.4	31.6	28.8
$50,000 and up	8.5	23.9	37.8	52.6	55.8
(N)	(982)	(566)	(426)	(171)	(52)

V. Fundraising Operations. Candidates for most elective offices have small fundraising operations, relying mainly on themselves and volunteers to raise campaign money (see Figure 2). Only about 10 percent of the candidate pool reported that they relied on paid consultants or staff to carry out their fundraising activities.

Figure 2. Participants in Candidates' Fundraising Operations

N = 2,249
 

VI. Office Level Differences. There are dramatic differences in the fundraising operations of candidates for different levels of office (see Table 4). A majority of statewide and roughly one-third of U.S. House candidates relied on paid staff or political consultants for fundraising. By comparison, about 11 percent of judicial candidates and less than 10 percent of those who ran for the state legislature, or for county, local, or municipal office hired professionals to raise campaign money. U.S. congressional campaigns and statewide races rely heavily on expensive mass media advertising. The high costs of advertising drive the need for money and fundraising professionals.

Table 4. Fundraising Professionalism by Office Level
 

	Statewide	U.S. House	State legislature	Local	Judicial
Professionals	51.6 %	33.3 %	9.0 %	3.2 %	11.0 %
No professionals	48.4	66.7	91.0	96.9	89.0
(N)	(64)	(168)	(1,148)	(467)	(237)

VII. Partisan Differences. Democrats and Republicans were also more likely than independents or minor-party candidates to hire professional fundraisers. Independents and minor-party candidates often cannot afford the luxury of hiring campaign professionals to do their fundraising, and instead spend their money on other activities, including reaching out to voters (see Table 5).

Table 5. Fundraising Professionalism by Political Party
 

	Democrats	Republicans	Independents	Minor party
Professionals	14.9 %	11.8 %	2.9 %	1.4 %
No professionals	85.1	88.2	97.1	98.6
(N)	(926)	(891)	(273)	(211)

VIII. Money Raised. Professionals are very effective at raising money (see Table 6). Sixty-nine percent of the candidates who hired professionals raised more than $50,000. Only 16 percent of those who did not hire professionals raised that much. Candidates who hired professionals to collect campaign contributions raised an estimated $475,882 more than those who did not have professional fundraisers.

Table 6. Money Raised and Spent by Professionalism
 

	Professionals	No professionals
$0-999	3.9 %	27.6 %
$1,000-9,999	4.7	27.1
$10,000-49,999	22.3	29.4
$50,000 and up	69.1	16.0
(N)	(256)	(2,050)

There were no major differences in fundraising professionalism between incumbents, challengers, and open-seat candidates (see Table A-4 in the Appendix). There were also no significant differences between winning candidates and losing candidates (see Table A-5), or between male and female candidates (see Table A-6).
 

IX. Fundraising Expenditures. In addition to hiring campaign professionals and spending sizable portions of time for fundraising activities, many candidates spend money to raise money. General election candidates across all office levels spent an average of $8,002 of their campaign budget for fundraising purposes. Major-party U.S. House candidates spent almost $58,193 of their campaign budget on fundraising. For every one dollar spent on fundraising, House candidates raised five dollars. The most successful fundraisers are those that can afford to send out mass mailing solicitation letters, coordinate phone-banking drives, and purchase other needed resources. The results confirm that spending money on fundraising activities is a wise investment.
 

X. Office Level Differences. There are stark differences in campaign fundraising expenses across office levels (see Table 7). More than 45 percent of statewide candidates and nearly 39 percent of U.S. House candidates spent upwards of $10,000 to raise money for their campaigns. By comparison, only 6 percent of state legislative candidates, 2 percent of local office seekers, and 8 percent of those running for judicial posts allocated at least $10,000 for fundraising purposes.

Table 7. Fundraising Expenditures by Office Level
 

	Statewide	U.S. House	State legislature	Local	Judicial
$0-999	43.8 %	54.8 %	60.9 %	89.3 %	67.1 %
$1,000-9,999	10.9	6.5	33.6	8.6	25.3
$10,000 and up	45.3	38.7	5.6	2.1	7.6
(N)	(64)	(168)	(1,147)	(467)	(237)

XI. Partisan Differences. Independents and minor-party candidates are far less likely than are Democrats and Republicans to spend campaign money for fundraising purposes (see Table 8). Nine of ten independents and minor-party candidates spent less than $1,000 on expenses designed to solicit campaign funds compared to only six of ten Democrats and Republicans.

There were no major differences found between incumbents, challengers, or open-seat candidates (see Table A-7). There were also no significant differences between winner and losers (see Table A-8), or men and women (see Table A-9).

Table 8. Fundraising Expenditures by Political Party
 

	Democrats	Republicans	Independents	Minor party
$0-999	58.7 %	62.7 %	90.1 %	90.5 %
$1,000-9,999	29.2	26.5	8.4	8.5
$10,000 and up	12.1	10.8	1.5	0.9
(N)	(926)	(890)	(273)	(211)

THE STUDY

This report is based on a nationwide mail survey of political candidates that was conducted in spring 1999 and sponsored by a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The survey was based on a representative sample of candidates of all political parties, including winners and losers, who ran for public office between 1996 and 1998. The results in this study are based on general election candidates only. More information about the larger project is available at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/ herrnson/outreach.html.
 

THE RESEARCH TEAM

Paul S. Herrnson is director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship and professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland. He is the author of Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and Washington, 3rd ed. (CQ Press 2000) and Party Campaigning in the 1980s (Harvard, 1988). He is co-editor of several volumes, including, Campaigns and Elections: Contemporary Case Studies (CQ Press, 1999), After the Revolution: PACs, Lobbies, and the Republican Congress (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), and The Interest Group Connection: Electioneering, Lobbying, and Policy Making in Washington (Chatham House, 1998). He has written numerous articles on Congress, campaign finance, political parties, and elections.

Ronald A. Faucheux is editor-in-chief of Campaigns & Elections magazine, The Road to Victory (Kendall Hunt 1995) and co-editor of Campaigns and Elections: Contemporary Case Studies (CQ Press 1999).
 

Table A-1. Differences in Time Devoted to Fundraising by Candidate Status
 

	Incumbents	Challengers	Open-seats
10 % or less	47.4 %	42.8 %	38.6 %
11 % to 25 %	27.7	23.4	27.2
26 % to 50 %	17.2	21.6	21.0
51 % to 75 %	6.4	9.1	9.7
More than 75 %	1.3	3.0	3.5
(N)	(911)	(755)	(453)

Table A-2. Differences in Time Devoted to Fundraising by Electoral Success
 

	Winners	Losers
10 % or less	47.5 %	40.2 %
11 % to 25 %	26.6	24.4
26 % to 50 %	18.7	20.5
51 % to 75 %	5.7	11.1
More than 75 %	1.5	3.8
(N)	(1,350)	(848)

Table A-3. Gender Differences in Time Devoted to Fundraising
 

	Men	Women
10 % or less	45.2 %	42.0 %
11 % to 25 %	26.9	21.9
26 % to 50 %	18.8	22.1
51 % to 75 %	7.1	10.4
More than 75 %	2.1	3.5
(N)	(1,735)	(452)

Table A-4. Fundraising Professionalism by Candidate Status
 

	Incumbents	Challengers	Open-seats
Professionals	11.7 %	10.2 %	12.1 %
No professionals	88.3	89.8	87.9
(N)	(973)	(777)	(472)

Table A-5. Fundraising Professionalism by Electoral Success
 

	Winners	Losers
Professionals	10.2 %	12.5 %
No professionals	89.8	87.5
(N)	(1,436)	(871)

Table A-6. Fundraising Professionalism by Gender
 

	Men	Women
Professionals	10.6 %	13.3 %
No professionals	89.4	86.7
(N)	(1,813)	(481)

Table A-7. Fundraising Expenditures by Candidate Status
 

	Incumbents	Challengers	Open-seats
$0-999	65.6 %	71.8 %	59.5 %
$1,000-9,999	24.8	19.2	30.5
$10,000 and up	9.6	9.0	10.0
(N)	(972)	(777)	(472)

Table A-8. Fundraising Expenditures by Electoral Success
 

	Winners	Losers
$0-999	66.0 %	68.3 %
$1,000-9,999	24.9	21.8
$10,000 and up	9.1	9.9
(N)	(1,435)	(871)

Table A-9. Fundraising Expenditures by Gender
 

	Men	Women
$0-999	67.3 %	64.7 %
$1,000-9,999	23.8	24.1
$10,000 and up	8.9	11.2
(N)	(1,812)	(481)

Table A-10. Breakdown of the Sample Respondents

I. Office Level
 

Statewide	3.1 %
U.S. House	8.2
State legislature	55.0
Local	22.4
Judicial	11.4

II. Political Party
 

Democrats	40.2 %
Republicans	38.7
Independents	11.9
Minor-party	9.2

III. Candidate Status
 

Incumbents	43.8 %
Challengers	35.0
Open-seats	21.2

IV. Electoral Success
 

Winners	62.2%
Losers	37.8

V. Gender
 

Men	79.0%
Women	21.0