washingtonpost.com
Defeated Democrats outspent GOP in many campaigns

By T.W. Farnam and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 4, 2010; A26

The vast group of House Democrats defeated Tuesday lacked many things, but money wasn't one of them.

In two-thirds of the House seats that Republicans picked up Tuesday, Democratic candidates had more money behind them, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission.

Overall, Democratic candidates in the 63 races that flipped to the GOP had $206.4 million behind them, a tally that includes candidate fundraising and spending by parties and interests. That compares with only $171.7 million for their GOP rivals.

The pattern appears to contradict widespread complaints from Democrats that they were being unfairly overrun by wealthy Republicans, many of whom donated money to conservative groups to spend on political races - unencumbered by the limits and public-disclosure requirements that constrain most political fundraising. The data show that even in many races in which Republicans had more outside help, they still had fewer resources than their Democratic opponents.

"It sends a clear message that most Democrats couldn't buy their way out of bad spending and health-care votes," said Ron Bonjean, a GOP consultant and former top House and Senate aide. "It shows just how desperate the White House was in the final months of the campaign to make unsubstantiated claims that could easily backfire without the real facts."

In the run-up to the election, President Obama and other Democratic Party leaders decried the influx of outside money for Republicans, alleging that some of it may have come from overseas sources.

"The record amount of secret money spent by right-wing outside groups turned this political storm into a Category 3 political hurricane," said Ryan Rudominer, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Democrats say that reliance on spending by interest groups calls into question the independence of lawmakers, especially when the sources of funding are hidden from the public.

Outside interests played a bigger role in Senate races, and their aid helped the Republicans, the data show.

Some Republicans were able to win despite being badly outspent in Democratic-leaning districts. Outside Philadelphia, Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D), the Democratic Party and groups backing them had about three times as much as conservatives and the campaign of former congressman Mike Fitzpatrick.

Murphy's campaign used its financial advantage to run ads tarring Fitzpatrick, but the Republican triumphed regardless, bringing in 54 percent of the vote. Obama won the district with 54 percent in 2008.

Fitzpatrick, a lawyer, served one term in Congress before losing to Murphy in the Democratic wave of 2006. Murphy was the first veteran of the Iraq war elected to Congress when he narrowly took the Bucks County district.

Murphy's campaign raised $3.8 million for this year's rematch, while Fitzpatrick brought in only $1.6 million. The Democratic Party spent $560,000 on independent expenditures on Murphy's behalf, about twice as much as the Republican Party spent for Fitzpatrick.

A raft of liberal interest groups spent an additional $2 million to aid Murphy. Six groups - three labor unions, as well as VoteVets.org, the American Worker and America's Families First Action Fund - all spent six-figure sums. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, spent $170,000 on behalf of Fitzpatrick. Overall, the Republican got only $282,000 from outside groups.

Overall, Republicans were more reliant on interest-group spending. In the 63 races that switched to the GOP, Republicans benefited from $43 million from interest groups, compared with $32 million spent on behalf of Democrats.

"We're thankful for the contributions of everyone who helped us," said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Once we expanded the playing field and forced Democrats to play defense in 90 seats, many of the outside groups were able to see that and take advantage of it."

Although both parties spent similar amounts on the races, Republicans aired television ads much earlier in the fall, attempting to define Democratic candidates and move races early, according to campaign finance reports and party strategists. Democrats saved money for the end of the campaign, spending $40 million nationwide in the final two weeks.

In the Senate, Republicans had much more money than Democrats for the seats they captured in Pennsylvania and Illinois left open by retiring lawmakers. In Pennsylvania, Rep. Joe Sestak (D) raised $7 million, about half as much as former representative Pat Toomey (R). Toomey also benefited from $9.3 million in outside spending, compared with $2.8 million on behalf of Sestak.

In Wisconsin, Sen. Russell Feingold (D) was outraised by businessman Ron Johnson (R), who put $8.2 million of his own money into the race and won Tuesday.

The most expensive congressional race was in Connecticut, where businesswoman Linda McMahon (R) poured $46.6 million into her Senate campaign. She lost to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D).

The Post analysis looked at fundraising by general election candidates through Oct. 13 and independent spending reported by the parties and interest groups through Election Day. It did not include money raised by candidates in the final weeks before the election or transfers from the parties to states for turnout operations. A full accounting won't be possible for another month, when new disclosure filings are due.

Not all of the losing Democrats outgunned their GOP challengers, of course. In New Hampshire, Democrat Carol Shea-Porter fell to GOP candidate Frank Guinta, who had $1.7 million more than the incumbent, along with help from his allies, including more than $800,000 in spending by outside conservative groups.

Other defeated Democrats who faced war-chest deficits of $1 million or more included Reps. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) and Glenn Nye (Va.).

farnamt@washpost.com eggend@washpost.com

Post a Comment


Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2010 The Washington Post Company